WH OFFICIAL SCATHING OP ED NYT re Trump incompetence and AMORALITY!

[Oldstyle]

So what you desperately need, Faun is for an exchange of information to be considered a "thing of value" because it's obvious that the only person in that race who DID take money from foreign nationals was Hillary Clinton! You know as well as I do that the statute is not referring to information...it's referring to monetary contributions or donations!

What's really laughable is that not only is it not illegal under that statute to be told "dirt" about an opponent...no "dirt" was even given! Nothing of value of any kind was exchanged at the Trump Tower meeting!

Dirt on the opposition is a thing of value to a campaign, ya lying con tool.

Only for someone as desperate as you are to make the statute fit, Faun! As I said before the statute was passed to keep foreign nationals from pouring money into our elections to influence them.

Once again even if "dirt" WAS a thing of value (which I think you know that statute isn't referring to!) no dirt was provided. In contrast, foreign nationals provided hundreds of pages of made up "dirt" on Donald Trump which the Clinton campaign then used smear him! So even if your claim that the statute applies to information and not just to cash or things that have a cash value was valid...which I don't think is the case...the only person who violated that statute in regards to information is Hillary Clinton (along with the millions that she took in as well!).

Lying con tool, the statute is crystal clear; it’s not only about monetary donations, but includes any “other thing of value” to a campaign. That includes dirt on the opposition. Your lies can’t wash that clean.

I don't read the statute that way at all, Faun. I think the people who wrote the statute were anticipating that if they banned cash donations coming in from foreign nationals that a donation of something of great value that could be sold to generate cash would be a way that campaigns would get around the statute...thus the addition of any "other thing of value" to the statute so foreign nationals couldn't donate real estate or fine art or a jet plane to a campaign!

Banning foreign nationals from providing information to campaigns isn't something that statute was passed to prohibit. Once again...you need it to do that because if it doesn't you have nothing to attack Trump on. Once again...even if Trump HAD gotten dirt from that meeting (which he didn't!) how would that in any way be different than the dirt that the Clinton campaign was alleging they were getting from insiders in the Kremlin?

LOLOL

Now the lying con tool tells us we shouldn’t go by what the laws states, we should go by what he wants it to be.

Sorry, ya lying con tool, but you don’t get to define our laws. And that particular law states that ”money OR other thing of value” cannot be contributed to a campaign by a foreign national. That includes anything of value to a campaign; and that includes “dirt” on the opposition, which has value to a campaign.

Oh so the statute expressly says "dirt" on the opposition? I don't see that in there, Faun which means that YOU are defining what the law means. I don't get to define our laws BUT NEITHER DO YOU! You seem to struggle with that concept...

 

[Faun]

Dirt on the opposition is a thing of value to a campaign, ya lying con tool.

Only for someone as desperate as you are to make the statute fit, Faun! As I said before the statute was passed to keep foreign nationals from pouring money into our elections to influence them.

Once again even if "dirt" WAS a thing of value (which I think you know that statute isn't referring to!) no dirt was provided. In contrast, foreign nationals provided hundreds of pages of made up "dirt" on Donald Trump which the Clinton campaign then used smear him! So even if your claim that the statute applies to information and not just to cash or things that have a cash value was valid...which I don't think is the case...the only person who violated that statute in regards to information is Hillary Clinton (along with the millions that she took in as well!).

Lying con tool, the statute is crystal clear; it’s not only about monetary donations, but includes any “other thing of value” to a campaign. That includes dirt on the opposition. Your lies can’t wash that clean.

I don't read the statute that way at all, Faun. I think the people who wrote the statute were anticipating that if they banned cash donations coming in from foreign nationals that a donation of something of great value that could be sold to generate cash would be a way that campaigns would get around the statute...thus the addition of any "other thing of value" to the statute so foreign nationals couldn't donate real estate or fine art or a jet plane to a campaign!

Banning foreign nationals from providing information to campaigns isn't something that statute was passed to prohibit. Once again...you need it to do that because if it doesn't you have nothing to attack Trump on. Once again...even if Trump HAD gotten dirt from that meeting (which he didn't!) how would that in any way be different than the dirt that the Clinton campaign was alleging they were getting from insiders in the Kremlin?

LOLOL

Now the lying con tool tells us we shouldn’t go by what the laws states, we should go by what he wants it to be.

Sorry, ya lying con tool, but you don’t get to define our laws. And that particular law states that ”money OR other thing of value” cannot be contributed to a campaign by a foreign national. That includes anything of value to a campaign; and that includes “dirt” on the opposition, which has value to a campaign.

Oh so the statute expressly says "dirt" on the opposition? I don't see that in there, Faun which means that YOU are defining what the law means. I don't get to define our laws BUT NEITHER DO YOU! You seem to struggle with that concept...

It says a “thing of value.” “Dirt” is a thing and it’s of value to a campaign. That’s why Junior’s response was, ”If it’s what you say, I love it, especially later in the summer.”

 

[Oldstyle]

Only for someone as desperate as you are to make the statute fit, Faun! As I said before the statute was passed to keep foreign nationals from pouring money into our elections to influence them.

Once again even if "dirt" WAS a thing of value (which I think you know that statute isn't referring to!) no dirt was provided. In contrast, foreign nationals provided hundreds of pages of made up "dirt" on Donald Trump which the Clinton campaign then used smear him! So even if your claim that the statute applies to information and not just to cash or things that have a cash value was valid...which I don't think is the case...the only person who violated that statute in regards to information is Hillary Clinton (along with the millions that she took in as well!).

