Some perspective on Trump's woes by legal scholars....

[Mr.Blonde]

The U.S. Justice Department appointed Mueller to investigate Russian interference with the 2016 presidential election.

His first task was to explore "any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump."

Nathaniel Persily at Stanford University Law School said one relevant statute is the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002. "A foreign national spending money to influence a federal election can be a crime" ..... "And if a U.S. citizen coordinates, conspires or assists in that spending, then it could be a crime." (See Coates' definition of expenditure, below)

Persily pointed to a 2011 U.S. District Court ruling based on the 2002 law. The judges said that the law bans foreign nationals "from making expenditures to expressly advocate the election or defeat of a political candidate."

John Coates at Harvard University Law School, said if Russians aimed to shape the outcome of the presidential election, that would meet the definition of an expenditure.

"The [expenditure] could also be viewed as an illegal contribution to any candidate who coordinates (colludes) with the foreign speaker," Coates said.

To be sure, no one is saying that coordination took place. What’s in doubt is whether the word "collusion" is as pivotal as Jarrett makes it out to be.

Coates said discussions between a campaign and a foreigner could violate the law against fraud. "Under that statute, it is a federal crime to conspire with anyone, including a foreign government, to ‘deprive another of the intangible right of honest services,’

These things mentioned happen every day in DC. Now if you want to go after every case great, but you can't selectively try cases.

 

[Blackrook]

So, show me some proof that it happened.

Are you THAT much of a moron???

here, answer this other question:

What are federal investigations for if not to provide PROOF of innocence or guilt......???

Well, it seems to me that the investigations are politically motivated and instigated by people who don't like the result of the election.

Can you prove this isn't so?

Where is the crime? What exactly did Trump do to warrant the investigation?

 

[theHawk]

The U.S. Justice Department appointed Mueller to investigate Russian interference with the 2016 presidential election.

His first task was to explore "any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump."

Nathaniel Persily at Stanford University Law School said one relevant statute is the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002. "A foreign national spending money to influence a federal election can be a crime" ..... "And if a U.S. citizen coordinates, conspires or assists in that spending, then it could be a crime." (See Coates' definition of expenditure, below)

Persily pointed to a 2011 U.S. District Court ruling based on the 2002 law. The judges said that the law bans foreign nationals "from making expenditures to expressly advocate the election or defeat of a political candidate."

John Coates at Harvard University Law School, said if Russians aimed to shape the outcome of the presidential election, that would meet the definition of an expenditure.

"The [expenditure] could also be viewed as an illegal contribution to any candidate who coordinates (colludes) with the foreign speaker," Coates said.

To be sure, no one is saying that coordination took place. What’s in doubt is whether the word "collusion" is as pivotal as Jarrett makes it out to be.

Coates said discussions between a campaign and a foreigner could violate the law against fraud. "Under that statute, it is a federal crime to conspire with anyone, including a foreign government, to ‘deprive another of the intangible right of honest services,’

Yet another Trump collusion fantasy thread by nut4900.

That sure is a lot of "if" and "could"'s lined up.

 

[nat4900]

Well, it seems to me that the investigations are politically motivated and instigated by people who don't like the result of the election.

Can you prove this isn't so?

Where is the crime? What exactly did Trump do to warrant the investigation?

Well,for one, the orange lardo FIRED the person who would NOT drop the investigation of Trump's underlings dealing with Russia (primarily Flynn).......ONCE the orange lardo DID fire the investigator, then this same orange lardo became PART of the investigation....LOL

its not MY job to prove anything.........I'll let Mueller and his team do that......Are you concerned that they'll find some juicy stuff???

 

[Luddly Neddite]

The U.S. Justice Department appointed Mueller to investigate Russian interference with the 2016 presidential election.

His first task was to explore "any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump."

Nathaniel Persily at Stanford University Law School said one relevant statute is the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002. "A foreign national spending money to influence a federal election can be a crime" ..... "And if a U.S. citizen coordinates, conspires or assists in that spending, then it could be a crime." (See Coates' definition of expenditure, below)

Persily pointed to a 2011 U.S. District Court ruling based on the 2002 law. The judges said that the law bans foreign nationals "from making expenditures to expressly advocate the election or defeat of a political candidate."

John Coates at Harvard University Law School, said if Russians aimed to shape the outcome of the presidential election, that would meet the definition of an expenditure.

"The [expenditure] could also be viewed as an illegal contribution to any candidate who coordinates (colludes) with the foreign speaker," Coates said.

To be sure, no one is saying that coordination took place. What’s in doubt is whether the word "collusion" is as pivotal as Jarrett makes it out to be.

