Tumps has to resort to 'Donald jr. a Gud Boi...

>Tumps has to resort to 'Donald jr. a Gud Boi. He Diddndu nothin!' to defend his retarded son for posting a smoking gun he wanted to conspire with the Russian government to attack the US election.

Now THAT'S irony Sup Forums. Except in this case, instead of robbing someone, it's treason.

#RichWhitePeopleProblems.

Other urls found in this thread:

law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/11/110.20
hooktube.com/watch?v=O0flTn4IuYM
gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2014-title11-vol1/xml/CFR-2014-title11-vol1-sec100-74.xml
definitions.uslegal.com/a/anything-of-value/
legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/value
thelawdictionary.org/value/
law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/11/106.4
realclearpolitics.com/video/2017/07/11/gwu_law_prof_jonathan_turley_on_trump_jr_meeting_a_russia_for_the_love_of_god_this_is_not_treason.html
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

But it's not treason and there was no wrong doing

>A veteran DNC operative who previously worked in the Clinton White House, Alexandra Chalupa, worked with Ukrainian government officials and journalists from both Ukraine and America to dig up Russia-related opposition research on Trump and Manafort. She also shared her anti-Trump research with both the DNC and the Clinton campaign, according to the Politico report.

>Chalupa met with Ukrainian ambassador Valeriy Chaly and one of his aides, Oksara Shulyar, at the Ukrainian Embassy in March 2016 to talk about unearthing Paul Manafort’s Russian connections, Chalupa admitted to Politico.

Now THATS irony /commie/ Except in this case, instead of robbing someone, it's fucking nothing

#GoToSleep

Russian here. It was me all along. You are all suka.

law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/11/110.20
>A foreign national shall not, directly or indirectly, make a contribution or a donation of money or other thing of value
>or other thing of value.
You know what oppo research is? A thing of value, that's why Trump Jr. took the meeting in the first place you numbnuts.

>Alexandra Chalupa
>She is an Ukrainian national who was focusing on Manafort's work with the Russian installed government before it fell.
>Worked for the DNC and affiliated with Clinton campaign
>Her work was not sanctioned by the DNC or Clinton Campaign
>She only shared the information, it was not requested. Meaning it could be instantly disavowed and wiped clean.
>Ukrainian is NOT a hostile nation.
>At this point, none of the information given was illegally obtained.

And even if you want to make this a wash. This is a very bad deal because it means the Democrats throw some low level employee under the bus. Meanwhile we get Trump's Son, son in law (his brain.) and the guy who has a fuckton of Russian connections who was Trump campaign manager.

Sounds like a bargain.

Next you're going to blame Obama for this. Oh wait, that emergency Visa was granted in 2015 to allow her to defend a corruption case being levied against her company. A full year before she conspired with the Trumps.

WHOOPS

You people are so out of touch with reality at this point that we really should consider institutionalizing you.

If Oppo research is a thing of value, Journalists and Presidents from years before would be jailed.

Re-read the the law and what it pertains to instead of creating a poorly constructed strawman.

The fact you think journalists should be held liable under election laws is proof you don't know what you're talking about.

#MoreSad

Wasn't he set up by Loretta Lynch?

>oppo research is a thing of value

Except according to the US law code it isnt. Information is free. It holds no value in of itself, therefore it cannot be considered a "thing of value". How useful or helpful or damaging a piece of info is subjective and is nothing more than opinion; you cannot set a legal standard to something that is 100% subjective.

However, information CAN have value if it is given or exchanged for cash, property, material or any "thing of value". The value of the information is determined by the worth of the "thing of value" it is exchanged for. If the information is given freely, then, obviously, the info is free and thus is not considered valuable as per the legal definition.

So lets see: a russian lawyer offers DTJ info for free. DTJ does not give anything in exchange for the info, he does not offer anything for the info - he is not even propositioned by the russian lawyer. No exchange of value takes place.

Tell me - where was the law broken? You can make this thread 1000 times, and 1000 times it will get picked apart and tossed back in your face.

Weird to still read propaganda threads like these knowing the treason that happened with Fusion GPS. I wonder what they will be saying as Obama, Lynch, Holder, Hillary, etc are all brought up on criminal charges.

>attack the U.S. election

Um, no sweetie, he wanted to attack the DNC.

lol why are liberals so dumb and poor?

>If it's not cash or property, it can't be considered valuable.
I guess the recipe that KFC uses for their chicken or the recipe to make coke doesn't have value because they aren't tangible things according to you.

