Donald Trump Jr. Mea Culpa to NYT Investigative Report - LOVE IT!

[Norman]

Trump has contacted a Russian person once in his life.

SOUND THE ALARM! SOUND THE ALARM!


Haven't heard anything as racist in a good-while.

 

[Lewdog]

"The statutory definition of a crime pairs Actus Reus with Mens rea, the psychological state defining a criminal perpetrator as culpable for having committed a crime."

Actus Reus

Hillary wasn't convicted by Comey because he couldn't prove intent... this admission by Trump Jr. proves intent.

As has already been explained to you, the statute doesn't require criminal intent. The fact that Comey tried to pretend it did only shows what a douche bag Comey is.

It's amazing you continue to argue about something you know nothing about. The fact that random people on a message board think they know more than a guy that was at one time the highest law enforcement officer in the country, and the Director of the FBI. A guy that is a lawyer that graduated from Chicago Law School... and here you are arguing you know the laws better than him. Do you even have the slightest clue how dumb that makes you look?

 

[tinydancer]

"The statutory definition of a crime pairs Actus Reus with Mens rea, the psychological state defining a criminal perpetrator as culpable for having committed a crime."

Actus Reus

Hillary wasn't convicted by Comey because he couldn't prove intent... this admission by Trump Jr. proves intent.

As has already been explained to you, the statute doesn't require criminal intent. The fact that Comey tried to pretend it did only shows what a douche bag Comey is.

It's amazing you continue to argue about something you know nothing about. The fact that random people on a message board think they know more than a guy that was at one time the highest law enforcement officer in the country, and the Director of the FBI. A guy that is a lawyer that graduated from Chicago Law School... and here you are arguing you know the laws better than him. Do you even have the slightest clue how dumb that makes you look?

It was not Comey's decision to make whether or not Clinton should be prosecuted. Now with that shit out of the way, that drama queen Comey is in for one hell of a ride coming up.

You better get ready for fireworks. McCabe is already under investigation for going after Flynn in a revengeful act because Flynn was going to back the woman who is involved in a mega sexual discrimination case with the FBI. Grassley is keeping his focus on McCabe at this point (who by the way is under two other investigations) BUT Comey as head of the FBI is going to rue the day he kicked up all this shit because if the FBI while he was still head of it went after Flynn in revenge all hell is going to break loose.

He's also overplayed his hand because now Loretta Lynch is under investigation. Comey made sure he smeared her too.

 

[Lewdog]

"The statutory definition of a crime pairs Actus Reus with Mens rea, the psychological state defining a criminal perpetrator as culpable for having committed a crime."

Actus Reus

Hillary wasn't convicted by Comey because he couldn't prove intent... this admission by Trump Jr. proves intent.

As has already been explained to you, the statute doesn't require criminal intent. The fact that Comey tried to pretend it did only shows what a douche bag Comey is.

It's amazing you continue to argue about something you know nothing about. The fact that random people on a message board think they know more than a guy that was at one time the highest law enforcement officer in the country, and the Director of the FBI. A guy that is a lawyer that graduated from Chicago Law School... and here you are arguing you know the laws better than him. Do you even have the slightest clue how dumb that makes you look?

It was not Comey's decision to make whether or not Clinton should be prosecuted. Now with that shit out of the way, that drama queen Comey is in for one hell of a ride coming up.

You better get ready for fireworks. McCabe is already under investigation for going after Flynn in a revengeful act because Flynn was going to back the woman who is involved in a mega sexual discrimination case with the FBI. Grassley is keeping his focus on McCabe at this point (who by the way is under two other investigations) BUT Comey as head of the FBI is going to rue the day he kicked up all this shit because if the FBI while he was still head of it went after Flynn in revenge all hell is going to break loose.

He's also overplayed his hand because now Loretta Lynch is under investigation. Comey made sure he smeared her too.

Comey was entailed with deciding to send the case for an indictment. It was up to Comey to decide if the evidence was there to do so ,which included intent.

