Are all his colleague's being set up by le elite? Or is he really a criminal???

The grassroots people are in complete denial and couldn't even begin to imagine that their leaders would lie and cheat like this. Their fucking heads are going to explode when they have to accept the truth. I worry deeply for that time. It'll be funny, ofcourse, but cognitive dissonance does odd things to people. The hangover from this event will make or break America.

>marxist cunt actually preaching about morality

Wow.. I've seen it all.

He got tossed out of his residency. He's got the title of doctor but he's not licensed to practice medicine.

>manafort was a close friend of trumps
not a crime
>lived in his tower and was a known associate
not a crime
>his reputation was for being a middle man for doing scum fuck shit for Russia
not a crime
>bring him to be your campaign manager
not a crime
>and arrange a meeting to buy dirt on Clinton (illegal)
not a crime
>then lied about, then said it sorta happened, now it totally happened
not even true, also not a crime.

Pathetic.

Shouldn't he not be able to wear the white coat then?

It's like stolen valour but for Doctors.

Stolen valour isn't actually illegal in any way and nobody can stop anyone from wearing an army uniform regardless of whether they served. It's just a cunty thing to do. If you try and force someone to take the uniform off you can be charged with a crime yourself.

>all
>thinking a man who had never held political office before his first term as President is going to be found guilty of any political crimes

Attached: 1533770825017.jpg (495x618, 247K)

It's illegal to fraudulently claim to be a veteran for any tangible gain.

That is wrong

Tangible gain, yes. If you are in a shop and ask for a veteran's discount then that is absolutely illegal, however, if you're just stood around like a tard, or walking in some parade, or trying to pick up a chick, there's nothing that anyone can do. I know it's a shitty thing to do and I'm not defending it but 90% of those youtube videos where veterans talk about 'stolen valor' being a felony is straight up wrong.

>Hillary not even charged after illegally trafficking classified information because "she didn't know it was illegal and wiped the data like with a cloth" after being first lady and secretary of state
>drumpf charged prosecuted and found guilty of being friends with the guy they went after with low level economic charges in an attempt to get dirt on drumpf

Attached: 1533780466740.png (286x386, 319K)

>why are all your associates in prison?
literally who

Yes there's selective prosecution. Does anyone not completely retarded think Hillary really didn't commit crimes as SoS? Or anybody connected with her and the server? Honestly? And that's just the obvious one. Dig into any of these long term government people and you'd find all sorts of shady shit.

Some stalker weirdo.

It's not, look it up. There WAS a law in 2005 which was struck down in 2012 by the supreme court as unconstitutional and against freedom of speech. You can't tell someone they're not allowed to wear a uniform or medals. They obtained the medals and uniform, they can wear it if they like. They had to rewrite the law in 2013 and Obama passed it. The new law states you can't gain a tangible benefit under the false pretence of serving or having served in the military, i.e. Get free VA benefits or vet discount.

Eugene Gu must be a uranium giver, capital shooter and ISIS supporter. I hope somebody shoots his unaware and compliant face off.

Eugene Gu beats women. None of trumps associates have been sentenced prison time

you do realize that Ellis is pushing for the case to move swiftly because he's leaning on the prosecution, which has the upper hand, this is an age old tactic employed by court rooms to keep the defense
1. happy
2. from stalling
3. from appealing

>gu?
This guy cant be a real practicing physician

Attached: 1533319237036.jpg (390x435, 24K)

Having a meeting isn’t illegal. Material assistance is in some cases but nothing was ever gained by the campaign. It’s a dead end to the “case”

Both. They are incredibly dumb, but they also need to believe the lies. Their entire world revolves around lies, and they aren't strong enough to accept even basic truths.

i think the more important question is how eugene gu is able to be the first comment on almost every tweet? doesn't he have patients to see? imagine trying to describe the lump on your testicle to your doctor who is meanwhile angrily tweeted the president about some goddamn bullshit

I don't believe he has ever actually practiced medicine. He got kicked out of his residency or something, so he isn't even really a doctor.

