Trump: Nothing wrong with accepting dirt from foreign governments on opponents

[attrayant]

29 minutes ago, usviphotography said:

Oh, I see, so it is perfectly acceptable to pay for a foreigner

 

I am going to stop reading right there because you still have not formed an accurate understanding of reality.  No candidate "paid a foreigner" any more than you paid a foreigner when you bought coffee at Starbucks.

 

 

Quote

If Trump Jr. had simply hired a law firm to listen to this woman's story

 

It still would have been wrong, because (in your hypothetical) he was aware of the foreigner's offer and hired a law firm specifically to act as cover for his desire to get information from a foreign national.

 

 

Quote

BTW- there is no law in America making any of this illegal.  

 

 

Caution - reading the following may severely damage your ignorance:

 

Prohibition on contributions, donations, expenditures, independent expenditures, and disbursements by foreign nationals (52 U.S.C. 30121, 36 U.S.C. 510)

 

A foreign national shall not, directly or indirectly, make a contribution or a donation of money or other thing of value, or expressly or impliedly promise to make a contribution or a donation, in connection with any Federal, State, or local election.

 

 

A solicitation is an oral or written communication that, construed as reasonably understood in the context in which it is made, contains a clear message asking, requesting, or recommending that another person make a contribution, donation, transfer of funds, or otherwise provide anything of value.

 

Were you really not aware of this statute, as much as it has been in the news over the past two years?

 

Quote

If Piers Morgan went directly to Hillary Clinton herself and said, "I have damaging videos of Trump and I snorting coke off strippers asses" there is no law that would make that conversation illegal nor is there any law that would bar Clinton from paying him to get the tape.

 

 

That would be illegal under 52 U.S.C. 30121.  Many legal experts have weighed in on this:
 

Can it be a crime to do opposition research by asking foreigners for information?

 

Say that, in Summer 2016, a top Hillary Clinton staffer gets a message: “A Miss Universe contestant — Miss Slovakia — says that Donald Trump had sexually harassed her. Would you like to get her story?” The staffer says, “I’d love to,” and indeed gets the information, which he then uses in the campaign. Did the staffer and the Miss Universe contestant just commit a crime? 

 

If you want to find out the answer, click the link and read the legal analysis.  If you prefer to stay blissfully ignorant, then just keep flapping your gums without reading anything that might challenge your beliefs.

 

 

 

[heybruce]

12 hours ago, TopDeadSenter said:

Trump is right, again. In light of the extreme and unending( some would argue unhinged)resistance to his legitimate rule, he needs to use every arrow in his quiver. These are not normal times.

 

 Also good to see Trump riding roughshod over the FBI. I had expected after they lost all credibility in the last few years with their partisan politics games that Trump would replace the agency lock, stock and barrel. Maybe in his 2nd term there will be time for this?

 

6 hours ago, Boon Mee said:

 Yes, Trump's up coming second term will allow him more flexibility. Those with OTT TDS will have marginalized themselves to the point no one pays them the time of day. 

OK, that's two votes for an imperial, above the law President.  I suppose the next step is to have government officials pledge loyalty to Trump instead of the constitution.

[heybruce]

5 hours ago, mtls2005 said:

"Norway, if you're listening".

 

Weird that he derides the STeele Dossier in one tweet, then says he'd accept something similar.

 

The takeaway here is that Don Jr. took the Fifth during Grand Jury testimony - and we all know what Dad thinks about wiseguys who take the fifth, hint: they're guilty - and trump knows this will come out so he's burning the ground to make junior's crimes seem well, less criminal.

The Steele Dossier was paid research from a respected source who had contacts in Russia.  That is legal.

 

What Trump is stating is that he can accept "free" help from a foreign government, which is illegal.

[heybruce]

2 hours ago, pedro01 said:

PMSL - at all the anti-Trumpers here.

 

He's baiting you. Where do you think the Steele dossier came from? LA?

