nothing to receive. That help you out? No different than the dnc soliciting a foreign guy who knew another foreign guy guy to get salacious russian details on trump.
solicit, accept, or receive. Russians did the soliciting, Trump et al did not accept as there was
nothing to receive. That help you out? No different than the dnc soliciting a foreign guy who knew another foreign guy guy to get salacious russian details on trump. "Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" – Richard Feynman |
|
Please reread the concisely written ^above^ re the Operator, "OR"; it takes only ONE of three. HTH
|
|
it takes only ONE of three and i did in fact show that he did not match any one of them
trump did not solicit, he was solicited trump did not receive as nothing was offered. trump did not accept as nothing was received hth "Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" – Richard Feynman |
|
We shall see, shalln't we?
Lawyers can argue either side of anything. That's their job, after all. Let's see the evidence and hear the arguments before we decide that Donnie is as pure as the driven snow. tl;dr - Just because something seems "obvious" to us based on our understanding of the text of the law, the clear meaning of words, and the evidence that we've heard about in the press, doesn't mean that he'll be found guilty. Look at Bob McDonnell. Bob McDonnell convicted on 11 counts of corruption Conviction vacated by SCOTUS over weaseling on the meaning of 'official act' McDonnell was as guilty as sin. He sold his office. SCOTUS decided (even though it was 8:0) that he wasn't because, I guess, IOKIYAR. FWIW. Cheers, Scott. |
|
you are right all of the evidence or lack thereof is not available, but as far as obstruction goes..
hard case to prove all up hill as der trumpster is the chief executive. Go back a ways https://www.neh.gov/humanities/2013/mayjune/feature/burr-versus-jefferson-versus-marshall A remarkable aspect of the trial—one unique in American history—was the president’s micromanagement of the prosecution from the White House. The reasons for Jefferson’s personal involvement are unclear. Generally speaking, he was reluctant to delegate authority, and he also may have lacked full confidence in the government’s lawyers. And since he had already declared Burr guilty, he may have felt compelled to prove himself right. In any case, Jefferson’s numerous letters to George Hay, the federal attorney who was nominally in charge, contain detailed instructions about trial strategy, evidence, and witness interrogation. Jefferson even forwarded a batch of blank pardons to be used, at Hay’s discretion, to elicit evidence from reluctant witnesses. One such was Erick Bollman, a Burr associate, who pointedly refused in open court to accept a pardon for the crime of treason, a crime that he clearly did not commit. Burr’s lawyers took the occasion to blast the prosecution—and the president. "Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" – Richard Feynman |
|
FFS, box.
Don Jr. proactively set up the meeting with other campaign officials precisely (to quote the President), "to get information on an opponent." Since that may be too difficult for you to follow, ... 1. Don Jr. hears the Russians have oppo research (a thing of clear value) on Hillary. 2. Don Jr. and other campaign folks arrange a meeting to receive that thing of value. The setting up of that meeting to receive "a thing of value" from a foreign entity is plainly soliciting that thing of value from a foreign entity. Dude, this is a "Baby Ray has three ducks" sort of thing to work out. bcnu, Mikem It's mourning in America again. |
|
Re: FFS, box. Jr isn't the president
When the Clinton's Chinese bagme. Were caught it was the bagmen not the Clintons who went to jail "Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" – Richard Feynman |
|
You persist in Not Noticing: The Two were jointly in violation; Jr's dossier is beside the *Point
* "jointly and severally" and the other legal pseudo-science jargon. |
|
Don't quit yet day job, kitties need you more than the courts do
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" – Richard Feynman |
|
Jesus Christ on a pogo stick! You're not one of those are you?
You think junior didn't clear this meeting first with daddy? Even when Trump's own personal lawyer says he did? bcnu, Mikem It's mourning in America again. |
|
Do you understand the legal term hearsay?
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" – Richard Feynman |
|
"Russia, if you're listening I hope you can find ..."
Candidate Donald Trump vowed to expose dirt on his political opponents Bill and Hillary Clinton just two days before the controversial 2016 Trump Tower meeting that his former lawyer Michael Cohen insisted Trump knew about. https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-promised-clinton-dirt-before-trump-tower-meeting_us_5b5be524e4b0de86f4974fa3 That ain't heresay, that's circumstantial corroboration direct from the bcnu, Mikem It's mourning in America again. |
|
You lose box
And you know how much I hate to agree with MM! Sure, he may find some wiggle, and you will support whatever silliness he clames as a legal maneuver, but the bottom line is the kid accepted the offer (enthusiastically) and now the only question is did he tell daddy (we already know he lied to congress, perjury). Since the likelihood is that he did (as per multiple sources) then it is a political issue, ie: is Pence worse? My point of view is no, give it to Pence for a couple of years with a strong opposition House, which will allow us to ride out the stupity. |
|
No. Problem with your solution but nothing so far will do. that
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" – Richard Feynman |
|
You got a hormone imbalance?
Because your periods are coming at odd times. -- Drew |
|
Ouch.
It parses fine without the periods. ;-) Don't you hate it when your phone refuses to let you have 2 spaces without throwing up a period? I do. Cheers, Scott. (Who remembers, perhaps incorrectly, that Box has some vision issues.) |
|
Crap Android phone want my mickeysoft back
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" – Richard Feynman |
|
You may also like ...
From today's LA Times. The meeting wasn’t ‘totally legal’ bcnu, Mikem It's mourning in America again. |
|
Need to understand this about William B
Boxley. Hates. Clintons. This is his governing principle. It is the lens through which his entire perception of US politics is refracted. Trump cannot have prevailed in 2016 by illegitimate means because: Boxley. Hates. Clintons. Nothing else matters. No evidence can be contemplated that gainsays the premise that the Clintons are illegitimate and undeserving to govern. As soon as this is understood—and I realize that I am likely preaching to the choir here—his rants will at least evince an internal consistency, if not the slightest particle of actual sense. Glad I could help out. cordially, |
|
"Trump cannot have prevailed in 2016 by illegitimate means" you are wrong there
He may have, but all the howling about Clinton because Russia doesnt mean a damn thing because she was not only unfit (trump is unfit as well) but stupid to boot. The thing that galls me about that race was the fucking ENTITLEMENT She didnt run, mailed in the campaign. Made obvious her disdain (which is shared by many of you) of people who work hard and want to be left alone. As Sec state didnt have the first clue about securing data. Never mind the influence selling by her husband Closest similarity to a political family in recent history that has the same hubris is the Ceausescu crew. "Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" – Richard Feynman |
|
stupid?
Hillary Clinton probably has thirty or forty IQ points on you, I think. |
|
read the emails of her friends and collegues, they thought she was dumb as a stump
It may have been advancing age, that does happen you know "Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" – Richard Feynman |
|
So?
By the evidence of most your posts here—not all, because you contrive to express yourself rationally at long intervals—you are dumber than the average stump. |
|
That's no excuse.
I, too, have come to really despise the Clintons for what they did to my Democratic Party. That does not blind me to the heinousness of the Republican Party. bcnu, Mikem It's mourning in America again. |
|
So, both sides then? Kinda like Boxley? (sigh)
|