Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Just as I thought. ..you are just spouting your inner feelings. You mustFeel free to document your assertions.LOL, sure she was, she had one her patsies take the fall for it.No she wasn'tHillary was busted with 700 FBI files on her "enemies" list. You Dems need to grow up.
Just because you weren't alive yet doesn't mean it didn't happenLike always someone else took the fall, it's the way she works.
Be a JEDI with that kind of clairvoyance.
opposition research costs every campaign boo-coos of money, there is a VALUE to it....all lawyers I heard discussing it on the news said there is value to opposition research....Things of value means stuff like cars, jewelry, property. Again you idiots stretch a definition to get your desired poltiical goal.
Information is something of value, especially if it was being offered as a quid-pro-quo.
Courts have never come to that conclusion.
And after 2-3 days this "scandal" is dying off just like all the others.
opposition research costs every campaign boo-coos of money, there is a VALUE to it....all lawyers I heard discussing it on the news said there is value to opposition research....Things of value means stuff like cars, jewelry, property. Again you idiots stretch a definition to get your desired poltiical goal.
Information is something of value, especially if it was being offered as a quid-pro-quo.
Courts have never come to that conclusion.
And after 2-3 days this "scandal" is dying off just like all the others.
As I argued Wednesday, though, reading “thing of value” to include such politically damaging information would outlaw a broad range of constitutionally protected opposition research. Such a reading would therefore make the statute unconstitutionally overbroad, in violation of the First Amendment; the statute must therefore be read to avoid such an unconstitutional result, by interpreting “thing of value” to exclude such information. Even if a narrower statute — for instance, one focused on speech by foreign governments and not just by foreign nationals — could forbid such communications (and I doubt that it can), this statute cannot be constitutionally read to do so.
So, imagine that a foreigner — say, a Turkish businessman — thinks that President Trump did something bad (say, in building a Trump hotel in Turkey). Maybe the bad thing was criminal but not something the Turkish government wants to prosecute, or maybe it was just unsavory even if not criminal. In any case, the Turk assembles the evidence. It’s important evidence, which would be valuable for American voters to consider.
Under the “information as thing of value” theory, it would be a crime for the Turk to give the information to the Trump campaign, since that would be an illegal contribution. (That’s the very premise of the argument against Trump Jr. that I’m discussing.)
So instead, he decides to give it to the New York Times, hoping the Times writes about this and gives Trump the comeuppance that (in the Turkish businessman’s mind) Trump deserves. Yet that, too, is a crime (again, accepting the thing-of-value theory): The gift of the “thing of value” to the New York Times, done, “for the purpose of influencing [an] election for Federal office” is itself an illegal expenditure.
opposition research costs every campaign boo-coos of money, there is a VALUE to it....all lawyers I heard discussing it on the news said there is value to opposition research....Things of value means stuff like cars, jewelry, property. Again you idiots stretch a definition to get your desired poltiical goal.
Information is something of value, especially if it was being offered as a quid-pro-quo.
Courts have never come to that conclusion.
And after 2-3 days this "scandal" is dying off just like all the others.
As I argued Wednesday, though, reading “thing of value” to include such politically damaging information would outlaw a broad range of constitutionally protected opposition research. Such a reading would therefore make the statute unconstitutionally overbroad, in violation of the First Amendment; the statute must therefore be read to avoid such an unconstitutional result, by interpreting “thing of value” to exclude such information. Even if a narrower statute — for instance, one focused on speech by foreign governments and not just by foreign nationals — could forbid such communications (and I doubt that it can), this statute cannot be constitutionally read to do so.
So, imagine that a foreigner — say, a Turkish businessman — thinks that President Trump did something bad (say, in building a Trump hotel in Turkey). Maybe the bad thing was criminal but not something the Turkish government wants to prosecute, or maybe it was just unsavory even if not criminal. In any case, the Turk assembles the evidence. It’s important evidence, which would be valuable for American voters to consider.
Under the “information as thing of value” theory, it would be a crime for the Turk to give the information to the Trump campaign, since that would be an illegal contribution. (That’s the very premise of the argument against Trump Jr. that I’m discussing.)
So instead, he decides to give it to the New York Times, hoping the Times writes about this and gives Trump the comeuppance that (in the Turkish businessman’s mind) Trump deserves. Yet that, too, is a crime (again, accepting the thing-of-value theory): The gift of the “thing of value” to the New York Times, done, “for the purpose of influencing [an] election for Federal office” is itself an illegal expenditure.
the Turk was a business man....opposition research costs every campaign boo-coos of money, there is a VALUE to it....all lawyers I heard discussing it on the news said there is value to opposition research....Things of value means stuff like cars, jewelry, property. Again you idiots stretch a definition to get your desired poltiical goal.
