CapelDodger
Penultimate Amazing
The law of contracts, another excellent can of worms to open and tip over.The idea that there was to be an exchange should be enough to demonstrate that this would be considered something of value.

The law of contracts, another excellent can of worms to open and tip over.The idea that there was to be an exchange should be enough to demonstrate that this would be considered something of value.
Kushner and Manafort weren't just sucking-up to the boss's son, let's face it. Donald Jr's known as Fredo for good reason, long pre-dating this fiasco.
I blame the parents.
Quite. If you have explosive material you can release a bombshell.Now, that doesn't necessarily mean no crime was committed. Why would the Russian meet with Trump representatives offering to release this dirt of Hillary Clinton? Forget fine print in the campaign finance law for a moment. Let's assume they had this dirt, and they want Trump to win. Why would they call a meeting? Just leak it. No need to get Paul Manafort in a room.
Trying to extract useful work from the energy release. Successfully, for all we know.Clearly, the Russians wanted something.
If not yet, soon.Whatever it was they wanted, if the Trump people offered it, that could be a crime. If there was some sort of quid pro quo, I don't know what statute would cover it, but it sounds like the kind of thing that somebody somewhere would have written a law against it.
Mueller doesn't have to follow this, it follows itself. He's following the money-washing trail into the US property market over the last few decades, and how it pertains to Trump. For once, a spotlight Trump didn't want to attract but so has.Bob Mueller will be following this as far as he possibly can, I'm confident.
Kushner and Manafort, yes you'd think so, but Fredo not so much. Which may go some way to explaining the approach being made through him.I hadn't heard that he was referred to as Fredo. OUCH. This was in the middle of the campaign. All these people at that time would be busy.
Googling the phrase "anything of value" brings this:
https://definitions.uslegal.com/a/anything-of-value/
It is clearly talking about material value. Money.
I have assumed that the statute everyone is talking about these days uses the same interpretation, but I haven't actually seen the statute.
Information has value.
Seriously, this isn't difficult to understand.
Seriously, then why doesn't every lawyer in the country agree?
Let me guess. The ones that don't are all politically motivated, denying what they learned in law school.
Back in the campaign days, Republicans absolutely insisted that it was plainly obvious to everyone who could read that Hillary Clinton had committed felonies and that "lock her up" was an appropriate response. They were sure of it. They knew it. It wasn't hard to understand.
And yet, those who made their living by evaluating whether or not felonies had been committed said that no felonies had been committed. Wel,, that's strange, isn't it? I mean, it was so easy to understand.....
When the majority of professionals start saying that this meeting is a crime, I'll buy into it. Right now, it looks like most professionals are either saying it wasn't, or withholding judgment. I'm going with the latter. It would not surprise me in the least to learn that crimes were committed either at that meeting or in connection with that meeting. However, the mere existence of the meeting doesn't seem like a crime to me, not even when the associated emails are included.
Secret Service: Donald Trump Jr. didn't have agency's protection at time of meeting
The Secret Service is pushing back on President Donald Trump's attorney's remarks Sunday that there was nothing questionable going on at a meeting last summer between Trump's eldest son, Donald Trump Jr., a Russian lawyer and top members of Trump's campaign.
"Well, I wonder why the Secret Service, if this was nefarious, why the Secret Service allowed these people in," Jay Sekulow said on ABC's "This Week." "The President had Secret Service protection at that point, and that raised a question with me."
After Sekulow's comments aired, the Secret Service responded that it wouldn't have checked out the participants of the meeting because Trump's eldest son wasn't in their charge.
"Donald Trump Jr. was not a protectee of the USSS in June, 2016," the agency told CNN in a statement. "Thus we would not have screened anyone he was meeting with at that time."
http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/16/politics/donald-trump-jr-jay-sekulow-secret-service/index.html
Seriously, then why doesn't every lawyer in the country agree?
It's their job to argue the letter of the law when beneficial, or, when commenting, to point out that this is a strategy that will be used.
Again, I doubt the statute was intended to be so ridiculously naïve. Don't belittle yourself by defending such naïveté.
How about you answer the point rather than go on a tirade? Do people routinely buy information or not? Especially about political opponents.
Equivocation. Look it up.
"Anything of value" has a meaning in a legal context, regardless of what the phrase might mean in some other context.
It does. I agree. But you never answered the question. Does negative information about competitors in business or political opponents have a financial value. Is it sellable?
So does this mean you are figuring it out now?....
But fear not. They will find the dirt that's worth digging. The plot thickens:
http://www.philly.com/philly/column...-laundering-case-that-went-away-20170717.html
Not sure if there is a transcript but Zakaria's interview of Browder is well worth the time.Bill Browder, CEO of Hermitage Capital Management, sits down with Fareed Zakaria to discuss how the Magnitsky Act, a US law that punishes Russians who are seen as human rights abusers, may relate to the Russia investigation.
It's all about the financial ties.CNN's Fareed Zakaria takes a closer look at President Donald Trump's rhetoric on Russia and President Vladimir Putin.
And Trump seemed energized by his interactions with Russia’s financial elite at the pageant and a glitzy after-party in a Moscow nightclub.