 

He's calling you out on your hypocrisy!

 

2 hours ago, pedro01 said:

 

wow TYT videos now down to 47k.

 

Way below de-monetised Steven Crowder....

 

TYT Took the bait. The investigation into Trump during the 2016 elections was all based on foreign intel.

 

You can put your faux outrage aside now. You have been Trumped!

 

#Winning

No, the investigation against Trump was based on Russian interference in the election which largely took place on social media read or watched in the US.  Stop lying about the origins.

1 hour ago, usviphotography said:

Please remind me again what country Christopher Steele is from? The hypocrisy from the Left is simply mind boggling. Their candidate paid a foreigner for dirt on their opponent. Meanwhile they go crazy because Trump's son merely listened to a foreigner who, unsolicited, came to him with claims that Clinton was taking illegal contributions. 

Paying a qualified person to conduct research is legal.  Accepting help from a foreign government is illegal.  It's amazing that so many people pretend to not understand the difference.

1 hour ago, Thingamabob said:

All politicians would welcome such info. Difference is that Trump openly admits to it.

You have no evidence that all politicians would welcome such info, and I don't believe it.  Admitting to a willingness to commit a crime does not make it less of a crime.

[Tug]

Donald foes don’t need any help smearing him he steps in it every day what is surprising is how many marks believe him 

[heybruce]

37 minutes ago, usviphotography said:

Oh, I see, so it is perfectly acceptable to pay for a foreigner to dig up dirt on your opponent so long as you enlist a third party go between! If Trump Jr. had simply hired a law firm to listen to this woman's story, and then had the law firm report to him what she said, then everything would have been awesome! You people are something else.

 

 BTW- there is no law in America making any of this illegal. If Piers Morgan went directly to Hillary Clinton herself and said, "I have damaging videos of Trump and I snorting coke off strippers asses" there is no law that would make that conversation illegal nor is there any law that would bar Clinton from paying him to get the tape. What is being alleged by the Left, and this was a new invention of the 2016 election cycle, is that it is somehow unethical or unseemly or otherwise unpatriotic to ever accept such information from a foreigner. The entire thing is complete bullshit, which is why Clinton's campaign displayed no qualms whatsoever in enlisting the aid of British Spy to gather stories from various Ukrainians and Russians to smear Trump. 

You are once again posting lies and disinformation.  Atrayant has very decisively called you out.  I expect you to disappear from this thread and pop up on another thread with your lies and disinformation.

 

It appears that the Russian troll farm has expanded to TV.

[Tug]

I to suspect a bit of bot and or trolls here

[usviphotography]

8 minutes ago, heybruce said:

 

Paying a qualified person to conduct research is legal.  Accepting help from a foreign government is illegal.  It's amazing that so many people pretend to not understand the difference.

 

First, there is no allegation of accepting help from a "foreign government" on either side, so let's set that aside completely. What is at issue is whether there is a difference between merely listening to a foreigner's claim of wrongdoing by a particular candidate vs paying somebody to listen and then report back to you on a foreigner's claim of wrongdoing by a particular candidate. There are so many people that pretend not to understand the difference because functionally, there is no difference If anything, the paying aspect makes it far worse as it displays active solicitation and the third party go between could be seen as an attempt to cover ones tracks make it more difficult to trace it back it back to the campaign. 

[usviphotography]

23 minutes ago, heybruce said:

You are once again posting lies and disinformation.  Atrayant has very decisively called you out.  I expect you to disappear from this thread and pop up on another thread with your lies and disinformation.

 

It appears that the Russian troll farm has expanded to TV.

I'm simply posting the truth, which hurts. I've already embarrassed you once in a separate thread and am getting the strong impression you may be a bot or a troll but I guess I'll have to do it again. Why don't you try actually reading what Atrayant posted? It simply says that there is one Election Law Professor who thinks the plain language of a particular statute makes any conversation between a campaign and a foreigner illegal. This is an extreme interpretation, as it would pretty much mean every American Presidential Campaign in history violated the law. Moreover, if you continue reading till the end, you'd see that even if this extreme interpretation were accepted as the correct reading of the statute by the Courts, the statute itself would almost certainly then be declared Unconstitutional because of America's 1st Amendment. 