Information is something of value, especially if it was being offered as a quid-pro-quo.
Courts have never come to that conclusion.
And after 2-3 days this "scandal" is dying off just like all the others.
I suggest you broaden your reading...
Opinion | The strikingly broad consequences of the argument that Donald Trump Jr. broke the law by expressing interest in Russian dirt on Hillary Clinton
As I argued Wednesday, though, reading “thing of value” to include such politically damaging information would outlaw a broad range of constitutionally protected opposition research. Such a reading would therefore make the statute unconstitutionally overbroad, in violation of the First Amendment; the statute must therefore be read to avoid such an unconstitutional result, by interpreting “thing of value” to exclude such information. Even if a narrower statute — for instance, one focused on speech by foreign governments and not just by foreign nationals — could forbid such communications (and I doubt that it can), this statute cannot be constitutionally read to do so.
So, imagine that a foreigner — say, a Turkish businessman — thinks that President Trump did something bad (say, in building a Trump hotel in Turkey). Maybe the bad thing was criminal but not something the Turkish government wants to prosecute, or maybe it was just unsavory even if not criminal. In any case, the Turk assembles the evidence. It’s important evidence, which would be valuable for American voters to consider.
Under the “information as thing of value” theory, it would be a crime for the Turk to give the information to the Trump campaign, since that would be an illegal contribution. (That’s the very premise of the argument against Trump Jr. that I’m discussing.)
So instead, he decides to give it to the New York Times, hoping the Times writes about this and gives Trump the comeuppance that (in the Turkish businessman’s mind) Trump deserves. Yet that, too, is a crime (again, accepting the thing-of-value theory): The gift of the “thing of value” to the New York Times, done, “for the purpose of influencing [an] election for Federal office” is itself an illegal expenditure.
the Turk was a business man....opposition research costs every campaign boo-coos of money, there is a VALUE to it....all lawyers I heard discussing it on the news said there is value to opposition research....Things of value means stuff like cars, jewelry, property. Again you idiots stretch a definition to get your desired poltiical goal.
Information is something of value, especially if it was being offered as a quid-pro-quo.
Courts have never come to that conclusion.
And after 2-3 days this "scandal" is dying off just like all the others.
I suggest you broaden your reading...
Opinion | The strikingly broad consequences of the argument that Donald Trump Jr. broke the law by expressing interest in Russian dirt on Hillary Clinton
As I argued Wednesday, though, reading “thing of value” to include such politically damaging information would outlaw a broad range of constitutionally protected opposition research. Such a reading would therefore make the statute unconstitutionally overbroad, in violation of the First Amendment; the statute must therefore be read to avoid such an unconstitutional result, by interpreting “thing of value” to exclude such information. Even if a narrower statute — for instance, one focused on speech by foreign governments and not just by foreign nationals — could forbid such communications (and I doubt that it can), this statute cannot be constitutionally read to do so.
So, imagine that a foreigner — say, a Turkish businessman — thinks that President Trump did something bad (say, in building a Trump hotel in Turkey). Maybe the bad thing was criminal but not something the Turkish government wants to prosecute, or maybe it was just unsavory even if not criminal. In any case, the Turk assembles the evidence. It’s important evidence, which would be valuable for American voters to consider.
Under the “information as thing of value” theory, it would be a crime for the Turk to give the information to the Trump campaign, since that would be an illegal contribution. (That’s the very premise of the argument against Trump Jr. that I’m discussing.)
So instead, he decides to give it to the New York Times, hoping the Times writes about this and gives Trump the comeuppance that (in the Turkish businessman’s mind) Trump deserves. Yet that, too, is a crime (again, accepting the thing-of-value theory): The gift of the “thing of value” to the New York Times, done, “for the purpose of influencing [an] election for Federal office” is itself an illegal expenditure.
Trump Jr agreed to get this information from a Russian Govt Lawyer as part of the Russian government's support for Donald Trump.
THE EMAILS STATE such, so the Turq example does not relate?
Conservatives keep missing the point
Wah...wah.....wah.......Democrats try to dig up dirt too! <sob>
The point is the Russians offered Lil Donnie secret information about Hillary and he jumped at it. The same Russians who were under economic sanctions at the time, the same Russians being led by Vladimir Putin
And Lil Donnie jumped at the chance
And NO..........You can't say anyone else would have done the same
Conservatives keep missing the point
Wah...wah.....wah.......Democrats try to dig up dirt too! <sob>
The point is the Russians offered Lil Donnie secret information about Hillary and he jumped at it. The same Russians who were under economic sanctions at the time, the same Russians being led by Vladimir Putin
And Lil Donnie jumped at the chance
And NO..........You can't say anyone else would have done the same
Name the time they asked the Ruskies for help getting the dirt.Is this what they are claiming? The best quote from JR was the fact that he loved it. I think that is funny as hell.
