Only slightly OT, I remember a prof I had that taught law saying Logan needed to be modernized desperately and no one bothered and it has rarely, if ever, been even challenged legally.
I'm not an expert, but it is from late 18thc so maybe old prof had a point? Especially if it keeps coming up lately.
He is stupid and morally wrong not legally wrong. It is something like a killer intend to kill someone but the person is not home. So he called it off. He has the intention but No crime is committed.
The appropriate inference to make is that Lionel is aware of that law and doesn't deem it worthy of discussion.
Consider the following...
Evidence 1: email
From: Mr. B
To: Mr. A
I just talked to Ms. C and she's willing to fuck you at tonight's party for $200. See you there.
From: Mr. A
To: Mr. B
I'll be there.
Evidence 2: meeting
Mr. A arrives at the party only to find out that it is actually an intervention for his alcoholism, not a chance at have sex. Ms. C is present.
Evidence 3: lie
When later asked about the leadup to the meeting, Mr. A lies to the press.
Now given those three points, explain to me how Mr. A is guilty of soliciting prostitution.
Are Just making the same point that I have answered to on my previous posts.
"
Spoiler
"So getting opposition research or dirt on Hillary Clinton, or however they tried to portray it, would constitute a contribution both on the definition of a contribution and on the foreign national contribution ban," he said. "And then solicitation: Did Trump Jr. solicit the contribution? I think there the answer is also yes."
That leads to the second key passage, which reads: "No person shall knowingly solicit, accept, or receive from a foreign national any contribution or donation prohibited by" the law.
Regardless of whether Trump Jr. received any information, which he insists he did not, the solicitation of the meeting violates this statute, Ryan said.
"Whether or not he actually received that information does not matter in the eyes of the law," Ryan said. "Trump’s solicitation of the information is what constitutes the violation."
Also, "It wasn't worth mentioning" is a nice way to deflect when one doesn't have a good argument.
We have diplomatic and trade relations with Russia. A Russian lawyer providing opposition research is no different than a former MI-6 guy doing same.
Politico‘s Kenneth Vogel and David Stern reported in early January that the DNC contacted officials from the Ukrainian government for their own oppo research efforts. These contacts did not involve cut-outs, as Veselnitskaya may or may not have been, but did directly assist in searching for damaging information that could be used in the election. http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/ukraine-sabotage-trump-backfire-233446
Where is investigation? Calls of Treason here?
This is just more nothing burger by hysterical liberal media
When both sides do it, the law stops working? That will set a low bar for future politicians...
Nice Ad Hominem attack. People need to have the intention and an action on that intention to be convicted of a crime. Crime of attempt or Planning to murder someone might be another crime but you must prove they taken "substantial step" in committing that crime. Donald Trump Jr. tried to sought information from someone with no meaningful information. The evidence of this "substantial step" is fairly weak and flimsy.
PS: I am more convince Donald Trump Jr. asked his lawyers and he will get away Scot free if he cooperate. You are being being lead by your nose...
Last edited by deathflower on Jul 13, 2017, 7:37:10 AM
Nice Ad Hominem attack. People need to have the intention and an action on that intention to be convicted of a crime. Crime of attempt or Planning to murder someone might be another crime but you must prove they taken "substantial step" in committing that crime. Donald Trump Jr. tried to sought information from someone with no meaningful information. The evidence of this "substantial step" is fairly weak and flimsy.
Ad hominem? I wrote "you" and quoted you, and then I wrote "and you" and quoted scrotie, then I proceeded to say that both of you are making a point that xavderion already made. Where is the Ad Hominem?
Ad hominem? I wrote "you" and quoted you, and then I wrote "and you" and quoted scrotie, then I proceeded to say that both of you are making a point that xavderion already made. Where is the Ad Hominem?
He is stupid and morally wrong not legally wrong. It is something like a killer intend to kill someone but the person is not home. So he called it off. He has the intention but No crime is committed.
No worries, the way I wrote too wasn't very clear either.
About your PS, you have your right to be skeptical about this, that is your opinion and I respect that. I just want to mention that until this is over no one knows the result for sure. In my opinion there's a good chance he will be charged for this, and I only became vocal about my opinion here after doing some reading on the matter, so I disagree that I'm "being led by my nose". There are 2 possibilities and I chose one based on what I've read, and that's it.
No worries, the way I wrote too wasn't very clear either.
About your PS, you have your right to be skeptical about this, that is your opinion and I respect that. I just want to mention that until this is over no one knows the result for sure. In my opinion there's a good chance he will be charged for this, and I only became vocal about my opinion here after doing some reading on the matter, so I disagree that I'm "being led by my nose". There are 2 possibilities and I chose one based on what I've read, and that's it.
They did it before. They tried to solicitate donation from foreign entities during his campaign including foreign politicians through email. It is violation of federal law but Trump got off with just a warning.
So according to the lib narrative Loretta Lynch personally let in a Kremlin-tied lawyer into the country. She took direct action to let a representative of a hostile government in without a visa. Really fires up the neurons.
GGG banning all political discussion shortly after getting acquired by China is a weird coincidence.
Last edited by Xavderion on Jul 13, 2017, 3:36:18 PM
so a russian lawyer that hates trump and has gone to anti-trump rallies, who has been personally let in to the US without a visa by democrat officials was going to give the Trumps information on Clinton
