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

[nat4900]

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,’

nat4900

No link in the OP

 

[SassyIrishLass]

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Makes sense to look into Hillary and the Dems

"The kingdom of Saudi Arabia donated more than $10 million. Through a foundation, so did the son-in-law of a former Ukrainian president whose government was widely criticized for corruption and the murder of journalists. A Lebanese-Nigerian developer with vast business interests contributed as much as $5 million."

Foundation Ties Bedevil Hillary Clinton’s Presidential Campaign

 

[Cellblock2429]

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,’

/---- Remember the old saying "they can indict a ham sandwich? Well after a year's in depth investigation, the Dems can't indict President Trump.

 

[nat4900]

Makes sense to look into Hillary and the Dems

"The kingdom of Saudi Arabia donated more than $10 million. Through a foundation, so did the son-in-law of a former Ukrainian president whose government was widely criticized for corruption and the murder of journalists. A Lebanese-Nigerian developer with vast business interests contributed as much as $5 million."

Foundation Ties Bedevil Hillary Clinton’s Presidential Campaign

is your ONLY screwed up "defense" of the orange clown an attack on Clinton???Its a bit lame by now, don't you think???

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Makes sense to look into Hillary and the Dems

"The kingdom of Saudi Arabia donated more than $10 million. Through a foundation, so did the son-in-law of a former Ukrainian president whose government was widely criticized for corruption and the murder of journalists. A Lebanese-Nigerian developer with vast business interests contributed as much as $5 million."

Foundation Ties Bedevil Hillary Clinton’s Presidential Campaign

is your ONLY screwed up "defense" of the orange clown an attack on Clinton???Its a bit lame by now, don't you think???

What's to defend? His only crime was schlonging your gal Hillary

 

[nat4900]

/---- Remember the old saying "they can indict a ham sandwich? Well after a year's in depth investigation, the Dems can't indict President Trump.

Nitwit, Mueller has been appointed as special investigating counsel for less than TWO MONTHS......

 

[nat4900]

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

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

 

[SassyIrishLass]

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

 

[Cellblock2429]

/---- Remember the old saying "they can indict a ham sandwich? Well after a year's in depth investigation, the Dems can't indict President Trump.

Nitwit, Mueller has been appointed as special investigating counsel for less than TWO MONTHS......

/---- Congress has been investigating since June 2016.

 

[OKTexas]

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 might want to see who paid the expenses for the Russian attorney to come to the US. Hint, it wasn't her on any Russian for that matter. All they really talked was US adoption of Russian kids. So where is the contribution?


.

 

[nat4900]

I'm contemplating sending you to ignore with the other boneheads

How can I ever express my sincere gratitude??......

(BTW, one needs a semblance of a brain to contemplate anything.....and in your case, most of us know that........LOL)

 

[Blackrook]

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.

 

[nat4900]

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

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

 

[SassyIrishLass]

I'm contemplating sending you to ignore with the other boneheads

How can I ever express my sincere gratitude??......

(BTW, one needs a semblance of a brain to contemplate anything.....and in your case, most of us know that........LOL)

There ya go, derailing your own thread....again.

Off to ignore ya go, grownups don't need your worn out shit

 

[Luddly Neddite]

With all the questions she's been asking, I would think Blackrook would be interested in this.

In any event, the plot thickens. Thanks for posting.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Whats more likely:

A. Trump colluded with the Russians, or

B nat4900 is a Jake Starkey sock account?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

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

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

That one cracked me up.

If trump actually did anything at all for a kid, he'd be crowing about it. This is the same guy who took money away from a children's benefit. The last thing that whole damn bunch cares about is adopting kids.

Besides which, that's not what is covered by the sanction both Russia and trump want lifted.

How dumb do they think we are?

 

[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,’

So, show me some proof that it happened.

Several trumps said so.

Start there.

And quit demanding others spoon feed you. You SAID you're an attorney. Prove that by writing like one.

 

[nat4900]

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......???