 

 

[heybruce]

51 minutes ago, usviphotography said:

First, there is no allegation of accepting help from a "foreign government" on either side, so let's set that aside completely. What is at issue is whether there is a difference between merely listening to a foreigner's claim of wrongdoing by a particular candidate vs paying somebody to listen and then report back to you on a foreigner's claim of wrongdoing by a particular candidate. There are so many people that pretend not to understand the difference because functionally, there is no difference If anything, the paying aspect makes it far worse as it displays active solicitation and the third party go between could be seen as an attempt to cover ones tracks make it more difficult to trace it back it back to the campaign. 

First, there is most definitely an allegation of accepting help from a foreign government.  That is what the Trump Tower meeting was about and why Don Jr is in trouble.  That is what Trump said he would accept.  More disinformation on your part.

 

Information, especially information from a country such as Russia, is never free.  There is a quid pro quo expected.  Even if that were not the case, the fact that Russia would have induced a candidate to accept illegal information would give Russia material with which to blackmail the candidate.  There is no such risk or expectation of future favors with legal paid for information.

 

 

[heybruce]

48 minutes ago, usviphotography said:

I'm simply posting the truth, which hurts. I've already embarrassed you once in a separate thread and am getting the strong impression you may be a bot or a troll but I guess I'll have to do it again. Why don't you try actually reading what Atrayant posted? It simply says that there is one Election Law Professor who thinks the plain language of a particular statute makes any conversation between a campaign and a foreigner illegal. This is an extreme interpretation, as it would pretty much mean every American Presidential Campaign in history violated the law. Moreover, if you continue reading till the end, you'd see that even if this extreme interpretation were accepted as the correct reading of the statute by the Courts, the statute itself would almost certainly then be declared Unconstitutional because of America's 1st Amendment. 

 

No, you are posting lies and disinformation.  You've never embarrassed me (if you disagree, show me the post in which this happened), I have consistently called you out for lies and disinformation and you have disappeared from the thread.

 

Attrayant referenced this source:  https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/11/110.20

It gives the text of the applicable law.  That is not the opinion, extreme or otherwise of "one Election Law Professor".  Good luck getting the statute declared unconstitutional.

[joecoolfrog]

5 hours ago, jingjai9 said:

I think Trump is talking about what people really do. Whether it is right or wrong is a separate issue. How many people or governments would not at least listen to get information if they were comfortable with the source, for example an elected or appointed official or intelligence agent (domestic or foreign). The bigger issue is in deciding if the information is credible and what do do with it. As of now, the collusion thing is dead in the water unless more facts come up.  What about that dossier on Trump from the British intelligence officer - fact or fantasy??????

 

I disagree with Trump 98% of the time but he does posess a spontaneity rare in most politicians. However he cannot place issues in a solid political or historical context and this makes him look like a buffoon. He seems to apply a handful of superlatives to anything he talks about ofen repeating a sentence or phrase for emphasis or perhaps it is lack of rhetorical skills.

 

That happens when ones degree is from Trump university...

[parallaxtech]

So, nothing illegal about Hillary and Obama paying Fusion GPS for the phony Steele dossier?

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/oct/24/dnc-clinton-campaign-paid-fusion-gps-Trump-dossier/

https://thefederalist.com/2017/10/29/obamas-campaign-gave-972000-law-firm-funneled-money-fusion-gps/

 

And nothing wrong with taking the same discredited dossier to get a FISA warrant?

https://edition.cnn.com/2017/04/18/politics/fbi-dossier-carter-page-donald-trump-russia-investigation/index.html 

https://thefederalist.com/2018/02/03/5-things-fbi-never-told-fisa-court-trump-dossier/  

 

Anyone willing to take a bet that at least ten individuals within the FBI, CIA, and DOS will be under arrest before the impeachment decision is made by Congress?