I don't listen to anything the left have to say. I am long done with all of their double standards, lies and petulant bullshit.
Are they claiming that democrats have never tried to dig up dirt on their political opponents?
Is this what they are saying? The best part about all of this is the dirt that we found out about their pants suit kuuunt is being ignored. By everyone. The actual crimes.
Name the time the Russians gave direct intelligence to a dem to discredit a republican, Put up or die.Conservatives keep missing the point
Wah...wah.....wah.......Democrats try to dig up dirt too! <sob>
The point is the Russians offered Lil Donnie secret information about Hillary and he jumped at it. The same Russians who were under economic sanctions at the time, the same Russians being led by Vladimir Putin
And Lil Donnie jumped at the chance
And NO..........You can't say anyone else would have done the same
Actually were you paying attention the Russians dangled a carrot in order to get a meeting with him, as it turned out they had no "info". Of course we can say anyone would have done the same, what a stupid, clumsy attempt to control the narrative.
Name the time the Russians gave direct intelligence to a dem to discredit a republican, Put up or die.Conservatives keep missing the point
Wah...wah.....wah.......Democrats try to dig up dirt too! <sob>
The point is the Russians offered Lil Donnie secret information about Hillary and he jumped at it. The same Russians who were under economic sanctions at the time, the same Russians being led by Vladimir Putin
And Lil Donnie jumped at the chance
And NO..........You can't say anyone else would have done the same
Actually were you paying attention the Russians dangled a carrot in order to get a meeting with him, as it turned out they had no "info". Of course we can say anyone would have done the same, what a stupid, clumsy attempt to control the narrative.
Lawyers...prosecutors vs defense lawyers, often disagree....so, we will see!the Turk was a business man....opposition research costs every campaign boo-coos of money, there is a VALUE to it....all lawyers I heard discussing it on the news said there is value to opposition research....Information is something of value, especially if it was being offered as a quid-pro-quo.
Courts have never come to that conclusion.
And after 2-3 days this "scandal" is dying off just like all the others.
I suggest you broaden your reading...
Opinion | The strikingly broad consequences of the argument that Donald Trump Jr. broke the law by expressing interest in Russian dirt on Hillary Clinton
As I argued Wednesday, though, reading “thing of value” to include such politically damaging information would outlaw a broad range of constitutionally protected opposition research. Such a reading would therefore make the statute unconstitutionally overbroad, in violation of the First Amendment; the statute must therefore be read to avoid such an unconstitutional result, by interpreting “thing of value” to exclude such information. Even if a narrower statute — for instance, one focused on speech by foreign governments and not just by foreign nationals — could forbid such communications (and I doubt that it can), this statute cannot be constitutionally read to do so.
So, imagine that a foreigner — say, a Turkish businessman — thinks that President Trump did something bad (say, in building a Trump hotel in Turkey). Maybe the bad thing was criminal but not something the Turkish government wants to prosecute, or maybe it was just unsavory even if not criminal. In any case, the Turk assembles the evidence. It’s important evidence, which would be valuable for American voters to consider.
Under the “information as thing of value” theory, it would be a crime for the Turk to give the information to the Trump campaign, since that would be an illegal contribution. (That’s the very premise of the argument against Trump Jr. that I’m discussing.)
So instead, he decides to give it to the New York Times, hoping the Times writes about this and gives Trump the comeuppance that (in the Turkish businessman’s mind) Trump deserves. Yet that, too, is a crime (again, accepting the thing-of-value theory): The gift of the “thing of value” to the New York Times, done, “for the purpose of influencing [an] election for Federal office” is itself an illegal expenditure.
Trump Jr agreed to get this information from a Russian Govt Lawyer as part of the Russian government's support for Donald Trump.
THE EMAILS STATE such, so the Turq example does not relate?
But your whole argument hinges on this having "value", and as I have shown by the LAWYER posting this information, the assignment of value to information is tenuous at best.
Lawyers...prosecutors vs defense lawyers, often disagree....so, we will see!the Turk was a business man....opposition research costs every campaign boo-coos of money, there is a VALUE to it....all lawyers I heard discussing it on the news said there is value to opposition research....Courts have never come to that conclusion.
And after 2-3 days this "scandal" is dying off just like all the others.
I suggest you broaden your reading...
Opinion | The strikingly broad consequences of the argument that Donald Trump Jr. broke the law by expressing interest in Russian dirt on Hillary Clinton
As I argued Wednesday, though, reading “thing of value” to include such politically damaging information would outlaw a broad range of constitutionally protected opposition research. Such a reading would therefore make the statute unconstitutionally overbroad, in violation of the First Amendment; the statute must therefore be read to avoid such an unconstitutional result, by interpreting “thing of value” to exclude such information. Even if a narrower statute — for instance, one focused on speech by foreign governments and not just by foreign nationals — could forbid such communications (and I doubt that it can), this statute cannot be constitutionally read to do so.