Lying con tool, the statute is crystal clear; it’s not only about monetary donations, but includes any “other thing of value” to a campaign. That includes dirt on the opposition. Your lies can’t wash that clean.

I don't read the statute that way at all, Faun. I think the people who wrote the statute were anticipating that if they banned cash donations coming in from foreign nationals that a donation of something of great value that could be sold to generate cash would be a way that campaigns would get around the statute...thus the addition of any "other thing of value" to the statute so foreign nationals couldn't donate real estate or fine art or a jet plane to a campaign!

Banning foreign nationals from providing information to campaigns isn't something that statute was passed to prohibit. Once again...you need it to do that because if it doesn't you have nothing to attack Trump on. Once again...even if Trump HAD gotten dirt from that meeting (which he didn't!) how would that in any way be different than the dirt that the Clinton campaign was alleging they were getting from insiders in the Kremlin?

LOLOL

Now the lying con tool tells us we shouldn’t go by what the laws states, we should go by what he wants it to be.

Sorry, ya lying con tool, but you don’t get to define our laws. And that particular law states that ”money OR other thing of value” cannot be contributed to a campaign by a foreign national. That includes anything of value to a campaign; and that includes “dirt” on the opposition, which has value to a campaign.

Oh so the statute expressly says "dirt" on the opposition? I don't see that in there, Faun which means that YOU are defining what the law means. I don't get to define our laws BUT NEITHER DO YOU! You seem to struggle with that concept...

It says a “thing of value.” “Dirt” is a thing and it’s of value to a campaign. That’s why Junior’s response was, ”If it’s what you say, I love it, especially later in the summer.”

Once again...that's YOUR view of what the statute addresses! I don't think that language is about information at all...I think it was written to address foreign donors getting around the prohibition on making cash donations by donating things of value that could then be turned into cash by a campaign.

 

[Faun]

Lying con tool, the statute is crystal clear; it’s not only about monetary donations, but includes any “other thing of value” to a campaign. That includes dirt on the opposition. Your lies can’t wash that clean.

I don't read the statute that way at all, Faun. I think the people who wrote the statute were anticipating that if they banned cash donations coming in from foreign nationals that a donation of something of great value that could be sold to generate cash would be a way that campaigns would get around the statute...thus the addition of any "other thing of value" to the statute so foreign nationals couldn't donate real estate or fine art or a jet plane to a campaign!

Banning foreign nationals from providing information to campaigns isn't something that statute was passed to prohibit. Once again...you need it to do that because if it doesn't you have nothing to attack Trump on. Once again...even if Trump HAD gotten dirt from that meeting (which he didn't!) how would that in any way be different than the dirt that the Clinton campaign was alleging they were getting from insiders in the Kremlin?

LOLOL

Now the lying con tool tells us we shouldn’t go by what the laws states, we should go by what he wants it to be.

Sorry, ya lying con tool, but you don’t get to define our laws. And that particular law states that ”money OR other thing of value” cannot be contributed to a campaign by a foreign national. That includes anything of value to a campaign; and that includes “dirt” on the opposition, which has value to a campaign.

Oh so the statute expressly says "dirt" on the opposition? I don't see that in there, Faun which means that YOU are defining what the law means. I don't get to define our laws BUT NEITHER DO YOU! You seem to struggle with that concept...

It says a “thing of value.” “Dirt” is a thing and it’s of value to a campaign. That’s why Junior’s response was, ”If it’s what you say, I love it, especially later in the summer.”

Once again...that's YOUR view of what the statute addresses! I don't think that language is about information at all...I think it was written to address foreign donors getting around the prohibition on making cash donations by donating things of value that could then be turned into cash by a campaign.

LOL

The lying con tool continues to lie. A “thing of value” is what it states... a thing of value. “Dirt” on the opposition is a thing of value. Even Junior knows this as he tried to lie his way out initially by falsely claiming that their meeting was about adoption; before finally confessing its true intent after The NY Times exposed his lie by revealing the contents of his emails which proved he met with the Russian lawyer to get damaging information on Hillary Clinton.

 

[Oldstyle]

I don't read the statute that way at all, Faun. I think the people who wrote the statute were anticipating that if they banned cash donations coming in from foreign nationals that a donation of something of great value that could be sold to generate cash would be a way that campaigns would get around the statute...thus the addition of any "other thing of value" to the statute so foreign nationals couldn't donate real estate or fine art or a jet plane to a campaign!

Banning foreign nationals from providing information to campaigns isn't something that statute was passed to prohibit. Once again...you need it to do that because if it doesn't you have nothing to attack Trump on. Once again...even if Trump HAD gotten dirt from that meeting (which he didn't!) how would that in any way be different than the dirt that the Clinton campaign was alleging they were getting from insiders in the Kremlin?

LOLOL

Now the lying con tool tells us we shouldn’t go by what the laws states, we should go by what he wants it to be.

Sorry, ya lying con tool, but you don’t get to define our laws. And that particular law states that ”money OR other thing of value” cannot be contributed to a campaign by a foreign national. That includes anything of value to a campaign; and that includes “dirt” on the opposition, which has value to a campaign.

Oh so the statute expressly says "dirt" on the opposition? I don't see that in there, Faun which means that YOU are defining what the law means. I don't get to define our laws BUT NEITHER DO YOU! You seem to struggle with that concept...

It says a “thing of value.” “Dirt” is a thing and it’s of value to a campaign. That’s why Junior’s response was, ”If it’s what you say, I love it, especially later in the summer.”