[pedro01]

4 minutes ago, parallaxtech said:

So, nothing illegal about Hillary and Obama paying Fusion GPS for the phony Steele dossier?

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/oct/24/dnc-clinton-campaign-paid-fusion-gps-Trump-dossier/

https://thefederalist.com/2017/10/29/obamas-campaign-gave-972000-law-firm-funneled-money-fusion-gps/

 

And nothing wrong with taking the same discredited dossier to get a FISA warrant?

https://edition.cnn.com/2017/04/18/politics/fbi-dossier-carter-page-donald-trump-russia-investigation/index.html 

https://thefederalist.com/2018/02/03/5-things-fbi-never-told-fisa-court-trump-dossier/  

 

Anyone willing to take a bet that at least ten individuals within the FBI, CIA, and DOS will be under arrest before the impeachment decision is made by Congress?

 

Lefties are jumping through hoops on this.

 

Without realizing that Trump is holding the hoop to begin with.

 

Bottom line is the Steele dossier was compiled by a British Intel agent based on info from the Russians.

 

So yes - it's the same - which is why this pre-arranged question was answered in a pre-arranged manner by Trump. Now - before you all go off on Trump again, I'd like to remind you of the fact, he's not a 1 man army - he has advisors, accountants, speech writers - all that stuff - so a lot of the stuff out of his mouth or on his balance sheets - isn't actually from him.

 

 

[meand]

When the only argument against a very stupid move is "but but the other guy did a dumb thing too!" you know the battle is far lost before it has begun.

 

It would be like a golfer missing  6 inch putt to win the masters and claiming "i did not choke another golfer missed a putt of that length to lose the master too".

 

what a joke of a response. you need help if this is your argument. 

 

the thread here is "president said it is ok to take info from adversarial enemies"... now, be a grown up and discuss why that is ok, or not ok... not, "but but but hilary".

[JHolmesJr]

All this weary crap over a hypothetical question....makes you wonder if the dems are worried about 

some real dirt foreign govts may have on their boy Biden leaking out.

[bristolboy]

4 minutes ago, JHolmesJr said:

All this weary crap over a hypothetical question....makes you wonder if the dems are worried about 

some real dirt foreign govts may have on their boy Biden leaking out.

It's not the question that's the problem. It's the answer.

[usviphotography]

52 minutes ago, heybruce said:

No, you are posting lies and disinformation.  You've never embarrassed me (if you disagree, show me the post in which this happened), I have consistently called you out for lies and disinformation and you have disappeared from the thread.

 

Attrayant referenced this source:  https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/11/110.20

It gives the text of the applicable law.  That is not the opinion, extreme or otherwise of "one Election Law Professor".  Good luck getting the statute declared unconstitutional.

 

Oh, good, you post a link to a statute. What a genius. The question here is how to interpret a "thing of value". No one has ever been prosecuted under the theory that talking to a foreigner translates to a thing of value. If it were interpreted that way, then practically ever campaign of the modern era would have been guilty of violating the law. So I don't need "good luck" in getting this statute declared unconstitutional because no prosecutor has ever even been so bold as to launch a case based on the type of interpretation of the statute the professor in the article cites. If it ever happens, I'd be quite happy to take a bet on whether it will survive Constitutional scrutiny.

 

And yes, an interpreting a statute in a way that it has never been interpreted in history is by definition an "extreme interpretation". The professor in the article is essentially pointing out what he feels is a flaw in the statute. He's saying that as written, it violates the First Amendment because he feels that "thing of value" could include speech. Of course, the author doesn't frame it that way because instead he wants to provide breadcrumbs for Russian Hoax readers such as yourself though in fairness the headline does sort of imply that theory promoted by the author would have crazy implications. 