Nice try with your damage control. You can round of a million maggots to try and push your own, and wrong definition of the law. But in the end you're just a bunch of wrong maggots.

Clinton Campaign =/= DNC
Which the meeting was about, getting 'damaging' information on the Clinton campaign.

Propoganda used to work. It always has, and its been used for centuries if not thousands of years to great success.

Its not that effective anymore. The internet has demolished any form of monopoly of dissemination of information (ie: the media). People are now free to hear the propoganda media narrative and then review info from opposing sources and decide for themselves. Propoganda only really works on an ignorant populace that has no real selection on what information they can consume - its propoganda or mostly nothing.

That world is gone now. People are not as ignorant as they used to be, and countless sources of opposing viewpoints now exist. Deep state is still operating on their old model of control, because snakes and sparklers is all they know. They cant really fight alternative sources, at least not in the USA where we have the protection of the 1st amendment. All they can do is try to drown it out and water it down with bullshit - a perfect example being this thread.

We're winning the fight now and this is something deep state hasnt experienced since hitler took on the world financial system.

They dont have value. Not unless someone attaches value to them. If someone pays 10 million for the KFC recipe, then it is worth 10 million. But if you can go on google and get it for free, that recipe is free.

Saying im wrong because you dont like the law doesnt really fly. Info in the USA is protected under freedom of speech. The only two exceptions to this rule are classified info, and the extremely narrow band of info related to the stock and financial sector (ie insider trading). All other value is legal to disuss freely - and all info is considered free under the legal definition until it is exchaned for a "thing of value".

You can stomp your feet and call me names, but until you can demonstrate where in the US legal code it says that info has intrinsic value, you are wrong.

you have the reading comprehension of a 12 year old. information holds as much value as people are willing to exchange it for. If there was no exchange of goods/services for the information and it wasn't stolen then it has no value.

>allegedly damaging information on a political rival is not valuable

>Using freedom of speech meme
>Propaganda doesn't work
1. First amendment doesn't protect against crimes or intent to commit a crime. Donald Jr. Jared and Manafort all partook in a crime when they wilingly went to the meeting knowing full well what it was about.
2. You discredit yourself because you're partaking in propaganda and don't even know it. In your case, the fake news articles (actual fake news from Russia that are spread around of social media) and crying about the mythical deep state.

You're wrong because you think information is not an item of value because it's not held in equal regard by everyone. Not everyone thinks gold is valuable, but you would you say gold is worthless? Checkmate on that.

>a candidate can't accept anything of value from a foreign government
>hilldawg got 20% of her funding from saudi sand-niggers
I love how shitlibs have been gaslighting themselves for what feels like years now.

>No source
Keep on deflecting.

Again, info is only worth what someone will give for it. You cant decide what info is worth subjectively and expect that to be held to a legal standard. Who decides what info is worth? Who decides its worth anything at all? If i told you my mom is a fat slut who will fuck anyone named Chad, does that make that info valuable? What is that info worth? How do you even decide?

Info is free. How info may be used and by whom has no legal bearing on its value. It only holds value if it is exchanged for any "thing of value". Otherwise it is entirely subjective to the opinions of each individual person. This is not how legal standard work; and certainly not how the US legal code operates.

Gold is only worth what someone will exchange for it. It is also entirely subjective. Gold, much like info, can be readily exchanged for other materials. It is worth well over $1000 dollars on the stock market. While you are correct that its worth is subjective, there is a commonly accepted value that can be demonstrated readily. You can give away all the gold you want for free - that doesnt make gold worthless in a legal sense because only you feel its worthless. As long as people are willing to buy gold, at any price, or otherwise exchange "things of value" for it, than gold will continue to be considered a thing of value. The day that nobody buys or sells gold will be the day your arguement holds water.

Until then, youre a dumbass. Literally comparing gold to freely given info and telling me checkmate. Thats just rich.

>Using hate speech figure
>still trying to push the lie that all information is not valuable.
All you've done is quibble over things that won't get you far in the court of law. You'd be laughed out of court if you tried to mount the defense you're attempting to right now. Because no one intellectually or morally bankrupt would agree with the idea that Oppo research done by a hostile foreign government's spy agency would not be considered valuable.

But keep trying, checkmate.

Ackchually even information that was stolen holds no value unless it is exchanged for a thing of value. A person can steal a trade secret and give it to someone else for free - the first person would go to prison for stealing the info, but the second person is free to disseminate that info as long as he does it for free and never signed any form of contract prohibiting them from doing so. Its protected under freedom of speech. The recipe for KFC was considered a trade secret and "priceless" because KFC would not share the info for any price. However that info got leaked and you can get it for free off google. Its not illegal to share that info - it is now effectively worthless because no exchange of value takes place in return for it.