Once again...that's YOUR view of what the statute addresses! I don't think that language is about information at all...I think it was written to address foreign donors getting around the prohibition on making cash donations by donating things of value that could then be turned into cash by a campaign.

LOL

The lying con tool continues to lie. A “thing of value” is what it states... a thing of value. “Dirt” on the opposition is a thing of value. Even Junior knows this as he tried to lie his way out initially by falsely claiming that their meeting was about adoption; before finally confessing its true intent after The NY Times exposed his lie by revealing the contents of his emails which proved he met with the Russian lawyer to get damaging information on Hillary Clinton.

Trump Jr thought the meeting WAS going to be about getting dirt on Clinton. Instead the Russian lawyer started talking about something completely different...including the Russian ban on Americans adopting Russian babies.

Again...who decides what a thing of value consists of? You? I don't happen to agree with you that the statute in question was written to ban the flow of information from foreign nationals...I think it was written to ban the flow of money from foreign nationals to campaigns and part of the language included in that statute was an attempt to keep campaigns from getting around the law by accepting "contributions" in some other form than cash.

 

[Oldstyle]

As for the NY Times "exposing" the Trump Tower meeting? Isn't it amazing that they would have somehow gotten wind of a meeting that lasted a half hour before the Trump people ended it as they realized that the Russian lawyer had nothing that they had been promised she would have! So you've got a "meeting" where nothing of value was exchanged...that lasted only a brief amount of time...yet somehow news of this meeting is leaked to the NY Times so that they can EXPOSE that the Trump campaign is working with Russians to get dirt on Hillary? Of course it's a total coincidence that Glenn Simpson...Hillary Clinton's political dirty tricks guy...met with the Russian lawyer the day before the Trump Tower meeting...hours before the Trump Tower meeting and then again the day after the Trump Tower meeting and also had contacts in the NY Times that he used to get out his smear job on Trump with the fake "dossiers"! Nothing unseemly there though...right, Faun! (eye roll)

 

[Faun]

LOLOL

Now the lying con tool tells us we shouldn’t go by what the laws states, we should go by what he wants it to be.

Sorry, ya lying con tool, but you don’t get to define our laws. And that particular law states that ”money OR other thing of value” cannot be contributed to a campaign by a foreign national. That includes anything of value to a campaign; and that includes “dirt” on the opposition, which has value to a campaign.

Oh so the statute expressly says "dirt" on the opposition? I don't see that in there, Faun which means that YOU are defining what the law means. I don't get to define our laws BUT NEITHER DO YOU! You seem to struggle with that concept...

It says a “thing of value.” “Dirt” is a thing and it’s of value to a campaign. That’s why Junior’s response was, ”If it’s what you say, I love it, especially later in the summer.”

Once again...that's YOUR view of what the statute addresses! I don't think that language is about information at all...I think it was written to address foreign donors getting around the prohibition on making cash donations by donating things of value that could then be turned into cash by a campaign.

LOL

The lying con tool continues to lie. A “thing of value” is what it states... a thing of value. “Dirt” on the opposition is a thing of value. Even Junior knows this as he tried to lie his way out initially by falsely claiming that their meeting was about adoption; before finally confessing its true intent after The NY Times exposed his lie by revealing the contents of his emails which proved he met with the Russian lawyer to get damaging information on Hillary Clinton.

Trump Jr thought the meeting WAS going to be about getting dirt on Clinton. Instead the Russian lawyer started talking about something completely different...including the Russian ban on Americans adopting Russian babies.

Again...who decides what a thing of value consists of? You? I don't happen to agree with you that the statute in question was written to ban the flow of information from foreign nationals...I think it was written to ban the flow of money from foreign nationals to campaigns and part of the language included in that statute was an attempt to keep campaigns from getting around the law by accepting "contributions" in some other form than cash.

You’re still lying, ya lying con tool. That statute clearly extends beyond just money donations as it clearly states money OR thing of value. And denying information detrimental to your opposition is something of value is merely you being the lying con tool you are. As pointed out, even Junior tried to cover his tracks by lying. Why would an innocent person lie?

 

[Faun]

As for the NY Times "exposing" the Trump Tower meeting? Isn't it amazing that they would have somehow gotten wind of a meeting that lasted a half hour before the Trump people ended it as they realized that the Russian lawyer had nothing that they had been promised she would have! So you've got a "meeting" where nothing of value was exchanged...that lasted only a brief amount of time...yet somehow news of this meeting is leaked to the NY Times so that they can EXPOSE that the Trump campaign is working with Russians to get dirt on Hillary? Of course it's a total coincidence that Glenn Simpson...Hillary Clinton's political dirty tricks guy...met with the Russian lawyer the day before the Trump Tower meeting...hours before the Trump Tower meeting and then again the day after the Trump Tower meeting and also had contacts in the NY Times that he used to get out his smear job on Trump with the fake "dossiers"! Nothing unseemly there though...right, Faun! (eye roll)

LOLOL

Look at the lying con tool trying to criticize good journalism.

And again, what you try to spin about Junior’s meeting being so inconsequential was in fact, something he felt necessary to lie about.

 

[Oldstyle]

As for the NY Times "exposing" the Trump Tower meeting? Isn't it amazing that they would have somehow gotten wind of a meeting that lasted a half hour before the Trump people ended it as they realized that the Russian lawyer had nothing that they had been promised she would have! So you've got a "meeting" where nothing of value was exchanged...that lasted only a brief amount of time...yet somehow news of this meeting is leaked to the NY Times so that they can EXPOSE that the Trump campaign is working with Russians to get dirt on Hillary? Of course it's a total coincidence that Glenn Simpson...Hillary Clinton's political dirty tricks guy...met with the Russian lawyer the day before the Trump Tower meeting...hours before the Trump Tower meeting and then again the day after the Trump Tower meeting and also had contacts in the NY Times that he used to get out his smear job on Trump with the fake "dossiers"! Nothing unseemly there though...right, Faun! (eye roll)

LOLOL

Look at the lying con tool trying to criticize good journalism.