[Trouble]

14 hours ago, stevenl said:

So you don't mind foreign governments interfering as long as it suits you.

IF, and I say if, information becomes available that indicates anything detrimental to any candidate running for any office which might negate voters wanting to elect that candidate then the information should be made public. Whether it comes from a U.S. citizen or a foreign source is irrelevant if the information is accurate. It's information and the source of the information should not matter.  The FBI, and all law enforcement take evidence from where ever they can get it, foreign sources included. Why all of a sudden it is a problem if someone is to use information from a foreign source/government?  It seems that somehow the current logic is that if Trump receives information from a foreign source it's not right but if Hillary contracts for opposition research on Trump through an American company but comes through a British retired intelligence agent who gets information from Russian sources, all of which is false, it's okay. Logic like this astounds me. The fact of the matter is that if information is accurate, it should not matter where it comes from. In my mind if a foreign government/individual has factual information the public should know about it. What happened to Trump with the false dossier would not have been such a big deal, if it had not been the FBI, Justice Department, State Department, etc. that seemed to be using it to thwart Trump from being elected. It wasn't the dossier itself, it was the use of it by people in the government, who knew it to be false, to influence things that is abhorrent.

[usviphotography]

30 minutes ago, meand said:

When the only argument against a very stupid move is "but but the other guy did a dumb thing too!" you know the battle is far lost before it has begun.

 

Nobody is pointing out that the other person did a "dumb thing too". They are disputing that it is a dumb thing to begin with first of all, and second they are pointing out the opposing campaign did an even more extreme version of the same thing you are complaining about and yet you have given them no grief whatsoever. 

 

If a Canadian lawyer in house lawyer were to come to Joe Biden and say, "hey, you know what- the CEO of my company has been illegally contributing to the Trump campaign" Bernie Sanders campaign is not "dumb" to hear him out. That is what a reasonable person does. If Angela Merkel, in her many talks with Barack Obama, gave him advice on how to defeat what she views as the dangerous rise in Nationalism in America he is not being a dummy if he politely listens rather than running out of the room in a panic.

 

As Trump points out, the entire premise of the criticism is wrong. And beyond that, even if you don't think the premise is wrong, you should be spending a lot more time cleaning out your own houses than harping on Trump.  

[bristolboy]

50 minutes ago, pedro01 said:

 

Lefties are jumping through hoops on this.

 

Without realizing that Trump is holding the hoop to begin with.

 

Bottom line is the Steele dossier was compiled by a British Intel agent based on info from the Russians.

 

So yes - it's the same - which is why this pre-arranged question was answered in a pre-arranged manner by Trump. Now - before you all go off on Trump again, I'd like to remind you of the fact, he's not a 1 man army - he has advisors, accountants, speech writers - all that stuff - so a lot of the stuff out of his mouth or on his balance sheets - isn't actually from him.

 

 

So it's his accountants who compose his tweets? Give us a break.

[heybruce]

1 hour ago, parallaxtech said:

So, nothing illegal about Hillary and Obama paying Fusion GPS for the phony Steele dossier?

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/oct/24/dnc-clinton-campaign-paid-fusion-gps-Trump-dossier/

https://thefederalist.com/2017/10/29/obamas-campaign-gave-972000-law-firm-funneled-money-fusion-gps/

 

And nothing wrong with taking the same discredited dossier to get a FISA warrant?

https://edition.cnn.com/2017/04/18/politics/fbi-dossier-carter-page-donald-trump-russia-investigation/index.html 

https://thefederalist.com/2018/02/03/5-things-fbi-never-told-fisa-court-trump-dossier/  

 

Anyone willing to take a bet that at least ten individuals within the FBI, CIA, and DOS will be under arrest before the impeachment decision is made by Congress?

Your sources show nothing illegal about paying for the Fussion GPS research and don't show that including the dossier in the FISA warrant was wrong, or that the dossier was the only justification for the warrant.