Freedom of speech is pretty dope. And is why companies go to ridiculous lengths to protect their trade secrets with Non-Disclosure Agreements that prevent people from sharing that info under threat of criminal prosecution.

Neat. I guess we will just have to wait for a prosecutor to take the case now wont we? ;^)

>T-t-the courts would laugh!
Yea, okay, sure, you're not basing that on any information at all though, literally just pulling it out of your ass and saying that it will happen. Which is funny because it's what the left has been doing the whole time with this Russia thing.

Why are people still posting about this garbage. No one fucking cares.

He just thinks that the law is based on his feelings, and that DTJ will be found guilty because he says so.

Curiously enough he is unable to cite the law that DTJ broke or provide any legal definitions for the shit he is spouting. Nor is he able to produce a single case that is a precedent for this situation to even go to court to begin with.

Its almost as if hes just making things up.

>terrible food analogies
back to Sup Forums with you

$.02

How do people actually believe that DTJ did anything wrong here or that it validates the media's conspiracy theory? Nothing happened, you have zero chance of prosecuting it in court and the media's claim was that a crime happened and the Trumps were directly involved. Still. Fucking. Nothing. Try again butthurt libshits, time to admit you were too eager to believe anything and everything if it validates the notion that Trump is literally Hitler even though he's not.

Already cited the law he broke. Which was what was listed. (Your attempt to say it wasn't that won't hold up in court because the idea that damaging information is not valuable holds no merit. A non biased court would find him guilty. In fact just based on the findings so far, people like Jeff Sessions and Jered Kushner would have their security clearance stripped. BUT this administration has shown they are unethical as hell and haven't done anything.

Stupid bait, but you don't even know what treason is.

>The betrayal of one's own country by waging war against it or by consciously or purposely acting to aid its enemies.

We are not at war with Russia, and Russia is not our enemy. Liberals on the other hand, with their love of communism and islamists, commit treason on a minute-to-minute basis in this country.

>the president can commit treason
nice job faggot, well meme'd

>(Your attempt to say it wasn't that won't hold up in court because the idea that damaging information is not valuable holds no merit. A non biased court would find him guilty.
Except you're literally wrong. Again, I say good luck in court and the Senate because this has a snowball's chance in hell of resulting in a conviction or especially Trump's impeachment.

Foreign nationals may volunteer their time, efforts and services to campaigns as long as they are not compensated. They can make speeches. They can do research. They can help campaign efforts. As long as they are not paid. These things are considered things of value, but they are specifically excluded. This would also include opposition research.

There has never been any precedent for the law being applied the way you are claiming. Therefor, this law, as well as your interpretation of it, would be considered ambiguous at best. For this, we have the Rule of Lenity: In construing an ambiguous criminal statute, a court should resolve the ambiguity in favor of the defendant (Don Jr.).

Also, you keep forgetting that there wasn't any actual information turned over, so none of this even matters.

You're working on the figurative. The only reason Trump isn't being impeached is because the Republicans are putting ideology ahead of country. You'll notice how they're still trying to take away health care from the poor in order to give tax cuts to the rich, while also pushing the discredited Ukarian and Lynch story lines as smoke screens.

Also we just learned that Trump's personal lawyer learned about meeting and was given the e-mails 3 weeks ago. Which further shows how wholly unprepared Trump is for the presidency in that they still lied their asses off as the Times came out with the story.

In this case she was an agent of a foreign and hostile government. And Trump went in expecting damaging information the Russian government collected on Clinton. It goes far beyond just a foreign national.

I would strongly disagree with this interpretation as well, considering that the Department of Justice (Loretta Lynch) vetted her entry on a case by case basis (personally) and allowed her entry into the country.

For a completely separate case, in 2015. Which was a year after 2016, when the Trumps met with said operative.

So you Lynch argument fails to hold up to even basic scrutiny.

but he literally did nothing wrong

Marina's a nigger!

of course the retard choosing marina over literally any other character would say something like this.

>"You're working on the figurative"
>then proceeds to make sweeping assumptions and character judgementst
wew

>In this case she was an agent of a foreign and hostile government.
Do you have any proof? As far as I know she's a civilian. Anyway, they supposedly even asked her if she was affiliated with the Russian government, to which she replied "nyet." Hard to commit a crime of intent when the other party has lied to you about the source.
>And Trump went in expecting damaging information the Russian government collected on Clinton.
The purported information has no monetary value, which is the meaning of the law. Again, good luck arguing that in court.