Everyone wears a white coat in the modern age, it’s kind of lost its meaning. Even nurses and social workers have “white coats” now

Used to be but I remember reading here he was let go because of his twitter shitposting.

Why do you believe them when they say nothing was gained from the meeting? first there was no meeting , then there was a meeting but it was about adoptions, and finally there was a meeting and it was to get dirt on hillary.

B-but hillary needed a win.
Dems make no sense and are all pedos anyway

There was a meeting which Trump didn't attend. It was to get dirt on Hillary, which is completely legal. If you can't get dirt on your opponent then the entire system collapses. What you're not allowed to do is say "hey Russia, if you hack the DNC and give us their emails we'll be your bitch when we're in power", that would be terribly illegal. That never happened, though. It's a complete fabrication. Trump's son met with some lawyer who happened to be Russian, who advised them about the Hillary campaign and gave them info regarding it. This is totally legal. This whole thing is huge scandal that was being used as a distraction by Hillary to muddy the waters, make Trump look bad and deflect from her Email deleting ways. She was going to brush it all under the rug when she won but she didn't win and now the whole thing has taken on a mind of its own. It's absolutely ridiculous and she should be hanged in public for being a traitorous cunt.

Did he actually reply to someone? He never replies.

They have been working to undermine him since the moment he declared he was running for president. Luckily he's the Teflon Don and nothing they throw at him sticks.

You dolt, learn to read law before you waste your time pretending to know anything about it.

law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/52/30121

it's a crime to solicit a foreign national to give anything of value to a campaign, or even to knowingly provide substantial assistance in receiving something of value.
To make matters worse the Russian National that you refer to as, 'some lawyer' was invited to Trump Tower by Trump Junior.

this is categorized as a base proposition that was offered, and knowingly accepted. This is basic solicitation, which is illegal.

I can't wait till this all comes out as spurious bullshit. You fuckers will all disappear.
You use the phrase 'Russian National' as if it's some sort of crime to be Russian. It's not. I already mentioned that the lawyer was a Russian, it's not a big deal. Also, ofcourse he was invited to the Tower by Trump Junior, these are busy people and the lawyer works for them, you don't just show up, you need an invitation, so that means nothing. The only thing you mentioned which came close to being relevant was solicitation, but the lawyer didn't receive anything other than the fact that he was on the payroll anyway. He didn't give them anything of value other than to talk about their campaign and give advice about Hillary. The while thing is bullshit.

Go ahead and prove that this guy gave them anything other than advice, or that he was paid for it, or that he works for Russia. I'll wait.

>a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election;
>(B) a contribution or donation to a committee of a political party; or
>(C) an expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication (within the meaning of section 30104(f)(3) of this title); or
>(2) a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) from a foreign national.

It's you who needs to learn how to read. This clearly states it's only material gifts, promises of material gifts or Electronic communication, that fall within the purview of this law.
Haha get fucked.

Nah check the time stamps.

your inability to understand basic law is showing. The term value does denote monetary value, if you read 52 U.S. Code § 30121 you'd understand that:

>a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election;

note
>or other thing of value
and
>implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election;
this contribution is, calls back to the previous identifier, OTHER THING OF VALUE

Learn to READ LAW

We have literally tried individuals for passing information under this exact code, 'other thing of value' has been used to identified ill-gotten information. You're arguing with a attorney right now, not some fucking antifa dyke living in California.

>it's a crime to solicit a foreign national to give anything of value to a campaign, or even to knowingly provide substantial assistance in receiving something of value.
So it was illegal to pay Steele for the dossier and it was also illegal for the Dems to pay the Russian National. Is that what you're arguing?

It's scummy but not illegal.

Paying a foreign national for opposition research is generally not illegal, that's a commercial transaction, which under U.S. Election Law isn't illegal. What Clinton did with Steele in considered a campaign expenditure, not a contribution. There was no sollicitation.

This grey area of law exists so that individuals can investigate other individuals who are involved in foreign businesses. If you and I were running in an election and you owned a plantation in some Africa country, say just South Africa, and there were rumours that you were using illegal pesticides that harmed humans or the environment, I can hire a P.I. in South Africa to investigate you without running into legal spikes.