So, imagine that a foreigner — say, a Turkish businessman — thinks that President Trump did something bad (say, in building a Trump hotel in Turkey). Maybe the bad thing was criminal but not something the Turkish government wants to prosecute, or maybe it was just unsavory even if not criminal. In any case, the Turk assembles the evidence. It’s important evidence, which would be valuable for American voters to consider.
Under the “information as thing of value” theory, it would be a crime for the Turk to give the information to the Trump campaign, since that would be an illegal contribution. (That’s the very premise of the argument against Trump Jr. that I’m discussing.)
So instead, he decides to give it to the New York Times, hoping the Times writes about this and gives Trump the comeuppance that (in the Turkish businessman’s mind) Trump deserves. Yet that, too, is a crime (again, accepting the thing-of-value theory): The gift of the “thing of value” to the New York Times, done, “for the purpose of influencing [an] election for Federal office” is itself an illegal expenditure.
Trump Jr agreed to get this information from a Russian Govt Lawyer as part of the Russian government's support for Donald Trump.
THE EMAILS STATE such, so the Turq example does not relate?
But your whole argument hinges on this having "value", and as I have shown by the LAWYER posting this information, the assignment of value to information is tenuous at best.
No one anywhere is claiming the Democrats have never done oppo research.Is this what they are claiming?
under campaign finance laws, campaigns or PACS file their opposition research costs.Lawyers...prosecutors vs defense lawyers, often disagree....so, we will see!the Turk was a business man....opposition research costs every campaign boo-coos of money, there is a VALUE to it....all lawyers I heard discussing it on the news said there is value to opposition research....
I suggest you broaden your reading...
Opinion | The strikingly broad consequences of the argument that Donald Trump Jr. broke the law by expressing interest in Russian dirt on Hillary Clinton
As I argued Wednesday, though, reading “thing of value” to include such politically damaging information would outlaw a broad range of constitutionally protected opposition research. Such a reading would therefore make the statute unconstitutionally overbroad, in violation of the First Amendment; the statute must therefore be read to avoid such an unconstitutional result, by interpreting “thing of value” to exclude such information. Even if a narrower statute — for instance, one focused on speech by foreign governments and not just by foreign nationals — could forbid such communications (and I doubt that it can), this statute cannot be constitutionally read to do so.
So, imagine that a foreigner — say, a Turkish businessman — thinks that President Trump did something bad (say, in building a Trump hotel in Turkey). Maybe the bad thing was criminal but not something the Turkish government wants to prosecute, or maybe it was just unsavory even if not criminal. In any case, the Turk assembles the evidence. It’s important evidence, which would be valuable for American voters to consider.
Under the “information as thing of value” theory, it would be a crime for the Turk to give the information to the Trump campaign, since that would be an illegal contribution. (That’s the very premise of the argument against Trump Jr. that I’m discussing.)
So instead, he decides to give it to the New York Times, hoping the Times writes about this and gives Trump the comeuppance that (in the Turkish businessman’s mind) Trump deserves. Yet that, too, is a crime (again, accepting the thing-of-value theory): The gift of the “thing of value” to the New York Times, done, “for the purpose of influencing [an] election for Federal office” is itself an illegal expenditure.
Trump Jr agreed to get this information from a Russian Govt Lawyer as part of the Russian government's support for Donald Trump.
THE EMAILS STATE such, so the Turq example does not relate?
But your whole argument hinges on this having "value", and as I have shown by the LAWYER posting this information, the assignment of value to information is tenuous at best.
If the "anti-trump" view of this situation took precedent no one would be able to provide information to anyone on any candidate. if information had value it would fall afoul of campaign finance regulations as well. CNN could be accused of providing aid to Democrats if they did research and got damaging information on a Republican Candidate.
under campaign finance laws, campaigns or PACS file their opposition research costs.Lawyers...prosecutors vs defense lawyers, often disagree....so, we will see!the Turk was a business man....
Trump Jr agreed to get this information from a Russian Govt Lawyer as part of the Russian government's support for Donald Trump.
THE EMAILS STATE such, so the Turq example does not relate?
But your whole argument hinges on this having "value", and as I have shown by the LAWYER posting this information, the assignment of value to information is tenuous at best.
If the "anti-trump" view of this situation took precedent no one would be able to provide information to anyone on any candidate. if information had value it would fall afoul of campaign finance regulations as well. CNN could be accused of providing aid to Democrats if they did research and got damaging information on a Republican Candidate.