>Believing a Russian operative's word over our intel community.
Oh right, they're part of that nefarious 'deep state' and we should trust the Russians over them, like Trump does.

We don't even know what really went on in meeting other than Trump's word. And he's shown to have no credibility on the matter since he changed his story every day until he was forced to release the e-mails. He had to change his story 3 times and didn't even say anything about the contents of the e-mails and the fact he was expected to meet with a Russian agent to get damaging intel on Clinton that was collected by their government.

>The monetary meme
Which is laughed at by anyone who prosecutes these sorts of crimes.

Hell the rabbit hole is getting deeper since Donald Trump's whereabouts at the time of the meeting aren't known and at this point there's a good chance he was at Trump Tower when it took place since he finished his rally that day at 1PM and went to the Tower afterwards. (The meeting was a 4PM.) Of course that's speculation, but considering this Administration constantly lies, it can't be taken off the table.


Keep on deflecting as the leaks keep coming!

I look forward to everything coming out, because absolutely nothing illegal happened that Trump was involved in. Your bullshit witch hunt is still going to collapse and the left and the media will have no choice but to admit they were wrong. Trump won because of white resentment, not because of a secret Russia conspiracy.

> The timeline in which she was allowed in makes no difference. Either she was required to register as a foreign agent upon entry or she wasn't. Her spending extended time in the United States is meaningless. It wouldn't matter if she was allowed in 3 years beforehand, or 5 days (it was actually about 6 months). Foreign nationals are simply foreigners living in America. Government employees from a foreign nation are still foreign nationals. They are required to undergo extra scrutiny, as per the Foreign Agents Registration Act, but they can still donate their time, etc. just as any other foreign national can, whether they are from Russia, or Iran, or wherever.

>We don't even know what really went on in meeting other than Trump's word.

Yes, exactly right. This is a double edged sword. You don't get to use it against Trump without using it against your own argument. If you don't know what happened, then how are you claiming that a thing of value was given over? Reason and evidence, bro. Reason and evidence.

All that says is the Russians exploited a loophole and used her as an agent after the fact.

This is like Trump blaming Obama for Flynn.

Even if this far fetched assumption without evidence was to be believed, it still wouldn't be Don Jrs. fault.
Your argument just got dismantled.

>treason

Ah, how silly it is that libtards have yet to truly understand what the word actually means.

Dictionary.com will help with your limited vocabulary, OP, but it can't do anything to help your autism.

Except for the whole part that he was going into the meeting expecting to meet a Russian Agent who would hand off damaging intel the Russian government collected on Clinton. In the e-mail and phone call (There's a gap that implies that Trump Jr. talked with the pop star man over the phone when arranging the meeting.) So intent was clearly there that they wanted to conspire with foreign agents of a hostile nation.

This whole affair is like To Catch Predator, Just because there's no one underage there, you can't just go 'This is a waste of time, I'm going home' and not expect repercussions.

You tried, here's a star

*

I... can't believe that....Trump... colluded with Russia. I... mean that.... is... like... the.... worst thing ever. He... should be..... impeached.

>here you go ignorant nigger
>inb4 I'm not clicking link

hooktube.com/watch?v=O0flTn4IuYM

Lets just assume for a second that all of the following things are true, which they definitely aren't.
1) She was an AGENT of the Russian government.
2) There was intent and foreknowledge of a meeting in which Don J. sought out damaging information that would damage Hillary Clinton (which was supposedly going to show, ironically enough, proof of donations from the Ukraine being paid to her campaingn).
What law did he break? Specifically, what code or statute did he break? I know that you think everything you just said sounds intense, but none if it is actually illegal.

I can tell you some information.
Youre a massive fucking faggot and will die of AIDs from your boyfriend!

Anyone willing to buy this information?
No? Alright, guess that information is invaluable! (Literally useless)

Conspiracy is the easy one.

The big thing we don't know yet is what happened in the meeting exactly, since the only witnesses all have good reason to keep a tight lid on it. So the bigger crimes will come to light when Trump's kids start turning on each other.

It's actually illegal by law.
For a couple things. Intention and purpose.
As a part of political campaign you can not use stolen material to serve your needs to get elected.
It becomes especially damning when the ifo you're getting is being provided by a foreign government trying to trample on the election because it's treason.