And again, what you try to spin about Junior’s meeting being so inconsequential was in fact, something he felt necessary to lie about.

Oh, it's "good journalism" to let yourself be used by a dirty tricks scumbag like Glenn Simpson?

 

[Oldstyle]

Oh so the statute expressly says "dirt" on the opposition? I don't see that in there, Faun which means that YOU are defining what the law means. I don't get to define our laws BUT NEITHER DO YOU! You seem to struggle with that concept...

It says a “thing of value.” “Dirt” is a thing and it’s of value to a campaign. That’s why Junior’s response was, ”If it’s what you say, I love it, especially later in the summer.”

Once again...that's YOUR view of what the statute addresses! I don't think that language is about information at all...I think it was written to address foreign donors getting around the prohibition on making cash donations by donating things of value that could then be turned into cash by a campaign.

LOL

The lying con tool continues to lie. A “thing of value” is what it states... a thing of value. “Dirt” on the opposition is a thing of value. Even Junior knows this as he tried to lie his way out initially by falsely claiming that their meeting was about adoption; before finally confessing its true intent after The NY Times exposed his lie by revealing the contents of his emails which proved he met with the Russian lawyer to get damaging information on Hillary Clinton.

Trump Jr thought the meeting WAS going to be about getting dirt on Clinton. Instead the Russian lawyer started talking about something completely different...including the Russian ban on Americans adopting Russian babies.

Again...who decides what a thing of value consists of? You? I don't happen to agree with you that the statute in question was written to ban the flow of information from foreign nationals...I think it was written to ban the flow of money from foreign nationals to campaigns and part of the language included in that statute was an attempt to keep campaigns from getting around the law by accepting "contributions" in some other form than cash.

You’re still lying, ya lying con tool. That statute clearly extends beyond just money donations as it clearly states money OR thing of value. And denying information detrimental to your opposition is something of value is merely you being the lying con tool you are. As pointed out, even Junior tried to cover his tracks by lying. Why would an innocent person lie?

No, the statute does not "clearly extend" to information, Faun! You've chosen to interpret it that way because you need it to include information or you don't have anything to charge the Trump campaign with!

What's amazing though is that you don't seem to grasp that if the Trump campaign is guilty under that statute then the Clinton campaign is just as guilty for using information collected by Richard Steele. I don't think that's the case however because I don't think EITHER campaign violated that statute because I don't think the statute would ever be interpreted that way in a court of law.

 

[Faun]

It says a “thing of value.” “Dirt” is a thing and it’s of value to a campaign. That’s why Junior’s response was, ”If it’s what you say, I love it, especially later in the summer.”

Once again...that's YOUR view of what the statute addresses! I don't think that language is about information at all...I think it was written to address foreign donors getting around the prohibition on making cash donations by donating things of value that could then be turned into cash by a campaign.

LOL

The lying con tool continues to lie. A “thing of value” is what it states... a thing of value. “Dirt” on the opposition is a thing of value. Even Junior knows this as he tried to lie his way out initially by falsely claiming that their meeting was about adoption; before finally confessing its true intent after The NY Times exposed his lie by revealing the contents of his emails which proved he met with the Russian lawyer to get damaging information on Hillary Clinton.

Trump Jr thought the meeting WAS going to be about getting dirt on Clinton. Instead the Russian lawyer started talking about something completely different...including the Russian ban on Americans adopting Russian babies.

Again...who decides what a thing of value consists of? You? I don't happen to agree with you that the statute in question was written to ban the flow of information from foreign nationals...I think it was written to ban the flow of money from foreign nationals to campaigns and part of the language included in that statute was an attempt to keep campaigns from getting around the law by accepting "contributions" in some other form than cash.

You’re still lying, ya lying con tool. That statute clearly extends beyond just money donations as it clearly states money OR thing of value. And denying information detrimental to your opposition is something of value is merely you being the lying con tool you are. As pointed out, even Junior tried to cover his tracks by lying. Why would an innocent person lie?

No, the statute does not "clearly extend" to information, Faun! You've chosen to interpret it that way because you need it to include information or you don't have anything to charge the Trump campaign with!

What's amazing though is that you don't seem to grasp that if the Trump campaign is guilty under that statute then the Clinton campaign is just as guilty for using information collected by Richard Steele. I don't think that's the case however because I don't think EITHER campaign violated that statute because I don't think the statute would ever be interpreted that way in a court of law.

If the law didn’t extend to the purpose of their meeting, Junior wouldn’t have had to lie about it in a pathetic attempt to cover it up.

 

[Oldstyle]

Once again...that's YOUR view of what the statute addresses! I don't think that language is about information at all...I think it was written to address foreign donors getting around the prohibition on making cash donations by donating things of value that could then be turned into cash by a campaign.

LOL

The lying con tool continues to lie. A “thing of value” is what it states... a thing of value. “Dirt” on the opposition is a thing of value. Even Junior knows this as he tried to lie his way out initially by falsely claiming that their meeting was about adoption; before finally confessing its true intent after The NY Times exposed his lie by revealing the contents of his emails which proved he met with the Russian lawyer to get damaging information on Hillary Clinton.