Imagine how retarded you would have to be to think no campaign ever in the history of the Presidency received information from someone that wasn't American

In May 2017, Glenn A. Fine, the acting Defense Department Inspector General, confirmed he was investigating Michael Flynn for misleading Pentagon investigators about his income from companies in Russia and contacts with officials there when he applied for a renewal of his top-secret security clearance.[9] In October 2017, Paul Manafort and Rick Gates were indicted and arrested.[10] Flynn and George Papadopoulos pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI during the Russia investigation.

If advice is a 'thing of value' then I'm going to go to my local pub and speak to the drunks and collect it all and become the next Trump and buy myself a Russian hooker to piss in my mouth.
There's nothing wrong with speaking to a Lawyer about a political opponent, even if they are from another country. That's not a crime. At all.
Face it, you're just a stupid liberal who bought into the hype and desperately wants to IMPEACH DRUMPFTTTHH! Nobody is fucking buying it, dude. I don't give a fuck if you're an attorney, you're a two-bit hack with shoddy reasoning skills whose only defence is an appeal to his own authority.
>b-b-but I'm an attorney
And Hillary Clinton studied at Yale Law School and she turned out to be a decrepit, murderous old hag. Take your pretentious fucking degree and shove it right up your arse.
Trump is going to win in 2020 and you pedo-enabling retards are going to get the rope.

>fake news
>judge apologizes for making prosecutor cry

pick one ya fuckin glow in the dark brainlet

>Paying a foreign national for opposition research is generally not illegal,
WOW, HE GETS IT.

Everyone has the right to free speech, that doesn't mean what you're saying is factually correct or that you even understand that conversation you're trying to take part in.

You make perfect example of why direct democracy would be a terrible thing though. You're so uninformed and uneducated it hurts. You even attack me like I'm some boogey man, that to practice law and see faults in the President's defense that I have to be some liberal out to get him.

Y'know what, I'll just go out of my way to make my position, at least politically quite clear so that you're not confused.

I'm quite a big supporter of the Third Position, though not the bastardized demon that spawned in Italy and morphed into a mutation in both Germany and the United States. Fascism has incredible merits but like Communism will always naturally lead to a dictatorship. I quite like republics governed by thought, experts and not fucking feelings like what you people and the the far left have turned into.

I attack you because you're incredibly biased. You have no reason whatsoever to think that Trump has done anything illegal and yet you come here of all places to argue vehemently in favor of impeachment. We're not two people who have met in a bar and had a slight disagreement, you've come here to shill and your only justification for it is that you have a degree, so that makes it okay. What a crock of shit. I'd say you should know better but I've come to understand that higher education only teaches people to be full of themselves and very little else. I argue every point you make and you double down and then resort to calling me uneducated. You don't know anything about me. You come across as elitist and altogether loathsome.
I called you a liberal because the only people who act so smug and so sure of themselves and their own ignorance in this day and age are liberals. That's why Trump won and why he'll continue to win. When it comes out that this has all been for nothing I hope you'll do the honest thing and shoot yourself.

Information is not a "thing of value". You literally cannot attach a value to it.

First of all, purchasing, solicitation, and obtaining opposition research is 100% legal and protected by the 1st amendment. This is why Trump Jr. is clear and also why the Steele Dossier is okay.

Second of all, I don't recall the "thing of value" ever being successfully applied to a case. In any case, it's extremely easy for Trump Jr. to avoid this:
1. The "thing of value" was never even contributed to the Trump campaign in the first place
2. Trump Jr. can easily claim he intended to pay for the "thing of value," therefore, it is no longer a contribution, but instead, paid for product.

Stupid antifag baby lawyer btfo

Attached: 1533573813781.gif (380x365, 1.99M)

According to law, a "thing of value", at least in this case, is anything that can benefit the individual being solicited.

This isn't just how I personally infer it either, this is straight from the mouth of Uncle Sam itself, the U.S. government has purposely left this law as vague as possible and used the word 'value' so that it can pursue foreign agents and individuals it sees as it sees fit. Most laws of this nature are written this way purposely.

