Like how the email also shows the Russians interfeared and tried to hack our election booths in support of trump. Not that that was not made clear by our IC or that most trump supporters will aknowlage it or care unless it was done to them.

You think it is illiberal to ban US campaigns from colluding with unfriendly foreign governments? Really? There are a lot of rules about what sources of money or other help campaigns can accept (this is why oppo research and fundraising is unusually done in conjunction with lawyers). Non-interference by foreign governments should be uncontroversial if you accept any kind of regulation here.

As for your partisan test I'll say this: if Obama or Clinton or any member of their campaign staff knowingly pursued oppo research provided to them by a foreign government - I support them being brought up on federal charges. I think not caring about this stuff is a mistake - conservatives should care about maintaining rule of law and checks and balances. Even if this meeting had no impact on the 2016 election (likely imo), the precedent set is important to future campaigns.

I disagree with this. If you mean formally at war, as in war has been declared, then no, we are not.

But it is worth noting that the United States has not formally declared war since World War II. I doubt you would try to argue that we were not at war in Vietnam or North Korea.

Furthermore, the whole "are we at war" sidetrack is a strawman anyway, as my original post never claimed we were. I said Russia was "hostile" which only means "unfriendly; antagonistic". This is objectively true.

Unsuccessful attempts at crimes are themselves crimes in many cases; see attempted murder or conspiracy to commit anything.

We know Hillary received funds from Saudi Arabia, Russia, and China. We can talk about Don Jr. after Hillary is behind bars.

I will say this - one of the primary reasons we are in hostile state with Russia is BECAUSE of Obama's feckless incompetence in foreign policy. Can't really blame Trump for that.

Watching Jiggy dance from post to post coming up with the most utterly idiotic defenses possible is just incredible entertainment. "If Russia's hostile it's only Obama's fault so this is all fine for Trump", hahahaha WHAT?

He must be new to earth.

This is not a crime. What part is criminal?

+1

Hillary had a lot to do with this.

Good luck trying to find a law on the books that will apply to what Don did.

I understand you don't pay much attention to world politics. It's ok - I wouldn't expect you to. Apparently you've forgotten - red lines, reset buttons, Uranium sales, Crimea ****-ups, Yemen bombings, Gitmo still open, the list goes on and on.

+1

Interesting article on where the term "enemy" comes from:
https://www.justsecurity.org/39244/met-enemy-is/

It does dovetail into the "Treason" issue early. While I may not have been clear - I think CNN and the Russia conspiracy is treason with a small 't', as in they are acting against the interests of this country. Not necessarily giving aid and comfort to declared enemies. You can tell by Putin's reactions at the G20 that even he is amused by the whole situation.

If Russia did really want to destabilize the US, what better way then to continually feed the media nuggets of info to keep the media on a "Russian interfered" story so that absolutely nothing gets done. We are no longer the Cold War 'enemies' we once were.

@ WN, OP and TD (and anyone interested), so, as WN and I pointed out, the law does not require the foreign national be hostile or connected to a government. Soliciting something of value (advice or information?) from your Canadian friend would violate the law. Thus, we have to look at past practices (or our own sense of morals???) for what is wrong here.

Now, let's say he did solicit information. Are you saying it's wrong to receive or solicit information from someone connected or purporting to be connected to a hostile government for campaign purposes?

Re "colluding," that makes it sound like something else, like tampering with voting machines. You can still call it colluding, but it's colluding to receive damaging information about your opponent.

I want more information about past practices, and the last 20 times this law was enforced. I will do a quick search for the fact patter I think I remember re Iran. I could be wrong on that.

From the statute I linked:

So, the part where you show up to a meeting (soliciting) with a foreign national in the hopes of gaining oppo research (a thing of value) is already a crime. If they provide said research, that is also a crime. At the moment, we only know that the solicitation occurred. It is not a defense that Goldstone sent the first email:

When DJT showed up at the meeting he was asking for that information, quite clearly. That was the advertised purpose of the meeting. You're not allowed to show up and ask them to provide what they promised just because they reached out to you.

Obviously the crime is more severe if the Russian government actually provided something. That has yet to be established.

Goofyballer is like Michael Moore. He only pursues his agenda and tells only half truths. Let him continue to be on the wrong side of history.

Julian Assange announced that he had "emails related to Hilary Clinton" just 3 days after the Trump Jr. meeting with a Russian government agent.

The DNC emails were the information being offered. The Russians had been sitting on the emails since April, when they were kicked out of the DNC network. DCleaks.com was registered April 19th, but didn't launch until June. Its Twitter account was started the day before the Trump Jr. Meeting.

So Russia definitely had damaging information. They held onto this information until they met with the Trump campaign and DT, Jr. Then they released the information. It sure seems like they got something they wanted in that meeting.

No one gives a **** about Hillary.

No one gives a **** about Don Jr. either except where he implicates Don Sr.

Even if I grant you this, it doesn't matter why we are in a hostile state with Russia.

I mean, it looks like well named might have found one but I am no expert on the law and to be honest I don't really care. As conservatives are fond of saying these days, impeachment is a political process.

What, dude, like I'll just grant you for the sake of argument that Obama was the worst president ever. It doesn't matter. It's not relevant to the conversation we are having here.

While I think discussions about the letter and enforcement of specific laws are interesting, it isn't what I'm talking about. I haven't even read the law that well named linked.

Like, I think that what Don Jr. did was wrong, in a common sense way that hiring your Canadian friend is not. But really I don't give one **** about Don Jr. anyway unless Don Sr. is implicated.

DJT did not solicit the meeting, the meeting was solicited to him.

The only people who care about this Russian stuff is the lying media and the anti-American left. Everyday Americans don't care about this. They want to focus on real issues.

Putting this into context..If Hillary Clinton was doing shady things with the Russians then it makes sense to find out what she is up to.

Yall realize that Donald Trump JR is NOT in the administration..LOL!!

Keep up the fight though...Bwahahahaha!!

Thank you. Just wanted to make sure this is another one of the those stories we are forced to hear about, but will blow over with nothing proven or done about it.

Did you even read the email? The "damaging information" was Hillary colluding with Russia. It had nothing to do with the emails Assange got from Seth Rich.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-0...acked-russians

In which mongidig, who last night thought that gay marriage was only legal in 3 states, writes these two sentences seeing no conflict whatsoever between them

There was no solicitation involved. End of story.

I mean, it is proven. Donald Jr. released the emails we're talking about himself.

Re: done about it, you may be right, but I'm not really sure how that makes it not a story.