Trump Jr thought the meeting WAS going to be about getting dirt on Clinton. Instead the Russian lawyer started talking about something completely different...including the Russian ban on Americans adopting Russian babies.

Again...who decides what a thing of value consists of? You? I don't happen to agree with you that the statute in question was written to ban the flow of information from foreign nationals...I think it was written to ban the flow of money from foreign nationals to campaigns and part of the language included in that statute was an attempt to keep campaigns from getting around the law by accepting "contributions" in some other form than cash.

You’re still lying, ya lying con tool. That statute clearly extends beyond just money donations as it clearly states money OR thing of value. And denying information detrimental to your opposition is something of value is merely you being the lying con tool you are. As pointed out, even Junior tried to cover his tracks by lying. Why would an innocent person lie?

No, the statute does not "clearly extend" to information, Faun! You've chosen to interpret it that way because you need it to include information or you don't have anything to charge the Trump campaign with!

What's amazing though is that you don't seem to grasp that if the Trump campaign is guilty under that statute then the Clinton campaign is just as guilty for using information collected by Richard Steele. I don't think that's the case however because I don't think EITHER campaign violated that statute because I don't think the statute would ever be interpreted that way in a court of law.

If the law didn’t extend to the purpose of their meeting, Junior wouldn’t have had to lie about it in a pathetic attempt to cover it up.

Was he lying? He thought the meeting was going to be about "dirt" on Hillary Clinton. It turned out not to be about that at all. What's "pathetic" is what the Clinton campaign and Glenn Simpson did in trying to put out a false narrative about Russian "collusion" with the Trump campaign and how the NY Times let themselves get used to put out that narrative just as they got used to put out the "dossier" narrative! Trump Jr realized what they were doing as soon as the story started coming out in the press. He knew that they'd been scammed and attempted to mitigate the damage. It was a learning experience for a political neophyte about how sleazy his opponents were willing to get to win an election.

 

[Faun]

LOL

The lying con tool continues to lie. A “thing of value” is what it states... a thing of value. “Dirt” on the opposition is a thing of value. Even Junior knows this as he tried to lie his way out initially by falsely claiming that their meeting was about adoption; before finally confessing its true intent after The NY Times exposed his lie by revealing the contents of his emails which proved he met with the Russian lawyer to get damaging information on Hillary Clinton.

Trump Jr thought the meeting WAS going to be about getting dirt on Clinton. Instead the Russian lawyer started talking about something completely different...including the Russian ban on Americans adopting Russian babies.

Again...who decides what a thing of value consists of? You? I don't happen to agree with you that the statute in question was written to ban the flow of information from foreign nationals...I think it was written to ban the flow of money from foreign nationals to campaigns and part of the language included in that statute was an attempt to keep campaigns from getting around the law by accepting "contributions" in some other form than cash.

You’re still lying, ya lying con tool. That statute clearly extends beyond just money donations as it clearly states money OR thing of value. And denying information detrimental to your opposition is something of value is merely you being the lying con tool you are. As pointed out, even Junior tried to cover his tracks by lying. Why would an innocent person lie?

No, the statute does not "clearly extend" to information, Faun! You've chosen to interpret it that way because you need it to include information or you don't have anything to charge the Trump campaign with!

What's amazing though is that you don't seem to grasp that if the Trump campaign is guilty under that statute then the Clinton campaign is just as guilty for using information collected by Richard Steele. I don't think that's the case however because I don't think EITHER campaign violated that statute because I don't think the statute would ever be interpreted that way in a court of law.

If the law didn’t extend to the purpose of their meeting, Junior wouldn’t have had to lie about it in a pathetic attempt to cover it up.

Was he lying? He thought the meeting was going to be about "dirt" on Hillary Clinton. It turned out not to be about that at all. What's "pathetic" is what the Clinton campaign and Glenn Simpson did in trying to put out a false narrative about Russian "collusion" with the Trump campaign and how the NY Times let themselves get used to put out that narrative just as they got used to put out the "dossier" narrative! Trump Jr realized what they were doing as soon as the story started coming out in the press. He knew that they'd been scammed and attempted to mitigate the damage. It was a learning experience for a political neophyte about how sleazy his opponents were willing to get to win an election.

Yes, he lied. He initially said the purpose of the meeting was about adoption. Then The NY Times obtained his email exchanges in regards to setting up the meeting m; at which point, when called out, he changed his tune to yeah, it was really to get dirt on Hillary — but that he never got it.

So yeah, even he knew acquiring negative information was something of value to his father’s campaign and he lied because it involved a foreign national.

 

[Oldstyle]

Trump Jr thought the meeting WAS going to be about getting dirt on Clinton. Instead the Russian lawyer started talking about something completely different...including the Russian ban on Americans adopting Russian babies.

Again...who decides what a thing of value consists of? You? I don't happen to agree with you that the statute in question was written to ban the flow of information from foreign nationals...I think it was written to ban the flow of money from foreign nationals to campaigns and part of the language included in that statute was an attempt to keep campaigns from getting around the law by accepting "contributions" in some other form than cash.

You’re still lying, ya lying con tool. That statute clearly extends beyond just money donations as it clearly states money OR thing of value. And denying information detrimental to your opposition is something of value is merely you being the lying con tool you are. As pointed out, even Junior tried to cover his tracks by lying. Why would an innocent person lie?

No, the statute does not "clearly extend" to information, Faun! You've chosen to interpret it that way because you need it to include information or you don't have anything to charge the Trump campaign with!