Just trying to obtain illegal information for political gain is illegal. Thinking is coming from the Russians and still pursuing it is treason.\

They don't have to be ruskie agents btw. Trumpkin only needs to think so.

>jr and russian lawyer arrange meeting
>lawyer wants to give jr hillary info for FREE
>no money exchanges
>they meet
>literally nothing happens
so what is illegal here
please tell me

>info from a foreign citizen is illegal
so hows shilling going

>It's actually illegal by law.
HAHAHAHAH
I fucking knew you wouldn't be able to answer this question.
Name the statue. Name the code. Name the law. You have the internet, get to work. The media has REEEEEd so hard about this, that they forgot to ask if it was actually illegal in the first place. If it's treason, then you should EASILY be able to find the law.

>As a part of political campaign you can not use stolen material to serve your needs to get elected.
You have to prove it was actually stolen information. A tall order. People can notice details and use their brains for thinky work and arrive at conclusions and it's not illegal. Anyway we don't know what the information even WAS because none was provided in the meeting and there's no record.

>It becomes especially damning when the ifo you're getting is being provided by a foreign government trying to trample on the election because it's treason.
Treason is defined in the Constitution as "levying war against the United States," or loyalty to the enemy, "giving them Aid and Comfort." There is no way to construe any of the facts as treason. We're not even at war with Russia.

Nobody cares. We will still stay loyal to Trump. Liberals don't understand loyalty so i'm not surprised at this post

>Clinton Campaign =/= DNC

The DNC sacked everything for Hillary, they were throwing themselves under the bus to hoist her fat ass into the Oval Office, and now they're falling apart and Hillary is saying they were a bunch of lazy good-for-nothings, incompetent, stupid. And now the DNC is falling apart at the seams.

You're right, they're not the same, but the Hillary campaign definitely sucked the last bit of life out of the DNC that was leftover after 8 years of the ball hog king nigger.

>federal election campaign act

so you got nothing?

You don't have to prove it, Eugene. Because we're talking about intention here.
Saying that you have sensitive information about Hilalary (which was known as her email leak) is all you need to know. Because that information was private, which means to get it you have to steal it first.
Trumpkin didn't have to get any information, he merely needed to make a conscious decision to get it.

It's not legally treason. (Based on the constitution) but it's treason in the general definition of the term. Undermining a fair election with illegally obtain materials by co hooting with foreign nationals to benefit yourself is treason. (although not constitutional)

>i can't read

>federal election campaign act
which part? which statute? which code?
You haven't listed a law. You've listed a name that represents a collection of laws.

>she was a foreign national
>the info was stolen because i said so
keep on trying

Fucking this. We are in it for the long haul. The whole muh Russia conspiracy is never going to pan out the way they want it to - impeachment, and it only emboldens us against libshits, the media, and (((them))).

>sensitive information
Does not mean stolen. And again no information was shared. Intent to what? Accept information that no one knows any details about WHAT information it WAS? Fuck off, you at least need more details before you are justified in saying it was illegally obtained. Not that that really affects the guilt or innocence of DJT. Go ahead and name the law he broke.
>Undermining a fair election with illegally obtain materials by co hooting with foreign nationals to benefit yourself is treason.
lol undermining a fair election, every detail will be stretched as far as it must go to fit

DTJ*

>Clinton Campaign =/= DNC

What did you just say?

Intend to attain illegal and sensitive information. Sensitive is the key point here, because it implies that it's not in the public.

For it to be sensitive it has be secret. Why would you reasonably expect foreign citizens to hold information of U.S.A diplomat when there is known email hack?

Are you fucking pretending to be this dense or are southerner as retarded as the Telly says?

law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/11/110.20

I'm gonna' tell you the exact same thing I told the faggot before you. This is literally a copypasta of a post I left on one of the slide threads of your fellow leftshits.

It was Wikileaks.

Had it actually been the Russians they wouldn't have committed any crime against the government, just against various individuals among the democratic party.

Don't want people to be suspicious of you? Don't be a deceitful cunt. Good try shill but it will never be enough.

Which brings me to another tangent, everything you're being paid to do here, or everything you think you're doing here, will be in utter vain. Nothing you say or do influences the crowds that have started flocking here. Anything you think you're possibly influencing is totally and completely worthless. The most you're capable of doing is somewhat disrupting conversation. And even then you fail like a motherfucker. You people unite more people underneath our banner everyday by the blatant horseshit you spew every. Single. Day. You know how it got this bad? Because you and the kikes weren't happy with what you had. "The revolution had to continue." You wanted to be able to fight some imaginary enemy, and here you've literally created one for yourself, one that because of its ideals, its plans, and its general knowledge of the truth, will sweep you under in a social tide so fucking massive you wouldn't believe it.


