You didn’t read the article I quoted, did you? Not even the part of the article that I quoted right there in post #560? Here - I’ll quote that part again:
The article, which pre-dates Junior’s admission, deals with the hacking situation. But the point is - there is a law on the books barring foreign nationals from providing assistance in US elections.
Junior, at the request of some Russian dude he met in connection with the Moscow Miss Universe pageant, went to a meeting seeking to receive campaign assistance from foreign nationals. He brought along his brother-in-law and his dad’s campaign manager - all of this at a time when the Russians were actively engaged in hacking our election information and leaking damaging info to Wikileaks.
You’ve mistaken “informational items” for “information.” They are not the same thing.
The exception made for “Informational items” means that the government-employee recipient can’t be held to have received ‘something of value’ when what they got was a pamphlet or brochure or DVD that explains the program or organization or whatever is being promoted by the person who hands the government employee that pamphlet or brochure or DVD.
This is to prevent government employees from being accused have having received (essentially) a bribe because Joe Blow, representative of PleaseGiveUsTheContract Papergoods Inc., handed the government employee a DVD which makes the case that PGUTC Papergoods is the best company for whatever needs the government employee has been instructed to fulfill by finding a suitable vendor.
This is nothing whatsoever to do with the question of whether information provided to a campaign was of value to that campaign. The policy you cite offers no protection to campaign associates who seek to receive such information.
We’re not learning anything from you, just as you certainly aren’t learning anything from us.
The reason we respond is not to learn, it’s to prevent lines of argument like that to be taken as true by others who might read them. You don’t leave them uncontested.
“It looks pretty damn bad” to whom? The Democrat collective who willingly accept any anti-Trump rant as “a profession of faith” that something illegal/unsavory/fattening/scary/un-democratic must have taken place?
Personally, I’ll wait for the results of an official investigation before I get any exercise jumping to conclusions. YMMV.
Some people do. Some people request that others should leave arguments uncontested. Some people actually follow that advice. Oh well, life goes on regardless.
Also - for the record, the guy who set up the meeting with Veselnitskaya is music producer Rob Goldstone, who works with a Russian pop star whose dad is a big-money developer who produced that infamous Miss Universe 2013.
(scroll down - this is at the end of the article)
Remember again that “discussing child adoptions” is actually about discussing lifting the Magnitsky act sanctions, which is tying up Russian oligarch money. Putin imposed the end of Russian adoptions in retaliation for impelenting the Magnitsky act.
Goldstone doesn’t mention Clinton or telling Junior that he set up the meeting because he had someone who wanted discuss Russian dirt on Hillary. Goldstone says it was all about the Russian sanctions.
It’s possible that Junior is lying about going to meet Veselnitskaya because he knew that discussing the Magnitsky act before the election was verboten. So he made up an excuse about getting Russian dirt on Clinton, not realizing it was opening a whole different can of worms.
We thank you for the opportunity to read the outline for your proposed “political thriller” novel. We regret to advise that it is our opinion that the plotline is ridiculous, and reads like something Ian Fleming would have been ashamed to publish. We wish you much success in any other endeavor, please forget our address.
Let’s just say there’s a time for using hard power and her use of soft power might give rise to such a decision. As long as there isn’t too much vodka involved in which case it’s soft power all round.
Membership lists and mailing lists given as examples aren’t of value because the paper they are printed on or the disks they’re written to are so expensive. They are of value because of the information they contain.
Some people request that others should leave arguments uncontested. Some people actually follow that advice. Oh well, life goes on regardless.