What's amazing though is that you don't seem to grasp that if the Trump campaign is guilty under that statute then the Clinton campaign is just as guilty for using information collected by Richard Steele. I don't think that's the case however because I don't think EITHER campaign violated that statute because I don't think the statute would ever be interpreted that way in a court of law.

If the law didn’t extend to the purpose of their meeting, Junior wouldn’t have had to lie about it in a pathetic attempt to cover it up.

Was he lying? He thought the meeting was going to be about "dirt" on Hillary Clinton. It turned out not to be about that at all. What's "pathetic" is what the Clinton campaign and Glenn Simpson did in trying to put out a false narrative about Russian "collusion" with the Trump campaign and how the NY Times let themselves get used to put out that narrative just as they got used to put out the "dossier" narrative! Trump Jr realized what they were doing as soon as the story started coming out in the press. He knew that they'd been scammed and attempted to mitigate the damage. It was a learning experience for a political neophyte about how sleazy his opponents were willing to get to win an election.

Yes, he lied. He initially said the purpose of the meeting was about adoption. Then The NY Times obtained his email exchanges in regards to setting up the meeting m; at which point, when called out, he changed his tune to yeah, it was really to get dirt on Hillary — but that he never got it.

So yeah, even he knew acquiring negative information was something of value to his father’s campaign and he lied because it involved a foreign national.

You mean the information he never got? That's what I find so amusing about your stance on this, Faun. I still don't think getting the information is in any way illegal but since he didn't get ANY dirt on Hillary...what are you charging him with? Kindly explain to me how NOT getting this information is a crime? Once you're done with that...kindly explain to me why Hillary Clinton getting information from foreign nationals ISN't a crime!

 

[Faun]

You’re still lying, ya lying con tool. That statute clearly extends beyond just money donations as it clearly states money OR thing of value. And denying information detrimental to your opposition is something of value is merely you being the lying con tool you are. As pointed out, even Junior tried to cover his tracks by lying. Why would an innocent person lie?

No, the statute does not "clearly extend" to information, Faun! You've chosen to interpret it that way because you need it to include information or you don't have anything to charge the Trump campaign with!

What's amazing though is that you don't seem to grasp that if the Trump campaign is guilty under that statute then the Clinton campaign is just as guilty for using information collected by Richard Steele. I don't think that's the case however because I don't think EITHER campaign violated that statute because I don't think the statute would ever be interpreted that way in a court of law.

If the law didn’t extend to the purpose of their meeting, Junior wouldn’t have had to lie about it in a pathetic attempt to cover it up.

Was he lying? He thought the meeting was going to be about "dirt" on Hillary Clinton. It turned out not to be about that at all. What's "pathetic" is what the Clinton campaign and Glenn Simpson did in trying to put out a false narrative about Russian "collusion" with the Trump campaign and how the NY Times let themselves get used to put out that narrative just as they got used to put out the "dossier" narrative! Trump Jr realized what they were doing as soon as the story started coming out in the press. He knew that they'd been scammed and attempted to mitigate the damage. It was a learning experience for a political neophyte about how sleazy his opponents were willing to get to win an election.

Yes, he lied. He initially said the purpose of the meeting was about adoption. Then The NY Times obtained his email exchanges in regards to setting up the meeting m; at which point, when called out, he changed his tune to yeah, it was really to get dirt on Hillary — but that he never got it.

So yeah, even he knew acquiring negative information was something of value to his father’s campaign and he lied because it involved a foreign national.

You mean the information he never got? That's what I find so amusing about your stance on this, Faun. I still don't think getting the information is in any way illegal but since he didn't get ANY dirt on Hillary...what are you charging him with? Kindly explain to me how NOT getting this information is a crime? Once you're done with that...kindly explain to me why Hillary Clinton getting information from foreign nationals ISN't a crime!

Where does that statute state the contribution has to be made, ya lying con tool?

(b) Contributions and donations by foreign nationals in connection with elections. A foreign national shall not, directly or indirectly, make a contribution or a donation of money or other thing of value, or expressly or impliedly promise to make a contribution or a donation, in connection with any Federal, State, or local election.​

Conspiracy is also a crime.

 

[Oldstyle]

No, the statute does not "clearly extend" to information, Faun! You've chosen to interpret it that way because you need it to include information or you don't have anything to charge the Trump campaign with!

What's amazing though is that you don't seem to grasp that if the Trump campaign is guilty under that statute then the Clinton campaign is just as guilty for using information collected by Richard Steele. I don't think that's the case however because I don't think EITHER campaign violated that statute because I don't think the statute would ever be interpreted that way in a court of law.

If the law didn’t extend to the purpose of their meeting, Junior wouldn’t have had to lie about it in a pathetic attempt to cover it up.

Was he lying? He thought the meeting was going to be about "dirt" on Hillary Clinton. It turned out not to be about that at all. What's "pathetic" is what the Clinton campaign and Glenn Simpson did in trying to put out a false narrative about Russian "collusion" with the Trump campaign and how the NY Times let themselves get used to put out that narrative just as they got used to put out the "dossier" narrative! Trump Jr realized what they were doing as soon as the story started coming out in the press. He knew that they'd been scammed and attempted to mitigate the damage. It was a learning experience for a political neophyte about how sleazy his opponents were willing to get to win an election.

Yes, he lied. He initially said the purpose of the meeting was about adoption. Then The NY Times obtained his email exchanges in regards to setting up the meeting m; at which point, when called out, he changed his tune to yeah, it was really to get dirt on Hillary — but that he never got it.

