It follows because attempting to purchase stolen goods (in this case, information) is illegal. This is a fairly simple concept...
This is indeed a simple concept, but why Trump Jr. would have to think that the information was stolen? I cannot see that this follows from the mail.
I simply assume that it does not follow in a way obvious to Trump Jr. that the information offered had something to do with DNC at all. So, whatever one thinks about DNC is irrelevant for the case of Trump Jr.
Then why, I wonder, did Trump Jr make an effort to hide the meeting? Why the subterfuge, unless he knew something wasn't on the up and up? Especially since disclosing meetings with foreign officials was a requirement for his position, after all... why did he hide it?
So far we have: Trump lying about meeting with Putin Trump taking Putin's word for everything Trump Jr. meeting with a Russian agent offering dirt on Clinton Trump pressuring the head of the FBI to drop the case, then firing him when he refused Secret Russian payments to Manafort, Trump's campaign manager Flynn resigning because of his lies over his Russia connections Trump allowing Russian media, but not US media, to report on his meetings with Kislyak
Irrelevant (as well as unlikely). She had the info to give - it was released later. That's irrelevant. He broke the law anyway - the obvious illegality of however they obtained legally unobtainable stuff about Clinton is just icing on the sentencing cake. He didn't read it for fun, and move on. He called two very busy and critically important pals in the middle of a bigtime campaign and reserved a hotel room near Trump's, for a face meeting. And he knew who she was.
Because this is what every lawyer tells everybody: Don't tell anything. Really? What I have heard is that she is nobody, the meeting was boring loss of time. Why you think the stuff about Clinton was not legally obtainable? Why do you think Trump Jr. has known this? Why you think Trump Jr. should care? Should all the newspapers have cared about the info obtained by Snowden were obtained illegally? I think they have done a good job not to care, legal or not. You think otherwise? And don't forget that my problem is not if it is illegal or not. It is §19 UDHR that everyone has the right ... to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers. I know that this is only a propaganda paper irrelevant for the US real law, a lot of laws violate human rights, everywhere, in Germany too, and where I live most of the time even more. I just make fun of you defending how your own rights are blatantly violated.
justanidlethought: russiagate hmmm russiagait does the average Russian walk faster or slower than the average American? Length of stride? Does footwear have a part in this?
In addition, we do not know whether or not she gave him info. So far it's just their claims - and people who will go to jail if the truth comes out will often lie. And often they lie anyway; keep in mind this administration is the most dishonest administration in recent history, with 69% of Trump's statements either mostly false, false or 'pants on fire' per Politifact.
Or merely agreed to release it later when it would do damage, after receiving some quo in the form of platform changes and language in speeches and propaganda focusing - assurances that Trump would play ball once elected.
But not cheat and steal, as is the issue here. Not take bribes or blackmail threats from foreign powers when promised, under oath mind, under contract both legal and handshake, to represent the American people. They were obsessed by the matter, in the US. They talked of almost nothing else about the case - to the exclusion of dealing with the information revealed, most of the time. Because I am informed in the matter of the history of Clinton - all the legal stuff is public info as of decades ago and ever since. She has been hounded by the best investigators billionaires can buy her entire adult life. And because it is coming from the Russian mob/government - whose legal resources in gathering such information are far inferior to those available to American billionaires. And because Junior did not ask. And because Junior hid his involvement, and so did every other principal. Meanwhile, it's almost irrelevant. Junior broke the law if every item in the info he received was photocopied from yesterday's newspaper. Too funny - now your ears have gone the way of of your eyes. Wo bist du indeed - you can't even play. (You have never had a working sense of smell, so you're down to taste and touch - the question now being: if Putin's and Trump's fascism bit you in the ass, would you feel it?).
Trump Jr. was cheated. What has he stolen? Which oath has he taken to represent something else than a private firm? So they have published info which has been stolen? And this was ok? Ok, you may know it, if you are an insider from the Clinton team or so. But Trump Jr. was obliged to know it? He could not think that the info promised in the cheat - Clinton having done something discrediting her in relations with Russia, or with Russian oligarchs, so that the Russian investigators could have got legal access to the facts by asking these oligarchs - is plausible? Maybe their sources are inferior to those of billionaires in the US. But not in Russia. That billionaire or so who bought key parts of American nuclear industry or so (don't remember the details), who can tell what was necessary to arrange this, is inaccessible to Russian investigators? Again, it is always the best strategy not to tell anything to any investigators, as long as you can do this. Simply because everything you tell will be used against you. Baby talk disposed.