 

So what is your point?

 

If you mean ten individuals are under arrest for the Russia investigation, they yes, I would like to take that bet.  But I don't trust you to pay off when you lose.

[heybruce]

1 hour ago, pedro01 said:

 

Lefties are jumping through hoops on this.

 

Without realizing that Trump is holding the hoop to begin with.

 

Bottom line is the Steele dossier was compiled by a British Intel agent based on info from the Russians.

 

So yes - it's the same - which is why this pre-arranged question was answered in a pre-arranged manner by Trump. Now - before you all go off on Trump again, I'd like to remind you of the fact, he's not a 1 man army - he has advisors, accountants, speech writers - all that stuff - so a lot of the stuff out of his mouth or on his balance sheets - isn't actually from him.

As has been explained repeatedly, paying for research is legal.  Accepting "free" assistance from a foreign government is illegal. 

 

Your stubborn refusal to accept a simple concept speaks poorly of you.

[heybruce]

1 hour ago, JHolmesJr said:

All this weary crap over a hypothetical question....makes you wonder if the dems are worried about 

some real dirt foreign govts may have on their boy Biden leaking out.

There is nothing hypothetical about what Trump said.  Your speculation about Biden is hypothetical.

[heybruce]

1 hour ago, usviphotography said:

 

Oh, good, you post a link to a statute. What a genius. The question here is how to interpret a "thing of value". No one has ever been prosecuted under the theory that talking to a foreigner translates to a thing of value. If it were interpreted that way, then practically ever campaign of the modern era would have been guilty of violating the law. So I don't need "good luck" in getting this statute declared unconstitutional because no prosecutor has ever even been so bold as to launch a case based on the type of interpretation of the statute the professor in the article cites. If it ever happens, I'd be quite happy to take a bet on whether it will survive Constitutional scrutiny.

 

And yes, an interpreting a statute in a way that it has never been interpreted in history is by definition an "extreme interpretation". The professor in the article is essentially pointing out what he feels is a flaw in the statute. He's saying that as written, it violates the First Amendment because he feels that "thing of value" could include speech. Of course, the author doesn't frame it that way because instead he wants to provide breadcrumbs for Russian Hoax readers such as yourself though in fairness the headline does sort of imply that theory promoted by the author would have crazy implications. 

The issue isn't talking to a foreigner.  The issue is accepting an offer of useful information from a foreign government regarding a political opponent.   That is something of value and clearly illegal.  That is what Trump Jr agreed to and what Trump Sr. said he would do.

 

Face it, you are condoning criminal activity in the White House.

[heybruce]

1 hour ago, Trouble said:

IF, and I say if, information becomes available that indicates anything detrimental to any candidate running for any office which might negate voters wanting to elect that candidate then the information should be made public. Whether it comes from a U.S. citizen or a foreign source is irrelevant if the information is accurate. It's information and the source of the information should not matter.  The FBI, and all law enforcement take evidence from where ever they can get it, foreign sources included. Why all of a sudden it is a problem if someone is to use information from a foreign source/government?  It seems that somehow the current logic is that if Trump receives information from a foreign source it's not right but if Hillary contracts for opposition research on Trump through an American company but comes through a British retired intelligence agent who gets information from Russian sources, all of which is false, it's okay. Logic like this astounds me. The fact of the matter is that if information is accurate, it should not matter where it comes from. In my mind if a foreign government/individual has factual information the public should know about it. What happened to Trump with the false dossier would not have been such a big deal, if it had not been the FBI, Justice Department, State Department, etc. that seemed to be using it to thwart Trump from being elected. It wasn't the dossier itself, it was the use of it by people in the government, who knew it to be false, to influence things that is abhorrent.

" Why all of a sudden it is a problem if someone is to use information from a foreign source/government? "

 

Because, as has been explained, it is illegal.  Getting a candidate to accept illegal assistance leaves that candidate vulnerable to blackmail.