TL:DR

You fucked up, and now you're paying the price for it. There will be no "2018 Blue Wave". Now fuck off and find a real job.

>the word sensitive means secret and classified
so we just changing words definitions now?

There is nothing in the e-mails that establish that the information was illegally obtained or that this was indicated to DTJ before it during the meeting. This connection must be established by the evidence. No crime. Definitely no treason.

The words that I choose are irrelevant. What matters is the words that were say to Trumkin kid and the words that he said.

The phrase "sensitive information" is synonymous with secretive though.
So I don't understand what you're talking about.

>The phrase "sensitive information" is synonymous with secretive though.
except it is literally fucking not.

Emails that he has publish. The rest of the case and his perception has yet to be seen, that's why there is going to be an investigation.
From what we do know though, he's if not guilty, very close to it.

It is implied, but again. The words I choose have no legal ramification.

Just the fact that they are the source for something, they needed to have a meeting implies secrecy. I don't understand why you're so against my irrelevant use of words, lol.

>From what we do know though, he's if not guilty, very close to it.
Lol no he isn't, there is no case here unless there is some real evidence hiding somewhere.

I guarantee you that you will not find a single example in case law where "information" was treated as a donation or contribution. And services provided for free do not count as contributions or donation under FEC rules, it makes a clear distinction between "services" and things "of value," things having direct monetary value.

>The value of services provided without compensation by any individual who volunteers on behalf of a candidate or political committee is not a contribution.

gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2014-title11-vol1/xml/CFR-2014-title11-vol1-sec100-74.xml


definitions.uslegal.com/a/anything-of-value/
legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/value
thelawdictionary.org/value/

You clearly do not understand legal terms despite your larping

>they needed to have a meeting implies secrecy
except it doesnt imply secrecy
i can arrange a meeting with my boss for something and that info could not be secret

Freedom of speech. Go back to emoluments dick head.

Actually, not true. Information has clear market value. That's why breaking stories about celebrity are usually bought.
It's why some criminals have sign contracts to exclusively tell their stories through a network.

There is precedent in news. There is a precedent in general shenanigans.

Something like this, (dirt on a political opponent) can be valuable in a market sense, there is precedent for info=money.

> Lets say the lawyer called up Don. Jr. and said "I have absolute proof that Hillary Clinton intentionally let everyone in Benghazi die. I'm going to give it to you." What law would Don Jr. be breaking be accepting this information? The answer is none. He is a private citizen of the United States. Regardless if the lawyer was from Russia, Iran, North Korea, or China, it would not matter. Regardless if there as an election that year or not, it would not matter. Regardless if he knew it would derail Hillary's campaign or not, it would not matter.

Massively under-rated. Listen to this user he reads.

>Information has clear market value
what is this guy even talking about anymore

I WANT THAT SQUID PUSS

>There is precedent in news. There is a precedent in general shenanigans.

I'm talking about case law as it pertains to FEC guidelines you ninny, not whether information can be considered "valuable" in a broader sense.

You will not find a single example of a prosecution under FEC rules where getting opp research was considered a contribution or a donation, "of value" does not mean "I think it's valuable."

Learn how legal definitions work before you start pretending you know what you're talking about.

>information has a market value.
Hi Stalin.

>Implying that because it hasn't be discussed in that context it can never be discussed as such

What is even your argument?

They just need to view as something of value for Trumpin kid, and then he's outtie.,

Don Jr is a private citizen and may have been entrapped by Loretta Lynch and the DNC as a means of obtaining a wiretapping permit from a FISA court that has literally produced nada nothing zilch. Literally dindu nuffin.

How's it feel to keep digging your own grave, shill?

it has to be something of MONETARY value

law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/11/106.4

wrong.gif

trumpkin kid is jail now

Yup. Shit finna hit fan.

It means there's a standing precedent of the law not being enforced that way, and it's not a matter of it being "discussed," the circumstances do not the the fit the law as defined. Just because you feel that "of value" means a certain thing to you personally, doesn't change the legal definition of the term, retard.
realclearpolitics.com/video/2017/07/11/gwu_law_prof_jonathan_turley_on_trump_jr_meeting_a_russia_for_the_love_of_god_this_is_not_treason.html

>I'm not going to tell you why you're wrong though because i'm actually wrong.

The Jew Media won't admit they're wrong, they'll just move onto their next made up Muh Russia story.