Coates said discussions between a campaign and a foreigner could violate the law against fraud. "Under that statute, it is a federal crime to conspire with anyone, including a foreign government, to ‘deprive another of the intangible right of honest services,’

These things mentioned happen every day in DC. Now if you want to go after every case great, but you can't selectively try cases.

Not true but if it were, hardly matters.

The president of the United States is and should be held to the highest standard of ethical behavior.

Its been pointed out many times that a huge difference between Reagan, Nixon and Trump is that we did not know that Reagan and Nixon were criminals before they were elected.

 

[OKTexas]

All they really talked was US adoption of Russian kids. So where is the contribution?

..and we have IRREFUTABLE proof of that because..........????............LOL

She was here to appear in federal court, expenses paid by the Federal prosecutors office. Remember one of the emails said she was going to be in court till 3pm.

Natalia Veselnitskaya, who was in the United States as part of a case involving a Russian businessman accused of fraud in a civil suit brought by former U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara, met with with the Trump campaign team figures at Trump Tower on June 9, 2016, the Times reports.

Natalia Veselnitskaya: 5 Fast Facts You Need to Know | INFO News Media

The adoption program is what she does. She's been lobbying for it for years.


.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

So, show me some proof that it happened.

Are you THAT much of a moron???

here, answer this other question:

What are federal investigations for if not to provide PROOF of innocence or guilt......???

Well, it seems to me that the investigations are politically motivated and instigated by people who don't like the result of the election.

Can you prove this isn't so?

Where is the crime? What exactly did Trump do to warrant the investigation?

Blackrook
You must have missed my reply to you in your thread.

"Collusion" may not be a crime.
There is likely proof of "obstruction of justice" and trump admitted it.
There is plentiful proof that he is guilty of violation of the emoluments clause.
Pay for play.
There is evidence and likely proof that they tried to influence the election.

IMO, Mueller's choice of attorneys indicative of what he's looking for. I posted a thread about that in the CDZ.

My biggest complaint on a personal level is that the trumps actually tried to put the US in a position of being indebted to Russia - just as they are. Whether or not that's against the law is up to Mueller's team but it pisses me off. Also PO's me that RWNJ's are find with that aspect of this.

On the plus side is that its the trumps themselves who keep shooting themselves in their own feet.

 

[Mr.Blonde]

The U.S. Justice Department appointed Mueller to investigate Russian interference with the 2016 presidential election.

His first task was to explore "any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump."

Nathaniel Persily at Stanford University Law School said one relevant statute is the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002. "A foreign national spending money to influence a federal election can be a crime" ..... "And if a U.S. citizen coordinates, conspires or assists in that spending, then it could be a crime." (See Coates' definition of expenditure, below)

Persily pointed to a 2011 U.S. District Court ruling based on the 2002 law. The judges said that the law bans foreign nationals "from making expenditures to expressly advocate the election or defeat of a political candidate."

John Coates at Harvard University Law School, said if Russians aimed to shape the outcome of the presidential election, that would meet the definition of an expenditure.

"The [expenditure] could also be viewed as an illegal contribution to any candidate who coordinates (colludes) with the foreign speaker," Coates said.

To be sure, no one is saying that coordination took place. What’s in doubt is whether the word "collusion" is as pivotal as Jarrett makes it out to be.

Coates said discussions between a campaign and a foreigner could violate the law against fraud. "Under that statute, it is a federal crime to conspire with anyone, including a foreign government, to ‘deprive another of the intangible right of honest services,’

These things mentioned happen every day in DC. Now if you want to go after every case great, but you can't selectively try cases.

Not true but if it were, hardly matters.

The president of the United States is and should be held to the highest standard of ethical behavior.

Its been pointed out many times that a huge difference between Reagan, Nixon and Trump is that we did not know that Reagan and Nixon were criminals before they were elected.

With all the multi national companies lobbing and God knows how many diplomats you would have to be a fool not to realize foreign powers influence our policies.

It's a good thing the Clintons didn't get into the White House if you don't want foreign money influencing the president.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

maybe if I had some pictures that would help your "comprehension"??? LOL

My comprehension is fine, your Trump OCD is over the top and beginning to get annoying. I'm contemplating sending you to ignore with the other boneheads

Putting her on ignore would sure cut down on the bullshit you'd have to wade through when you open the first page.

Half the threads there are butthurt (six months after) responses to the "in denial" left.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Whats more likely:

A. Trump colluded with the Russians, or

B nat4900 is a Jake Starkey sock account?

I dunno...that's awful insulting to Gnatty.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

The U.S. Justice Department appointed Mueller to investigate Russian interference with the 2016 presidential election.

His first task was to explore "any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump."

