GOP Operative Sought Clinton Emails From Hackers, Implied a Connection to Flynn

I'll even up the bet, if the GOP blocks on Mueller's findings, which is what Ssalam believes.

 

2018 Democrats have a turnout problem in non presidential election years and the Senate is more at risk for the Dems then the GOP. If they don't have something firm to go on I don't see a massive swing. 2020 is a different story I expect massive pushes with campaign spending like we have never seen before, so who knows what will happen then.

 

Are we actually betting something?

 

Yes, i'm just not going to explain what i'll do anymore.

So you both think party control will inhibit Robert Muellers findings. Got it.

Good luck.

 

Collusion is not a crime. It's definitely not treason like some would suggest. That's a ridiculous claim and serves to discredit the narrative as a whole.

We'll see what comes out in the wash. I need to see what Mueller gets, first. Then we can talk about consequences. As of now, there isn't enough to impeach with a Republican controlled congress. I think it's likely he will be impeached on obstruction of justice, but that's as far as it goes.

 

I wonder if he is essentially a lame duck at this point though. He needs some legislative victories, maybe if health care gets through the senate and travel ban through SC. At this point it seems likely the republican-controlled congress will end up running (more) things. Trump is just bluster.

 

I can't wait.

 

I agree that it is not treason, but I don't know what you're talking about in saying it's not a crime. E.g. :

http://www.politifact.com/punditfac...ion-not-illegal-fox-news-host-eric-bolling-s/

 

Even the MSNBC guy said that Collusion is not a crime. The only technical thing they are trying to get them on is if "it had value" and falls under campaign finance reform. Which "having value" might have meant monetary value as it was part of Finance Reform.

 

You're just dicking around with the meaning of the word collusion now. That's just semantic bullshit and not worth talking about.

The relevant law seems pretty clear that "having value" does not just mean monetary value:

(embedded link not working for some reason: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/11/110.20 )

I guess you can hem and haw over whether "other thing of value" requires an active, functioning, well-regulated in which to resell this other thing, but that sounds like a pretty shitty defense.

 

The whole bill was about finance reform, everything in the bill was a discussion of money, not information.

 

So why bother mentioning "other thing of value"?

If it's just about money, that phrase is obviously unnecessary.

 

Like a bar of gold, or plane tickets.

 

.. or information, which - like gold or plane tickets - can be sold for profit, can have value, and can be a useful resource to the functioning of a political organization.

It's almost like information is an "other thing."

"Of value."

 

Well I guess the Supreme Court can decide. But its a mute point since the official story is that nothing good came of the meeting. So until we hear evidence of something more then that its kind of a mute point.

 

You realize intention, and being unwitting, in the circumstance is criminal.

 

It's not a moot point. It doesn't matter if they got anything out of the meeting. The issue is whether a donation of a thing of value was "expressly or impliedly" promised.

Who the fuck says "impliedly," anyway? Fuck legislators.

 

So even if you get Trump Jr. (since I doubt he will rat out daddy) what are the penalties for a violation like this? Most people want to know all the dirt on their politicians so they don't elect the wrong person. People found out dirt on Clinton through her emails, that's what they want. Russia could have just released the information and never have talked to the Trump campaign and there would have been no violation. Your in pretty murky territory and how much the average GOP voter is going to care about any of this.

 

That's not how this works, but you will find out.