Law Professor: Trump Jr. may have violated Espionage Act

[Ted Frazier]

Right wingers asking which laws we think may have been broken by participants in the Trump Tower meeting would probably find this article informative. It is written by Michael Paradis, laser professor at Georgetown and Columbia:

PARADIS (7-15-2017): According to the AP report, “Veselnitskaya presented the contents of the documents to Trump Jr. and suggested that making the information public could help the campaign.” And receiving this plastic folder, assuming it really happened, may have implicated the participants in espionage.
Paradis links to other experts analyzing additional laws that Trump Jr., Kushner and Manafort may have violated. Wonderful article.

Could Trump Jr., Kushner, or Manafort Be Charged Under the Espionage Act?

 

[ScienceRocks]

There's no question that Trump and his entire fucking family are a bunch of traitors. Trump maybe the first president that gets convicted of treason against his own country.

 

[Kat]

 

[Steve_McGarrett]

Democrat Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz: No crimes were committed.

Alan Dershowitz destroys Democrats' 'unconstitutional' argument against Donald Trump Jr.

Alan Dershowitz: 'I don't see any crime' that Donald Trump Jr. committed

 

[Steve_McGarrett]

There's no question that Trump and his entire fucking family are a bunch of traitors. Trump maybe the first president that gets convicted of treason against his own country.

False! Won't happen.

 

[usmbguest5318]

It is written by Michael Paradis, laser professor at Georgetown and Columbia

Would you tell me why the legal opinion of a physics professor whose specialty is lasers is something one should consider as well founded? Is the guy also a law professor or holder of a juris doctorate? I'd no sooner ask or accept as credible a physics professor's views on legal theory and practice than I would a lawyer's views on theory and behavior of light.

The point is this: how did you get "laser professor" out the description provided for Paradis. The article clearly says, "Michel Paradis is an international and constitutional litigator presently with the United States Department of Defense." Did you actually read the article? I have to ask because you didn't even spell the man's name correctly.

 

[usmbguest5318]

There's no question that Trump and his entire fucking family are a bunch of traitors. Trump maybe the first president that gets convicted of treason against his own country.

Shady? Yes. Traitors? Maybe, but not likely, and even less likely to be established in a court of law, which is what it takes to be declared legitimately as a traitor.

OT:

first president that gets convicted of treason against his own country.

...As opposed to anyone's having ever been convicted of treason against a country besides the one to which they owe their allegiance? LOL

 

[Norman]

Is this for sure not projection about Hillary's violation of the act?

 

[Ted Frazier]

An article by a law professor versus a smiley face typed by a political forum nickname. Tough choice!

 

[usmbguest5318]

Your argument consists of a smiley face.

I think her emoticon indicates an outburst, not an argument.

 

[Ted Frazier]

Is this for sure not projection about Hillary's violation of the act?

Give me the link to the news that Hillary was charged.

 

[Ted Frazier]

It is written by Michael Paradis, laser professor at Georgetown and Columbia

Would you tell me why the legal opinion of a physics professor whose specialty is lasers is something one should consider as well founded? Is the guy also a law professor or holder of a juris doctorate? I'd no sooner ask or accept as credible a physics professor's views on legal theory and practice than I would a lawyer's views on theory and behavior of light.

The point is this: how did you get "laser professor" out the description provided for Paradis. The article clearly says, "Michel Paradis is an international and constitutional litigator presently with the United States Department of Defense." Did you actually read the article? I have to ask because you didn't even spell the man's name correctly.

You embarrassed yourself:

 

[usmbguest5318]

It is written by Michael Paradis, laser professor at Georgetown and Columbia

Would you tell me why the legal opinion of a physics professor whose specialty is lasers is something one should consider as well founded? Is the guy also a law professor or holder of a juris doctorate? I'd no sooner ask or accept as credible a physics professor's views on legal theory and practice than I would a lawyer's views on theory and behavior of light.

The point is this: how did you get "laser professor" out the description provided for Paradis. The article clearly says, "Michel Paradis is an international and constitutional litigator presently with the United States Department of Defense." Did you actually read the article? I have to ask because you didn't even spell the man's name correctly.

You embarrassed yourself:

And you wrote:

Michael Paradis, laser professor at Georgetown and Columbia

I'm not the one who should be embarrassed. You described the man as a "laser professor," not I. I merely responded to what you wrote.

 

[Ted Frazier]

It is written by Michael Paradis, laser professor at Georgetown and Columbia

Would you tell me why the legal opinion of a physics professor whose specialty is lasers is something one should consider as well founded? Is the guy also a law professor or holder of a juris doctorate? I'd no sooner ask or accept as credible a physics professor's views on legal theory and practice than I would a lawyer's views on theory and behavior of light.

The point is this: how did you get "laser professor" out the description provided for Paradis. The article clearly says, "Michel Paradis is an international and constitutional litigator presently with the United States Department of Defense." Did you actually read the article? I have to ask because you didn't even spell the man's name correctly.

You embarrassed yourself:

And you wrote:

Michael Paradis, laser professor at Georgetown and Columbia

I'm not the one who should be embarrassed. You described the man as a "laser professor," not I. I merely responded to what you wrote.