The law only prohibits receiving the "thing of value" as a contribution (from a foreign national).

So, just say you were going to pay for it. Then it's no longer a contribution (donation).

"All his associates." So, Manafort and that's it?

I can actually get you some records where 52 USC § 30121 was enforced, you'll just need to give me some time.

as for

>So, just say you were going to pay for it. Then it's no longer a contribution (donation).

That is a possible defense, but Don Jr would have to prove he hired the russian nationals and that would be easy to verify though campaign expenditures. It probably wouldn't be worth it anyways because there's some 'odd' legal trouble that you can get into when it comes to hiring individuals and even foreign firms for information, the biggest one, and the one that investigators would point to, is that the individuals Don Jr received information from were not hired to find this information and instead did it of their own volition, meaning they were acting in their own interests when they initially obtained this information.

To make it very plain and point out how 'nuanced' law is.

>Pay first, PI gets information, your get information
legal
>PI gets information, you pay, get information
illegal
>pi gets information, you get information
illegal

Like, I'm not here to try and smash the fash or go after evil donald drumpf, I'm just trying to explain to people what Mueller and his team are attempting to prove.

>PI gets information, you pay, get information
>illegal

I would like to here more information about this because it seems wrong. Even having a meeting to determine the nature of the information, without actually paying for it, even if you intended to, is illegal? That's seems like a stretch to me.

I wonder this a lot.

What percentage of lefties actually believe the Russia bullshit, and what percentage are just going along with it because it's convenient?

Sage this shit faggots

Lmao you don't even realize how dumb you are, Dunning Kruger at work

Attached: 1533649965062.png (700x734, 333K)

Who of them is in prison?

So we're speaking purely as if the PI was a foreign entity here, keep that in mind.

If an individual goes out of their way to investigate someone, they have to have a reason for doing it. People don't just do things for no reason.

If you pay an agent first the reason they investigated was because you paid them to do so, that makes their personal interests clear to any individual who looks through your campaign finances(in practice they only investigated the matter because you paid them to do so). So while, yeah, the person you paid could have been a ex-KGB agent who hates America and wants to kill the president, it's perfectly legal to pay them for the investigative skills

If this same KGB agent went out and got this information on his own and then presented to Person A and Person A decided to pay for it, Person A would no longer have been the driving force behind the agent's investigation and therefor the KGB agent would have unknown motivations for obtaining the information. Even if those motivations were money, we'd have no way to prove it in a court of law. That agent could have been paid first by the Kremlin or another third party looking to cause chaos.

this chink cuck already got BTFO by the trump curse

Attached: gu BTFO.jpg (1115x1184, 84K)

teflon don been on the payroll a looong time op

Not defending Gu because he's a bit of a loon, but those charges were dropped and expunged because they were obviously false. His wife was a nuttcase who was trying to take him for everything he was worth in their divorce and, surprise surprise, decided to claim she was assaulted and imprisoned in their home.

>If this same KGB agent went out and got this information on his own and then presented to Person A and Person A decided to pay for it, Person A would no longer have been the driving force behind the agent's investigation and therefor the KGB agent would have unknown motivations for obtaining the information. Even if those motivations were money, we'd have no way to prove it in a court of law. That agent could have been paid first by the Kremlin or another third party looking to cause chaos.

Hmm, I'm not thoroughly convinced with this scenario, I think there are still some 1st amendment problems here, and I think you've ignored them because you're consistently framing the Trump campaign or the KGB agent as the "bad guy."

You have no idea if the motivations are good or bad. The KGB agent could be the "good guy" who actually has serious dirt on Clinton. You cannot limit a campaign's ability to expose their opponents dirt because it would violate the 1st amendment, the American people's right to know if their candidate is a crook or not.

Or here's an example: China has compiled a bunch of data (e-mails and videos) that Trump is abusing workers at one of his properties. A chinese man comes to the US and e-mails the DNC and tells them they have the data. Are you saying that the DNC is completely barred from soliciting or purchasing the data? Don't the American people have the right to know that Trump abuses workers?

