(07-11-2017 04:39 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-11-2017 04:23 PM)Barrett Wrote:  Am I right in understanding that the latest revelation is that DT Jr. was enticed to meet with a Russian national who claimed to have information/documents that would hurt the Clinton campaign, and that the information/documents was being billed as having its origins with a member of the Russian government (the "Crown Prosecutor")? And that the claimed information ultimately didn't check out (i.e., there were no documents or information that were useful to the Trump campaign)?

If the above is true, then it certainly seems that DT Jr. had the intent to receive information from a foreign governmental source for the purpose of giving his father's campaign a political advantage. To me, whether the information/documents ultimately proved damning against the Clinton campaign or not is of no moment--much in the same way that a would-be drug buyer who is lured into a deal only to find out that the cocaine is actually flour can't find refuge in the fact that it wasn't really cocaine.

I guess it makes sense that there may be no law against getting information from a foreign government--even if it's a hostile one. Heck, if Vladimir Putin himself picks up the phone and tells Donald Trump that he happened to be walking down the street and witnessed Hillary Clinton strangle a puppy, I don't see how the Trump campaign's acceptance of such information and photos is illegal. Where it would become a problem, of course, is if the opposition research/information/documents were the product of espionage, which includes hacking.

OO, I know you don't believe any of the above actually took place, but just as a hypothetical, if the Trump campaign willingly set up meetings to receive opposition research that was the product of foreign espionage, I assume you would have an issue with it?

Key word is espionage. Was the hacking of the DNC or Podesta espionage?

In any case, there is this

"And they helped Clinton’s allies research damaging information on Trump and his advisers, a Politico investigation found."

Seems the pot is trying very hard to make a case that the kettle is black and should be censured for it.

I know the key word is espionage. I wrote the hypothetical. My question is, if the opposition research were the product of espionage, would you have an issue with it?