Junior was acting as an agent of his father's campaign for President. In that capacity he broke several laws in an attempt to cheat and rob (via swindle) the American people by agreeing to arrange for their President to be compromised, bribed, vulnerable to blackmail, and representing the interests of a foreign power (as well as that private firm) rather than the American citizenry and Constitution. They cared about the legality. A lot. You claimed they didn't. They did. You made a false claim. I corrected it. Any informed American knows that, and anyone campaigning against Clinton has faced that as a central fact immediately. Nothing that Trump's (or other Russian-connected and Republican enemies of Clinton over the past thirty years) own asking of Russian oligarchs would not have revealed already, in the normal course of events. And we know he didn't ask. And we know what information was released, later, to damage Clinton. And we know some of the steps that were taken, afterwards, that benefitted Putin. And we know - because you have been reminded four times now - that all of that makes no difference whatsoever: Junior broke the law if all he got for his trouble was a photocopy of a day old newspaper.
That means, it is legal to publish (and, that means, to seek and receive) information which was stolen? Fine. This was my point. They have published (after seeking and receiving) information Snowden has stolen from NSA, and, you say, they have cared about legality, thus, it was legal. Fine. LOL. Any informed American knows that Clinton has never never done anything illegal, or simply compromising her, in their relations with Russians. And everything Clinton has done was so obviously highly moral and without any doubt legal, that even Trump Jr. cannot claim, in an attempt to defend himself, that he has not aware about the complete innocence of Holy Hillary. YMMD. I have not expected that playing devil's (sorry, Trump Jr.'s) advocate may be that funny.
Why are you chasing this rabbit? This has nothing to do with Junior's lawbreaking. It is legal to publish a newspaper. It is not legal to agree to accept bribes and influence goods from foreign governments when running for President. Taking bribes and emoluments from foreign governments when seeking public office is cheating and stealing and breaking the law. That's the opposite of what I said. You got it backwards. (You also appear to have forgotten the argument you were trying to make, or set it aside. And you continue to obsess over whether the bribe goods Junior agreed to accept from a foreign government were legally obtained. It's this trivial thing you insist on being naive about (they weren't legally obtained, that's obvious and irrelevant and was proven later) and who knows why? ) But dismissing the trivia: One reason you got it backwards, if we assume you aren't simply lying, is that you don't know anything about Clinton's public history - so you think people who do have heard about nothing but innocence and so forth. You make false assumptions in ignorance. The reason you don't know anything about Clinton's public history is that you explicitly refuse to learn, and instead insist on swallowing crude propaganda from professional American media manipulators. Which is stupidity on your part. Unless you're lying about that. Are they lying, or are they stupid - the eternal question when dealing with American fascist propaganda spewers.
It becomes comical. The press seeks, receives, and distributes without hesitation, in a completely legal way, information obtained illegally by Snowden, a guy hiding from US justice in Russia, stolen from NSA, information which discredits the NSA, the US, the actual government, really harms it internationally (think about Merkel's phone). That's fine. Trump Jr. seeks information which allows to discredit a person without any function in actual government, simply a candidate. At that time, he has not known anything important about the information, except that it discredits Clinton, and comes from Russia. The aim was the same - to publish the info in one way or another, so that the public learns about what Clinton has done. Much more harmless, given that it was not about what Obama or the NSA or someone actually in government has done, but only what some participant in an election has done. This is evil, illegal, horrible, named "taking bribes and emoluments from foreign governments". (Hillary's campaign doing the same against Manafort in cooperation with the fascist Ukrainian government is, instead, fine.) I understand, you fight your political enemy by all means, and "all means" includes far-fetched interpretations of laws to imprison the enemy. The enemies of American government (that's me) can take popcorn (no, I don't eat such American ..., only metaphorically) and observe how fighting each other the two factions discredit themselves. Both. I start to wish you success imprisoning Trump Jr., because this would discredit American justice in the eyes of observers all over the world, as well as the Americans themselves. And the most funny thing is that all the left is fighting now for the replacement of Trump with Pence. Seriously, the left fighting for Pence.
ergo the gate vs gait thing above ................. "Seriously, the left fighting for Pence." "comical" cannot describe the absolute absurdity of the actions.