This is what a year or more later, this has been gone over 343,879,445,645,434,619 times and you guys are still arguing to this day. He said he could not prove intent and therefor he was not going to ask for charges to be filed.

Give that shit up. It's over.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Timeline: Donald Trump Jr.'s contact with Russian lawyer

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

I'm a classical liberal .

If you are a Liberal butterflies can hoist an anvil and carry it for miles...........

 

[Iceweasel]

"The statutory definition of a crime pairs Actus Reus with Mens rea, the psychological state defining a criminal perpetrator as culpable for having committed a crime."

Actus Reus

Hillary wasn't convicted by Comey because he couldn't prove intent... this admission by Trump Jr. proves intent.

Wrong, moron. The statute doesn't require intent. It only requires gross carelessness, and she certainly fits that bill.

No, it doesn't numbnuts. Comey clearly said he could not proceed because he couldn't prove intent.

.....which has gotten how many people from charges???? The intent angle was political and total bullshit anyway. Of course she knew what she was doing, it was a top level government job handling sensitive materials. Even burger flippers know better.

 

[tinydancer]

"The statutory definition of a crime pairs Actus Reus with Mens rea, the psychological state defining a criminal perpetrator as culpable for having committed a crime."

Actus Reus

Hillary wasn't convicted by Comey because he couldn't prove intent... this admission by Trump Jr. proves intent.

As has already been explained to you, the statute doesn't require criminal intent. The fact that Comey tried to pretend it did only shows what a douche bag Comey is.

It's amazing you continue to argue about something you know nothing about. The fact that random people on a message board think they know more than a guy that was at one time the highest law enforcement officer in the country, and the Director of the FBI. A guy that is a lawyer that graduated from Chicago Law School... and here you are arguing you know the laws better than him. Do you even have the slightest clue how dumb that makes you look?

It was not Comey's decision to make whether or not Clinton should be prosecuted. Now with that shit out of the way, that drama queen Comey is in for one hell of a ride coming up.

You better get ready for fireworks. McCabe is already under investigation for going after Flynn in a revengeful act because Flynn was going to back the woman who is involved in a mega sexual discrimination case with the FBI. Grassley is keeping his focus on McCabe at this point (who by the way is under two other investigations) BUT Comey as head of the FBI is going to rue the day he kicked up all this shit because if the FBI while he was still head of it went after Flynn in revenge all hell is going to break loose.

He's also overplayed his hand because now Loretta Lynch is under investigation. Comey made sure he smeared her too.

Comey was entailed with deciding to send the case for an indictment. It was up to Comey to decide if the evidence was there to do so ,which included intent.

This is what a year or more later, this has been gone over 343,879,445,645,434,619 times and you guys are still arguing to this day. He said he could not prove intent and therefor he was not going to ask for charges to be filed.

Give that shit up. It's over.

No. The FBI does not decide who should be prosecuted or not. Only the DOJ.

 

[Iceweasel]

Why are people still arguing about what sites are referenced in this? Trump Jr. is quoted directly. He admitted to what he did. The source doesn't matter. The ignorance of trying to argue this point is ridiculous.

What is he guilty of?

For fucks sake, he has admitted to trying to partner with a foreign country to get negative information to use in the election. How many times does this have to be explained to you?

What does that even mean? You always throw out subjective terms and try to use them in a legal manner. What "partnership" are you saying took place? Be specific.

 

[tinydancer]

What I'm loving is that Comey is in deep. Not over Clinton. Not over Trump. But for going after Flynn with McCabe for revenge. Senator Grassley is hunting this down. BIG TIME.

 

[Iceweasel]

How about them apples.

You wasted your money.

 

[tinydancer]

"The statutory definition of a crime pairs Actus Reus with Mens rea, the psychological state defining a criminal perpetrator as culpable for having committed a crime."

Actus Reus

Hillary wasn't convicted by Comey because he couldn't prove intent... this admission by Trump Jr. proves intent.