 

If someone has valuable information about any or all candidates in an election, that information can be given to the media, or posted on the internet, or printed on flyers and dropped from a helicopter.  It can be disseminated in many legal ways.  However a candidate can not legally accept it.  Got it?

[usviphotography]

3 minutes ago, heybruce said:

The issue isn't talking to a foreigner.  The issue is accepting an offer of useful information from a foreign government regarding a political opponent.   That is something of value and clearly illegal.  That is what Trump Jr agreed to and what Trump Sr. said he would do.

 

Face it, you are condoning criminal activity in the White House.

Trump Jr. talked to a foreign lawyer, not a "foreign government". So that is a straight up lie.

 

And the idea that Theresa May telling Trump that say, Biden raped a girl in Manchester once and had the local police cover it up would be "illegal" rests on a expansive interpretation of the law that has never in American history ever actually been applied to a campaign. So while we can't give you the full liar, liar, pants on fire rating for that, it is certainly misleading. 

[heybruce]

1 hour ago, usviphotography said:

Nobody is pointing out that the other person did a "dumb thing too". They are disputing that it is a dumb thing to begin with first of all, and second they are pointing out the opposing campaign did an even more extreme version of the same thing you are complaining about and yet you have given them no grief whatsoever. 

 

If a Canadian lawyer in house lawyer were to come to Joe Biden and say, "hey, you know what- the CEO of my company has been illegally contributing to the Trump campaign" Bernie Sanders campaign is not "dumb" to hear him out. That is what a reasonable person does. If Angela Merkel, in her many talks with Barack Obama, gave him advice on how to defeat what she views as the dangerous rise in Nationalism in America he is not being a dummy if he politely listens rather than running out of the room in a panic.

 

As Trump points out, the entire premise of the criticism is wrong. And beyond that, even if you don't think the premise is wrong, you should be spending a lot more time cleaning out your own houses than harping on Trump.  

If your Canadian lawyer blurts out information on Biden's opponent to Biden without any preface, then Biden has done nothing illegal.  If the Canadian offers the information to Biden and Biden accepts and does not report it to the authorities, then Biden has done something illegal.  Biden has to agree to accept this exclusive information for free and not report it for it to become illegal.

 

This is not a difficult concept, at least not for most people.

[usviphotography]

1 minute ago, heybruce said:

If your Canadian lawyer blurts out information on Biden's opponent to Biden without any preface, then Biden has done nothing illegal.  If the Canadian offers the information to Biden and Biden accepts and does not report it to the authorities, then Biden has done something illegal.  Biden has to agree to accept this exclusive information for free and not report it for it to become illegal.

 

This is not a difficult concept, at least not for most people.

The statute (which again, has never, ever, in history been applied the way you are suggesting) says nothing about "reporting to authorities". I don't where you are pulling that from. If we assume your interpretation of the statue, then Biden reporting the conversation would simply constitute him informing on himself. 

[heybruce]

3 minutes ago, usviphotography said:

Trump Jr. talked to a foreign lawyer, not a "foreign government". So that is a straight up lie.

 

And the idea that Theresa May telling Trump that say, Biden raped a girl in Manchester once and had the local police cover it up would be "illegal" rests on a expansive interpretation of the law that has never in American history ever actually been applied to a campaign. So while we can't give you the full liar, liar, pants on fire rating for that, it is certainly misleading. 

Your first statement is a lie.  That is standard for you.  The email Trump Jr responded to with "I love it" stated:

 

"The Crown prosecutor of Russia^[a] met with his father Aras this morning and in their meeting offered to provide the Trump campaign with some official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father."

"This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump – helped along by Aras and Emin."  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_Tower_meeting

 

Will you now claim that the Crown prosecutor of Russia does not represent the Russian government?

 

The rest of your post, which ignores the "offer and acceptance" aspect of the illegal communications, is pointless.