Hey guys, guess what. If you ever run for office but you have some really bad stuff you don't want anyone to know about what you should do is get your foreign friend, Ivan, to contact your opponent and tease them with the info. Once a meeting is set up, he simply asks for a cigarette, and then blurts the bad information out. Bingo! They just paid a foreign national for the secret info and if they ever try to use it they'll be implicating themselves in a criminal act.
CHECKMATE, FAGGOTS.

You're correct and wrong at the same time.

If the foreign agent would have gone on the internet and posted the information and Donald Trump or his sons reposted the information they'd be in the clear, they'd be protected, but that's not what happened. They had a conference behind closed doors with a foreign agent who offered information to them that they obtained through (at the time) unknown means for unknown reasons. If Trump would have paid the foreign agent before hand he'd be in the clear, but because the agent's motivations are unclear he can't legally touch the information.

I'm sorry I didn't address this more in my first post. Something else I didn't address was this.

>Even having a meeting to determine the nature of the information, without actually paying for it, even if you intended to, is illegal?

Yes and no. If you met with a foreign agent and all they told you was "We have dirt on Hillary Clinton, would you like to hear it?"

and you said no, and then informed the FBI you'd be clear. If you said yes, you'd be in some trouble.

The DNC does not have the right to purchase this information. Election Laws block them from doing so. This is what is considered as a foreign element attempting to interfere in our elections. The DNC has no clue what this Chinese person's motivation is and would have to, by law, refuse the offer and alert the FBI.

A news paper, an investigative team, or someone not properly affiliated with the GOP or DNC would be a proper buyer.

This is why Deep Throat didn't go to the DNC with his Nixon information and instead went to the press.

By the same logic Pro Democrat media did the same thing as many of the shareholders/workers are duel citizens.

*dual

By the way, something that might help you understand that I'm trying to be as objective as possible here:

I didn't vote for Clinton, I actually voted for Donald Trump. I just personally don't support foreign powers attempting to meddle with our Democracy, no matter the reason.

I would respect Trump a hell of a lot more if he owned up the the fact that the Kremlin wanted him to the win the election. That doesn't mean that he's a puppet to a foreign power or that he won his presidency through aid from a foreign entity, but it's a fact at this point that forces inside Russia were acting to sway this election towards the Republican Side.

All I want from the United States Government and its elected representatives is clarity and transparency. These people were elected to represent you and me, so why do we have to fight tooth and nail to get the truth out of any of them.

>I didn't vote for Clinton, I actually voted for Donald Trump.
Sure you did.
>I would respect Trump a hell of a lot more if he owned up the the fact that the Kremlin wanted him to the win the election.
Ofcourse you would.

You fool nobody, and nobody is paying you any credence.

>be Eugune Gook
>"Rigged Witch Hunt?" in disbelief
>"Let me tell you something, my man"
>Attempt to make a point
>Completely validate Trump's statement
>Train to be a doctor
>Still be this dumb

I might be missing your point here, could you clarify a bit?

it literally doesn't matter what country wants who to win any US election you fucking moron

you've literally been brainwashed by the MSM

The saudis wanted the clintons to win and they literally funded 9/11 yet you don't care, you only care about when you're fed your trigger word "Russia" that you've been primed to respond to by years of poliitcal propaganda

The one question you should be asking, "Am I stupid enough to believe that only one country, in the world, runs Intel operations against the united states and attempts to "influence" opinion?"

If you honestly think that low level phishing emails and facebook ads are the only ops running in the US you're probably a retard imo

>and you said no, and then informed the FBI you'd be clear. If you said yes, you'd be in some trouble.

incorrect

you don't get in "trouble" from meeting or talking to people from another country, especially ambassadors or foreign lobbyists who are literally registered as lobbyists btw

you've been fed a big pile of bullshit if you think that meeting with people is a "crime"

Why am I all of a sudden a Clinton supporter because I criticized Donald Trump? Why do you wish to blindly follow your authority so much? This troubles you so greatly that anyone who wishes for straight answers becomes an enemy

You would 'get in trouble' and investigated if you met with a saudi ambassador while running for president of the united states under the pretense that he was going to trade or give information about your political rival with you.