As has already been explained to you, the statute doesn't require criminal intent. The fact that Comey tried to pretend it did only shows what a douche bag Comey is.

It's amazing you continue to argue about something you know nothing about. The fact that random people on a message board think they know more than a guy that was at one time the highest law enforcement officer in the country, and the Director of the FBI. A guy that is a lawyer that graduated from Chicago Law School... and here you are arguing you know the laws better than him. Do you even have the slightest clue how dumb that makes you look?

It was not Comey's decision to make whether or not Clinton should be prosecuted. Now with that shit out of the way, that drama queen Comey is in for one hell of a ride coming up.

You better get ready for fireworks. McCabe is already under investigation for going after Flynn in a revengeful act because Flynn was going to back the woman who is involved in a mega sexual discrimination case with the FBI. Grassley is keeping his focus on McCabe at this point (who by the way is under two other investigations) BUT Comey as head of the FBI is going to rue the day he kicked up all this shit because if the FBI while he was still head of it went after Flynn in revenge all hell is going to break loose.

He's also overplayed his hand because now Loretta Lynch is under investigation. Comey made sure he smeared her too.

Comey was entailed with deciding to send the case for an indictment. It was up to Comey to decide if the evidence was there to do so ,which included intent.

This is what a year or more later, this has been gone over 343,879,445,645,434,619 times and you guys are still arguing to this day. He said he could not prove intent and therefor he was not going to ask for charges to be filed.

Give that shit up. It's over.

At Quora it is said that the statute doesn't require intent.

US 18 S793(f) does not require that intent be proven. In fact, the standard stipulated in that part of the statute is gross negligence. One can reasonably assume that Congress deliberately made the standard this lower standard to strongly discourage carelessness when it comes to classified information.

1. Even if intent were required by the statute (it is not), a prosecutor could make a pretty reasonable case on intent based upon repeated false, exculpatory statements. As Rep. Gowdy cogently argued in Congress, rarely do offenders state “on this date, I intend to violate this particular statute.” Rather, the evidence is almost always circumstantial. Among the strongest forms of evidence are false exculpatory statements, of which Secretary Clinton and her associated team made many.
2. Several experienced and reasonable prosecutors have come forward to say that they would have brought the case to a grand jury. At least five have done so, including a former United States Attorney General. At a minimum, this shows that it was a judgement call that certainly could have gone the other way.

If this is at all a grey area, one could certainly have brought it to a far-less-conflicted grand jury (i.e., outside of the DOJ, which reports into the president, who did actually send emails to this server using a pseudonym, as confirmed by the FBI.)

18 U.S. Code § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information

full text:

(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer — Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

https://www.quora.com/Is-FBI-Direct...ng-Hillary-Clinton-for-her-handling-of-emails

 

[Sundance508]

Trump team met with Russian lawyer during campaign
Updated 4:04 PM ET, Sun July 9, 2017


Trump team met with Russian lawyer during campaign - CNNPolitics.com


Hahahahaha......LOVE IT.
The Trumps are up to their eyebrows in Commies!

View attachment 137919

Oh, fuck, the New York Slimes produces another wet fart.

Hey, libtardos, where's this evidence of the information she gave Trump Jr.?

Trump's son met Russian lawyer after promise of information on Clinton: NY Times

After pleasantries were exchanged, the woman stated that she had information that individuals connected to Russia were funding the Democratic National Committee and supporting Ms. Clinton," the Times quoted Donald Trump Jr. as saying. Clinton was the 2016 Democratic presidential nominee.

"Her statements were vague, ambiguous and made no sense. No details or supporting information was provided or even offered. It quickly became clear that she had no meaningful information."

That's WHY he met her, dumb ass.
Goddamn you people are either in total denial are just too stupid to breathe and type at the same time.

This is why you stupid libtardos have become the laughing stock of America.

She said she had evidence Hillaryous was colluding with Russia.

There was no fucking evidence of anything.

So if there was no fucking evidence of Hillaryous colluding with the Russians how in the hell can that make Trump Jr. guilty of colluding with Russia?