So yeah, even he knew acquiring negative information was something of value to his father’s campaign and he lied because it involved a foreign national.

You mean the information he never got? That's what I find so amusing about your stance on this, Faun. I still don't think getting the information is in any way illegal but since he didn't get ANY dirt on Hillary...what are you charging him with? Kindly explain to me how NOT getting this information is a crime? Once you're done with that...kindly explain to me why Hillary Clinton getting information from foreign nationals ISN't a crime!

Where does that statute state the contribution has to be made, ya lying con tool?

(b) Contributions and donations by foreign nationals in connection with elections. A foreign national shall not, directly or indirectly, make a contribution or a donation of money or other thing of value, or expressly or impliedly promise to make a contribution or a donation, in connection with any Federal, State, or local election.​

Conspiracy is also a crime.

Oh, so now you want to charge someone with "conspiracy" to commit a crime while you ignore the campaign that committed the same crime? Good thing you've got your partisan blinders on, Faun!

As I've pointed out a dozen times...if your misreading of the statute was in fact how it was intended...the Clinton campaign is guilty of accepting "things of value" from foreign nationals in both cash and information!

 

[Faun]

If the law didn’t extend to the purpose of their meeting, Junior wouldn’t have had to lie about it in a pathetic attempt to cover it up.

Was he lying? He thought the meeting was going to be about "dirt" on Hillary Clinton. It turned out not to be about that at all. What's "pathetic" is what the Clinton campaign and Glenn Simpson did in trying to put out a false narrative about Russian "collusion" with the Trump campaign and how the NY Times let themselves get used to put out that narrative just as they got used to put out the "dossier" narrative! Trump Jr realized what they were doing as soon as the story started coming out in the press. He knew that they'd been scammed and attempted to mitigate the damage. It was a learning experience for a political neophyte about how sleazy his opponents were willing to get to win an election.

Yes, he lied. He initially said the purpose of the meeting was about adoption. Then The NY Times obtained his email exchanges in regards to setting up the meeting m; at which point, when called out, he changed his tune to yeah, it was really to get dirt on Hillary — but that he never got it.

So yeah, even he knew acquiring negative information was something of value to his father’s campaign and he lied because it involved a foreign national.

You mean the information he never got? That's what I find so amusing about your stance on this, Faun. I still don't think getting the information is in any way illegal but since he didn't get ANY dirt on Hillary...what are you charging him with? Kindly explain to me how NOT getting this information is a crime? Once you're done with that...kindly explain to me why Hillary Clinton getting information from foreign nationals ISN't a crime!

Where does that statute state the contribution has to be made, ya lying con tool?

(b) Contributions and donations by foreign nationals in connection with elections. A foreign national shall not, directly or indirectly, make a contribution or a donation of money or other thing of value, or expressly or impliedly promise to make a contribution or a donation, in connection with any Federal, State, or local election.​

Conspiracy is also a crime.

Oh, so now you want to charge someone with "conspiracy" to commit a crime while you ignore the campaign that committed the same crime? Good thing you've got your partisan blinders on, Faun!

As I've pointed out a dozen times...if your misreading of the statute was in fact how it was intended...the Clinton campaign is guilty of accepting "things of value" from foreign nationals in both cash and information!

Junior met with a foreign national to obtain valuable information that could hurt Hillary.

Hillary met with an American-based research firm to obtain valuable information that could hurt Trump.

So, no, she did not commit the crime that Junior committed.

 

[Oldstyle]

Was he lying? He thought the meeting was going to be about "dirt" on Hillary Clinton. It turned out not to be about that at all. What's "pathetic" is what the Clinton campaign and Glenn Simpson did in trying to put out a false narrative about Russian "collusion" with the Trump campaign and how the NY Times let themselves get used to put out that narrative just as they got used to put out the "dossier" narrative! Trump Jr realized what they were doing as soon as the story started coming out in the press. He knew that they'd been scammed and attempted to mitigate the damage. It was a learning experience for a political neophyte about how sleazy his opponents were willing to get to win an election.

Yes, he lied. He initially said the purpose of the meeting was about adoption. Then The NY Times obtained his email exchanges in regards to setting up the meeting m; at which point, when called out, he changed his tune to yeah, it was really to get dirt on Hillary — but that he never got it.

So yeah, even he knew acquiring negative information was something of value to his father’s campaign and he lied because it involved a foreign national.

You mean the information he never got? That's what I find so amusing about your stance on this, Faun. I still don't think getting the information is in any way illegal but since he didn't get ANY dirt on Hillary...what are you charging him with? Kindly explain to me how NOT getting this information is a crime? Once you're done with that...kindly explain to me why Hillary Clinton getting information from foreign nationals ISN't a crime!

Where does that statute state the contribution has to be made, ya lying con tool?

(b) Contributions and donations by foreign nationals in connection with elections. A foreign national shall not, directly or indirectly, make a contribution or a donation of money or other thing of value, or expressly or impliedly promise to make a contribution or a donation, in connection with any Federal, State, or local election.​

Conspiracy is also a crime.

Oh, so now you want to charge someone with "conspiracy" to commit a crime while you ignore the campaign that committed the same crime? Good thing you've got your partisan blinders on, Faun!

As I've pointed out a dozen times...if your misreading of the statute was in fact how it was intended...the Clinton campaign is guilty of accepting "things of value" from foreign nationals in both cash and information!

Junior met with a foreign national to obtain valuable information that could hurt Hillary.

Hillary met with an American-based research firm to obtain valuable information that could hurt Trump.