“Almost all of the oligarchs were in the room,” Trump bragged to Real Estate Weekly upon returning home....
“Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets,” Trump’s son, Donald Jr., told a real estate conference in 2008, according to an account posted on the website of eTurboNews, a trade publication. “We see a lot of money pouring in from Russia.”
Equivocation. Look it up.
No. It is not sellable.
Actually, according to Trump himself, yes, such Information has monetary value: when he called upon Russia to hack Clinton to find the missing emails, he explicitly said that the press would pay them well for their efforts.
Plenty of networks pay for such dirt all the time.
When they do so, do they pay sales tax?
That's a serious question.
Seriously, then why doesn't every lawyer in the country agree?
Let me guess. The ones that don't are all politically motivated, denying what they learned in law school.
Back in the campaign days, Republicans absolutely insisted that it was plainly obvious to everyone who could read that Hillary Clinton had committed felonies and that "lock her up" was an appropriate response. They were sure of it. They knew it. It wasn't hard to understand.
And yet, those who made their living by evaluating whether or not felonies had been committed said that no felonies had been committed. Wel,, that's strange, isn't it? I mean, it was so easy to understand.....
When the majority of professionals start saying that this meeting is a crime, I'll buy into it. Right now, it looks like most professionals are either saying it wasn't, or withholding judgment. I'm going with the latter. It would not surprise me in the least to learn that crimes were committed either at that meeting or in connection with that meeting. However, the mere existence of the meeting doesn't seem like a crime to me, not even when the associated emails are included.
Oh, so now it IS sellable?
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=11918980#post11918980A few pages back - maybe in the mid 70's of part 1 - wasn't there the citing of election law with references to "things of value"?
A little Googling lead (led?) me to this:
https://transition.fec.gov/pages/brochures/foreign.shtml
And I'm reading it now.
Have errands to run...dog to the vet, son to the doctor...
Whoosh!
When they do so, do they pay sales tax?
That's a serious question.
Don't get me wrong. I am absolutely certain that Trump is corrupt from his head to his toe. I would be very surprised if he has not committed some sort of crime in the course of all this. I just don't know which one.
When I see a bunch of lawyers going on TV saying "this one", I'll believe it. That isn't happening yet.
“Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets,” Trump’s son, Donald Jr., told a real estate conference in 2008, according to an account posted on the website of eTurboNews, a trade publication. “We see a lot of money pouring in from Russia.”
Equivocation. Look it up.
"Anything of value" has a meaning in a legal context, regardless of what the phrase might mean in some other context.
What? How was that equivocation? You are arguing against the idea that "thing of value" may be information. I'm pointing out that information is routinely purchased, making it a thing of value by definition. You're ignoring this.
Wow, those idiots who have been buying dirt on their opponents with large sums of money for thousands of years really got had!![]()
Ah, but because it was stolen information, it could not legally be sold, so therefore it was valueless?
Stolen items still have value you just can't have a legally enforceable contract regarding them.
This one always stuck me as very odd.
First that was back in 2008, 4 years before Obama would laugh Romney out of the room with that "the 80ies called" line. Putin didn't become the new new Hitler(tm) before 2013.
Also rich russians buying real estate in foreign countries? Why I never heard of such a thing! What's next? The swiss somehow involved in banking?
Not sure what your point is.
But is it losing if we end up with President Mike Pence? From the perspective of the Trump supporters here, Pence could easily be seen as an improvement.And you couldn't be more desperate. You were literally dancing last Novembre and now your side is about to lose big time.
It's entirely fair to quote what Donald Jr said quite openly in 2008.It's two points actually.
We haven't been always been at war with eastasia back in 2008, so it's a bit unfair.
And yet Donald Sr has claimed not to have had much in the way of business dealings with Russians. He clearly has.Second is that I would be very suprised if somebody who is in buisness in international real estate hadn't had significant contact with the russian elite.
Its amazing where this has gone. He never paid for the NON information, so the left wants to assign value to it. Even though there is no standard that can put a value on it. This once again shows the left is so invested in this they'll do anything to be able to construct their narrative. Sadly for them, courts don't work that way, maybe they ought to try Venezuela.If there are any lawyers here or anyone passingly familiar with constitutional law, please correct me if I am wrong, but here goes.
No. It is not sellable.
There may be occasions on which money changes hands in exchange for that information. However, that is not a sale. There are all sorts of corruption laws that might be violated when that cash changes hands, but an actual legal sale does not occur.
By the way, if the dirt on Hillary Clinton was obtained illegally, which it almost certainly was, given it was the result of hacking, trying to obtain it probably broke a law or two, quite apart from campaign financing.
These little petty differences really do matter. They are the stuff of which laws are made.
But is it losing if we end up with President Mike Pence? From the perspective of the Trump supporters here, Pence could easily be seen as an improvement.
Even I think that and I share none of Pence's agenda.
This one always stuck me as very odd.
First that was back in 2008, 4 years before Obama would laugh Romney out of the room with that "the 80ies called" line. Putin didn't become the new new Hitler(tm) before 2013.
Also rich russians buying real estate in foreign countries? Why I never heard of such a thing! What's next? The swiss somehow involved in banking?
Greater than 1 dollar.