You poor saps crack me up walking around with a Russian Kolbasa stuck up your ass.

bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa exacly.................this board needs a better class of liberals.....but are there any??? That seems to be the problem.

 

[Lewdog]

"The statutory definition of a crime pairs Actus Reus with Mens rea, the psychological state defining a criminal perpetrator as culpable for having committed a crime."

Actus Reus

Hillary wasn't convicted by Comey because he couldn't prove intent... this admission by Trump Jr. proves intent.

As has already been explained to you, the statute doesn't require criminal intent. The fact that Comey tried to pretend it did only shows what a douche bag Comey is.

It's amazing you continue to argue about something you know nothing about. The fact that random people on a message board think they know more than a guy that was at one time the highest law enforcement officer in the country, and the Director of the FBI. A guy that is a lawyer that graduated from Chicago Law School... and here you are arguing you know the laws better than him. Do you even have the slightest clue how dumb that makes you look?

It was not Comey's decision to make whether or not Clinton should be prosecuted. Now with that shit out of the way, that drama queen Comey is in for one hell of a ride coming up.

You better get ready for fireworks. McCabe is already under investigation for going after Flynn in a revengeful act because Flynn was going to back the woman who is involved in a mega sexual discrimination case with the FBI. Grassley is keeping his focus on McCabe at this point (who by the way is under two other investigations) BUT Comey as head of the FBI is going to rue the day he kicked up all this shit because if the FBI while he was still head of it went after Flynn in revenge all hell is going to break loose.

He's also overplayed his hand because now Loretta Lynch is under investigation. Comey made sure he smeared her too.

Comey was entailed with deciding to send the case for an indictment. It was up to Comey to decide if the evidence was there to do so ,which included intent.

This is what a year or more later, this has been gone over 343,879,445,645,434,619 times and you guys are still arguing to this day. He said he could not prove intent and therefor he was not going to ask for charges to be filed.

Give that shit up. It's over.

No. The FBI does not decide who should be prosecuted or not. Only the DOJ.

The FBI investigates the case and sends their recommendation to the DoJ. He recommended against it because of lack of proof of intent. I've said this a million times and that's what happened. So at this point you are basically kicking and screaming about something that is over and done. And the process worked exactly like I said.

 

[Lewdog]

How about them apples.

You wasted your money.

You see that little line below where it says Major in Criminal Justice? Now that I have proven the shit you have been saying I have been lying about over a year... It's back to ignoring you.

 

[Lewdog]

"The statutory definition of a crime pairs Actus Reus with Mens rea, the psychological state defining a criminal perpetrator as culpable for having committed a crime."

Actus Reus

Hillary wasn't convicted by Comey because he couldn't prove intent... this admission by Trump Jr. proves intent.

As has already been explained to you, the statute doesn't require criminal intent. The fact that Comey tried to pretend it did only shows what a douche bag Comey is.

It's amazing you continue to argue about something you know nothing about. The fact that random people on a message board think they know more than a guy that was at one time the highest law enforcement officer in the country, and the Director of the FBI. A guy that is a lawyer that graduated from Chicago Law School... and here you are arguing you know the laws better than him. Do you even have the slightest clue how dumb that makes you look?

It was not Comey's decision to make whether or not Clinton should be prosecuted. Now with that shit out of the way, that drama queen Comey is in for one hell of a ride coming up.

You better get ready for fireworks. McCabe is already under investigation for going after Flynn in a revengeful act because Flynn was going to back the woman who is involved in a mega sexual discrimination case with the FBI. Grassley is keeping his focus on McCabe at this point (who by the way is under two other investigations) BUT Comey as head of the FBI is going to rue the day he kicked up all this shit because if the FBI while he was still head of it went after Flynn in revenge all hell is going to break loose.

He's also overplayed his hand because now Loretta Lynch is under investigation. Comey made sure he smeared her too.