You have no idea what you're talking about and are paranoid.

Oh no le based wife beater BTFOd Drumpfh

Do you guys remember the podesta email days on here?
Im bothered that theyve been calling that phishing shit a russian hack. Ive been getting called a russian bot for even claiming against this new narrative.
It makes me very scared.

Attached: 20180702_115153(2).jpg (1600x900, 427K)

Isn't that the doctor who posted under fake accounts to improve the look of his own clinic, or some such shit?

Why was he not removed from his place of work?

'hacking' is an all inclusive term the media and out of touch individuals use to describe anything that has anything to do with technology.

Since the dawn of twitter, facebook, myspace, when people got phished they always just said "my account was hacked!"
In general the masses don't really care that being phished isn't hacking, to them it's some high level computer stuff that they never had a chance of understanding, so it's not their fault when it happens to them.

>Do you guys remember the podesta email days on here?
Ive been getting called a russian bot for even claiming against this new narrative. There are articles that back up the fact that Podesta was phished like a damn idiot, you can try to reference those to fight the narrative.

>Isn't that the doctor who posted under fake accounts to improve the look of his own clinic, or some such shit?
Eugene Gu engages in some of the cringiest creeper behavior that I have ever seen a beta male engage in, both online and offline. He's exactly the sort of male psychological predator that the liberals complain about all the time

Attached: John Podesta pol tweet.png (586x240, 45K)

>This troubles you so greatly that anyone who wishes for straight answers becomes an enemy
Memeflag failing at bantz.
>You would 'get in trouble'
No you wouldn't. First, name the statute--and dont give me some nebulous constitutional amendment that won't hold up in court. Second, you assume that money was exchanged. Since there was none there was no crime--otherwise everytime anyone was propositioned or offered drugs for sale they would be found guilty. If it was HANDED to him it only implicated Clinton in shady dealings and a win-win. The other problem with your argument is the uphill battle proving the president even knew about the meeting and any other wholly incriminating evidence they have against the dems (assuming the info was more legit than the pissgate dossier).
In conclusion, you keep grasping for straws that aren't there, kid. Head on off to bed before dad catches you awake and you get grounded.

incorrect. the whole event was an attempt at entrapment. nothing was exchanged.

everybody at that high a level has broken the law

it's all in how you enforce it

liberals would rather believe a ridiculous lie that the harsh truth, that Trump beat them

>Second, you assume that money was exchanged
You clearly don't understand the legal case here. Trump Jr. actually has a much more defensible position if he can prove he paid for information.

last polled showed over 66 percent of people don't believe the official story

absolutely not. you are mentally retarded

>'lying to the fbi'
>'tax evastion'
there wasn't any crime until fbi got involved and manafort case was deem too flimsy to prosecute until they needed to punish trump.
mueller also has nothing on russian or trump hence he so desperate to 'interview' trump so they can slap a 'lying to the fbi' charge on him

Attached: muh russia3.png (800x1000, 378K)

>you are mentally retarded
No u. Trump Jr. can avoid the "contribution of thing of value from foreign national" if he can prove it wasn't a contribution and instead, was a product instead. Supposing that's how they try to get him.

>The DNC does not have the right to purchase this information. Election Laws block them from doing so. This is what is considered as a foreign element attempting to interfere in our elections. The DNC has no clue what this Chinese person's motivation is and would have to, by law, refuse the offer and alert the FBI.

>You would 'get in trouble' and investigated if you met with a saudi ambassador while running for president of the united states under the pretense that he was going to trade or give information about your political rival with you.

Can you actually cite the law that prohibits this? Or is this your speculation because something like this has never been tried before?

are you a retard? is this some MSNBC talking point?

You realize those laws were for BRIBES you fucking imbecile, not for information or discussion.

Why does it have to be just those two? What if they know it's all bullshit but go along with it because they're evil traitors who just want a paycheck from (((them)))?