Nathaniel Persily at Stanford University Law School said one relevant statute is the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002. "A foreign national spending money to influence a federal election can be a crime" ..... "And if a U.S. citizen coordinates, conspires or assists in that spending, then it could be a crime." (See Coates' definition of expenditure, below)

Persily pointed to a 2011 U.S. District Court ruling based on the 2002 law. The judges said that the law bans foreign nationals "from making expenditures to expressly advocate the election or defeat of a political candidate."

John Coates at Harvard University Law School, said if Russians aimed to shape the outcome of the presidential election, that would meet the definition of an expenditure.

"The [expenditure] could also be viewed as an illegal contribution to any candidate who coordinates (colludes) with the foreign speaker," Coates said.

To be sure, no one is saying that coordination took place. What’s in doubt is whether the word "collusion" is as pivotal as Jarrett makes it out to be.

Coates said discussions between a campaign and a foreigner could violate the law against fraud. "Under that statute, it is a federal crime to conspire with anyone, including a foreign government, to ‘deprive another of the intangible right of honest services,’

So, show me some proof that it happened.

What you are looking for is that there is some indication that something illegal happened.

Of course, the left thinks that Trump breathing is illegal.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

So, show me some proof that it happened.

Are you THAT much of a moron???

Oh, the irony.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Whats more likely:

A. Trump colluded with the Russians, or

B nat4900 is a Jake Starkey sock account?

I dunno...that's awful insulting to Gnatty.

He's not a sock, he was spewing the same garbage years ago but it was about Bush then

 

[bodecea]

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

^ supporter of Russia over the United States of America.

 

[bodecea]

So, show me some proof that it happened.

Are you THAT much of a moron???

here, answer this other question:

What are federal investigations for if not to provide PROOF of innocence or guilt......???

Well, it seems to me that the investigations are politically motivated and instigated by people who don't like the result of the election.

Can you prove this isn't so?

Where is the crime? What exactly did Trump do to warrant the investigation?

The H. Clinton investigators weren't politically motivated?

 

[bripat9643]

The U.S. Justice Department appointed Mueller to investigate Russian interference with the 2016 presidential election.

His first task was to explore "any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump."

Nathaniel Persily at Stanford University Law School said one relevant statute is the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002. "A foreign national spending money to influence a federal election can be a crime" ..... "And if a U.S. citizen coordinates, conspires or assists in that spending, then it could be a crime." (See Coates' definition of expenditure, below)

Persily pointed to a 2011 U.S. District Court ruling based on the 2002 law. The judges said that the law bans foreign nationals "from making expenditures to expressly advocate the election or defeat of a political candidate."

John Coates at Harvard University Law School, said if Russians aimed to shape the outcome of the presidential election, that would meet the definition of an expenditure.

"The [expenditure] could also be viewed as an illegal contribution to any candidate who coordinates (colludes) with the foreign speaker," Coates said.

To be sure, no one is saying that coordination took place. What’s in doubt is whether the word "collusion" is as pivotal as Jarrett makes it out to be.

Coates said discussions between a campaign and a foreigner could violate the law against fraud. "Under that statute, it is a federal crime to conspire with anyone, including a foreign government, to ‘deprive another of the intangible right of honest services,’

You copied this stuff from the following website:

https://www.quora.com/If-collusion-...pporters-find-excuses-to-justify-such-treason
https://www.quora.com/If-collusion-...pporters-find-excuses-to-justify-such-treason
No attribution was given. You're a plagiarist.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

The U.S. Justice Department appointed Mueller to investigate Russian interference with the 2016 presidential election.

His first task was to explore "any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump."

Nathaniel Persily at Stanford University Law School said one relevant statute is the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002. "A foreign national spending money to influence a federal election can be a crime" ..... "And if a U.S. citizen coordinates, conspires or assists in that spending, then it could be a crime." (See Coates' definition of expenditure, below)

Persily pointed to a 2011 U.S. District Court ruling based on the 2002 law. The judges said that the law bans foreign nationals "from making expenditures to expressly advocate the election or defeat of a political candidate."

John Coates at Harvard University Law School, said if Russians aimed to shape the outcome of the presidential election, that would meet the definition of an expenditure.

"The [expenditure] could also be viewed as an illegal contribution to any candidate who coordinates (colludes) with the foreign speaker," Coates said.

To be sure, no one is saying that coordination took place. What’s in doubt is whether the word "collusion" is as pivotal as Jarrett makes it out to be.

Coates said discussions between a campaign and a foreigner could violate the law against fraud. "Under that statute, it is a federal crime to conspire with anyone, including a foreign government, to ‘deprive another of the intangible right of honest services,’

You copied this stuff from the following website:

https://www.quora.com/If-collusion-...pporters-find-excuses-to-justify-such-treason
No attribution was given. You're a plagiarist.

Ruh ro....lmao