OH. So we have one guy typing a and the other one just addressing the fact about me having typed laser instead of law by mistake in my Swype keyboard. Note that I wrote law professor in the title, so you knew this was a typo. So far no right winger has laid out an argument against the article by the law professor.

 

[Lumpy 1]

Obama was an alt-left Constitutional Lawyer as I recall, obviously he sucked at it.

I'm thinking this is just another fake news parasite feeding off the Trump family and foaming up lefties for yet another dry hole hump...

 

[Eloy]

There's no question that Trump and his entire fucking family are a bunch of traitors. Trump maybe the first president that gets convicted of treason against his own country.

Donald Trump has dragged his family into the scrutiny of the American media. It is something neither he nor them counted on when the patriarch decided to take over the United States Executive and use it for his own personal interests. It is not working out for any of them.

 

[gipper]

There's no question that Trump and his entire fucking family are a bunch of traitors. Trump maybe the first president that gets convicted of treason against his own country.

If Obama who committed treason and wasn't charged for it, what makes you think Trump will?

You might want to stop consuming DNC news media...like CNN, MSLSD, CBS, NBC, ABC, PBS, NY Slimes, Wapo...and so many more.

 

[nat4900]

Hold on folks.......some definitions are in order.....

First, the O/P cites the law professor as accusing Donnie et al of "espionage" and NOT treason.

Second, treason, in law, is applicable ONLY when two entities are involved in a HOT war and one colludes with the other.

The salient point in the entire mess boils down to possible breaches of federal election laws....and certainly lack of ethics.

 

[usmbguest5318]

It is written by Michael Paradis, laser professor at Georgetown and Columbia

Would you tell me why the legal opinion of a physics professor whose specialty is lasers is something one should consider as well founded? Is the guy also a law professor or holder of a juris doctorate? I'd no sooner ask or accept as credible a physics professor's views on legal theory and practice than I would a lawyer's views on theory and behavior of light.

The point is this: how did you get "laser professor" out the description provided for Paradis. The article clearly says, "Michel Paradis is an international and constitutional litigator presently with the United States Department of Defense." Did you actually read the article? I have to ask because you didn't even spell the man's name correctly.

You embarrassed yourself:

And you wrote:

Michael Paradis, laser professor at Georgetown and Columbia

I'm not the one who should be embarrassed. You described the man as a "laser professor," not I. I merely responded to what you wrote.

OH. So we have one guy typing a and the other one just addressing the fact about me having typed laser instead of law by mistake in my Swype keyboard. Note that I wrote law professor in the title, so you knew this was a typo. So far no right winger has laid out an argument against the article by the law professor.

me having typed laser instead of law

Okay, fine. It was a typo of some sort.

• Out of curiosity, how does one, namely you, type "laser" when one means to type "law?" I'm curious because besides beginning with "la" they are neither similar or similar in meaning..."laser" is even two additional letters ("er") ..."las," "lae," and "laq," rather than "law," are each typos one easily imagines being made...ess, ee, and que are all adjacent to double-u on a qwerty keyboard.
• Could you not have simply written "I made a typo when I wrote 'laser'" as your initial reply to my remarks? Instead of doing that, you embarked on the derisory line of what you supposed is my having embarrassed myself. Truly, I'm not an unreasonable person. If someone tells me they made a mistake, I'll "okay" and move on. I think most rational people would do the same thing.

 

[Lumpy 1]

It is written by Michael Paradis, laser professor at Georgetown and Columbia

Would you tell me why the legal opinion of a physics professor whose specialty is lasers is something one should consider as well founded? Is the guy also a law professor or holder of a juris doctorate? I'd no sooner ask or accept as credible a physics professor's views on legal theory and practice than I would a lawyer's views on theory and behavior of light.

The point is this: how did you get "laser professor" out the description provided for Paradis. The article clearly says, "Michel Paradis is an international and constitutional litigator presently with the United States Department of Defense." Did you actually read the article? I have to ask because you didn't even spell the man's name correctly.

You embarrassed yourself:

And you wrote:

Michael Paradis, laser professor at Georgetown and Columbia

I'm not the one who should be embarrassed. You described the man as a "laser professor," not I. I merely responded to what you wrote.

OH. So we have one guy typing a and the other one just addressing the fact about me having typed laser instead of law by mistake in my Swype keyboard. Note that I wrote law professor in the title, so you knew this was a typo. So far no right winger has laid out an argument against the article by the law professor.

me having typed laser instead of law

Okay, fine. It was a typo of some sort.

• Out of curiosity, how does one, namely you, type "laser" when one means to type "law?" I'm curious because besides beginning with "la" they are neither similar or similar in meaning..."laser" is even two additional letters ("er") ..."las," "lae," and "laq," rather than "law," are each typos one easily imagines being made...ess, ee, and que are all adjacent to double-u on a qwerty keyboard.
• Could you not have simply written "I made a typo when I wrote 'laser'" as your initial reply to my remarks? Instead of doing that, you embarked on the derisory line of what you supposed is my having embarrassed myself. Truly, I'm not an unreasonable person. If someone tells me they made a mistake, I'll "okay" and move on. I think most rational people would do the same thing.

I hate when you call someone stupid or an imbecile and screw up on your sentence..