Comey was entailed with deciding to send the case for an indictment. It was up to Comey to decide if the evidence was there to do so ,which included intent.

This is what a year or more later, this has been gone over 343,879,445,645,434,619 times and you guys are still arguing to this day. He said he could not prove intent and therefor he was not going to ask for charges to be filed.

Give that shit up. It's over.

At Quora it is said that the statute doesn't require intent.

US 18 S793(f) does not require that intent be proven. In fact, the standard stipulated in that part of the statute is gross negligence. One can reasonably assume that Congress deliberately made the standard this lower standard to strongly discourage carelessness when it comes to classified information.

1. Even if intent were required by the statute (it is not), a prosecutor could make a pretty reasonable case on intent based upon repeated false, exculpatory statements. As Rep. Gowdy cogently argued in Congress, rarely do offenders state “on this date, I intend to violate this particular statute.” Rather, the evidence is almost always circumstantial. Among the strongest forms of evidence are false exculpatory statements, of which Secretary Clinton and her associated team made many.
2. Several experienced and reasonable prosecutors have come forward to say that they would have brought the case to a grand jury. At least five have done so, including a former United States Attorney General. At a minimum, this shows that it was a judgement call that certainly could have gone the other way.

If this is at all a grey area, one could certainly have brought it to a far-less-conflicted grand jury (i.e., outside of the DOJ, which reports into the president, who did actually send emails to this server using a pseudonym, as confirmed by the FBI.)

18 U.S. Code § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information

full text:

(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer — Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

https://www.quora.com/Is-FBI-Direct...ng-Hillary-Clinton-for-her-handling-of-emails

Quora isn't a reference site.

 

[Iceweasel]

As has already been explained to you, the statute doesn't require criminal intent. The fact that Comey tried to pretend it did only shows what a douche bag Comey is.

It's amazing you continue to argue about something you know nothing about. The fact that random people on a message board think they know more than a guy that was at one time the highest law enforcement officer in the country, and the Director of the FBI. A guy that is a lawyer that graduated from Chicago Law School... and here you are arguing you know the laws better than him. Do you even have the slightest clue how dumb that makes you look?

It was not Comey's decision to make whether or not Clinton should be prosecuted. Now with that shit out of the way, that drama queen Comey is in for one hell of a ride coming up.

You better get ready for fireworks. McCabe is already under investigation for going after Flynn in a revengeful act because Flynn was going to back the woman who is involved in a mega sexual discrimination case with the FBI. Grassley is keeping his focus on McCabe at this point (who by the way is under two other investigations) BUT Comey as head of the FBI is going to rue the day he kicked up all this shit because if the FBI while he was still head of it went after Flynn in revenge all hell is going to break loose.

He's also overplayed his hand because now Loretta Lynch is under investigation. Comey made sure he smeared her too.

Comey was entailed with deciding to send the case for an indictment. It was up to Comey to decide if the evidence was there to do so ,which included intent.

This is what a year or more later, this has been gone over 343,879,445,645,434,619 times and you guys are still arguing to this day. He said he could not prove intent and therefor he was not going to ask for charges to be filed.

Give that shit up. It's over.

No. The FBI does not decide who should be prosecuted or not. Only the DOJ.

The FBI investigates the case and sends their recommendation to the DoJ. He recommended against it because of lack of proof of intent. I've said this a million times and that's what happened. So at this point you are basically kicking and screaming about something that is over and done. And the process worked exactly like I said.

Wrong. You aren't very consistent. You recognize she escaped with the "intent" angle but it would have been totally unnecessary if she did no wrong. Git yer money back.

 

[tinydancer]

Have fun guys! Thanks for the chat. The garden beckons.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

 

[Iceweasel]

How about them apples.

You wasted your money.

You see that little line below where it says Major in Criminal Justice? Now that I have proven the shit you have been saying I have been lying about over a year... It's back to ignoring you.

LOL, you retarded fuck. A photo with a blanked out name, or any name, proves what? I said you don't know jack shit about law and you prove it whenever you pop off about it.