So, no, she did not commit the crime that Junior committed.

Hillary paid that "American-based" research firm to obtain that valuable information from an Englishman and some Russians. The only reason she didn't pay them directly was that she was hiding who funded Steele's smear job! She also took in millions of dollars through her little pay for play scam she had working at the State Department...funneling it through the Clinton Foundation and then using Foundation funds to help pay part of the salaries of people who were working in her election campaign.

THAT is a direct violation of the statute that you and WTP keep trotting out to use against Trump Jr.! A REAL violation involving millions of dollars in REAL money...not information which isn't what that statute was passed to prevent happening!

 

[Faun]

Yes, he lied. He initially said the purpose of the meeting was about adoption. Then The NY Times obtained his email exchanges in regards to setting up the meeting m; at which point, when called out, he changed his tune to yeah, it was really to get dirt on Hillary — but that he never got it.

So yeah, even he knew acquiring negative information was something of value to his father’s campaign and he lied because it involved a foreign national.

You mean the information he never got? That's what I find so amusing about your stance on this, Faun. I still don't think getting the information is in any way illegal but since he didn't get ANY dirt on Hillary...what are you charging him with? Kindly explain to me how NOT getting this information is a crime? Once you're done with that...kindly explain to me why Hillary Clinton getting information from foreign nationals ISN't a crime!

Where does that statute state the contribution has to be made, ya lying con tool?

(b) Contributions and donations by foreign nationals in connection with elections. A foreign national shall not, directly or indirectly, make a contribution or a donation of money or other thing of value, or expressly or impliedly promise to make a contribution or a donation, in connection with any Federal, State, or local election.​

Conspiracy is also a crime.

Oh, so now you want to charge someone with "conspiracy" to commit a crime while you ignore the campaign that committed the same crime? Good thing you've got your partisan blinders on, Faun!

As I've pointed out a dozen times...if your misreading of the statute was in fact how it was intended...the Clinton campaign is guilty of accepting "things of value" from foreign nationals in both cash and information!

Junior met with a foreign national to obtain valuable information that could hurt Hillary.

Hillary met with an American-based research firm to obtain valuable information that could hurt Trump.

So, no, she did not commit the crime that Junior committed.

Hillary paid that "American-based" research firm to obtain that valuable information from an Englishman and some Russians. The only reason she didn't pay them directly was that she was hiding who funded Steele's smear job! She also took in millions of dollars through her little pay for play scam she had working at the State Department...funneling it through the Clinton Foundation and then using Foundation funds to help pay part of the salaries of people who were working in her election campaign.

THAT is a direct violation of the statute that you and WTP keep trotting out to use against Trump Jr.! A REAL violation involving millions of dollars in REAL money...not information which isn't what that statute was passed to prevent happening!

There’s no violation on Hillary’s part. The law prohibits Americans from obtaining contributions and/or donations from foreign nationals. Hillary didn’t. She got her opposition research from an American firm.

Junior, on the other hand, conspired with a foreign national to acquire valuable research on Hillary from a foreign national, in violation of the law.

 

[Oldstyle]

You mean the information he never got? That's what I find so amusing about your stance on this, Faun. I still don't think getting the information is in any way illegal but since he didn't get ANY dirt on Hillary...what are you charging him with? Kindly explain to me how NOT getting this information is a crime? Once you're done with that...kindly explain to me why Hillary Clinton getting information from foreign nationals ISN't a crime!

Where does that statute state the contribution has to be made, ya lying con tool?

(b) Contributions and donations by foreign nationals in connection with elections. A foreign national shall not, directly or indirectly, make a contribution or a donation of money or other thing of value, or expressly or impliedly promise to make a contribution or a donation, in connection with any Federal, State, or local election.​

Conspiracy is also a crime.

Oh, so now you want to charge someone with "conspiracy" to commit a crime while you ignore the campaign that committed the same crime? Good thing you've got your partisan blinders on, Faun!

As I've pointed out a dozen times...if your misreading of the statute was in fact how it was intended...the Clinton campaign is guilty of accepting "things of value" from foreign nationals in both cash and information!

Junior met with a foreign national to obtain valuable information that could hurt Hillary.

Hillary met with an American-based research firm to obtain valuable information that could hurt Trump.

So, no, she did not commit the crime that Junior committed.

Hillary paid that "American-based" research firm to obtain that valuable information from an Englishman and some Russians. The only reason she didn't pay them directly was that she was hiding who funded Steele's smear job! She also took in millions of dollars through her little pay for play scam she had working at the State Department...funneling it through the Clinton Foundation and then using Foundation funds to help pay part of the salaries of people who were working in her election campaign.

THAT is a direct violation of the statute that you and WTP keep trotting out to use against Trump Jr.! A REAL violation involving millions of dollars in REAL money...not information which isn't what that statute was passed to prevent happening!

There’s no violation on Hillary’s part. The law prohibits Americans from obtaining contributions and/or donations from foreign nationals. Hillary didn’t. She got her opposition research from an American firm.

Junior, on the other hand, conspired with a foreign national to acquire valuable research on Hillary from a foreign national, in violation of the law.

An American firm that she PAID to get her what you so graciously call "opposition research? Let's cut the bullshit...shall we? Hillary Clinton used a law firm cut out to pay Fusion GPS and then had Fusion GPS run the smear campaign against Donald Trump. She did so to HIDE what it was that her campaign was doing.

I notice that you've studiously ignored how Clinton also used foreign "donations" to the Clinton Foundation to help pay for her election campaign! Don't want to touch that with a ten foot pole...do you, Faun!