The "why" isn't relevant. The law forbids it. As I said, a no strings attached donation is illegal under that statute.

Sure, but the law always needs to be interpreted in application. The spirit of the law isn't to prevent any kind of discussion with foreign nationals, but rather to prevent a foreign national influencing or controlling a candidate. I do believe you perceive this.
— Agustino

It doesn't intend to prevent any kind of discussion with foreign nationals. It intends to prevent receiving money or other things of value from foreign nationals. A no strings attached donation is illegal.

Then the Clinton Foundation was definitely breaking the law,and definitely its ethical fibre, since they took money from foreign nationals as awful as Saudi Arabia, and that both facilitated a 1 million dollar birthday present from Qatar to Bill, they refused to disclose and 20 mil in campaign contributions to HIllary's campaign and a 900,000 a year job for Chelsea. That doesn't even include a 30 mil sale of uranium to Putin.

The "why" isn't relevant. The law forbids it. As I said, a no strings attached donation is illegal under that statute. — Michael

No the why is ABSOLUTELY not irrelevant. The why is the reason the law exists in the first place.

OK? I'm arguing that there's a case for Trump Jr. having committed a crime in meeting with the Russian lawyer. I'm not claiming that nobody else has ever committed a crime. So I don't see the relevance of your whataboutism.

Besides, some of your examples seem completely wrong anyway. The law I'm referring to is in relation to elections.

The "why" isn't relevant. The law forbids it. As I said, a no strings attached donation is illegal under that statute. — Michael

Yes, but why is it illegal? Because we all know that there is no such thing as a "no strings attached" donation.

↪Thanatos Sand OK? I'm arguing that there's a case for Trump Jr. having committed a crime in meeting with the Russian lawyer. I'm not claiming that nobody else has ever committed a crime. So I don't see the relevance of your whataboutism.

Firstly, no educated person should use the banal term "whataboutism;" it's a vulgar platitude meant to preclude relevant mention of contradiction, just as you tried to do to me above. And it is entirely relevant since the same people that are rightly jumping on Trump for possibly breaking the law--and wrongly prematurely screaming "collusion"--were the same ones who defended the Clintons' collusions to the hilt.

Besides, some of your examples seem completely wrong anyway. The law I'm referring to is in relation to elections.

They can seem wrong to you all you like, but that doesn't make them wrong, you haven't shown them to be wrong, and they're not wrong. And some of my examples involved elections, and the others were relevant to the topic of collusion.

Yes, but why is it illegal? — Agustino

According to this, "to minimize foreign intervention in U.S. elections ".

Because we all know that there is no such thing as a "no strings attached" donation.

Then the Russians providing Trump Jr. with compromising material on an opponent wasn't "no strings attached", and so entails indebtedness, refuting your attempted justification.

Firstly, no educated person should use the banal term "whataboutism;" it's a banal platitude meant to preclude relevant mention of contradiction, just as you did to me above. And it is entirely relevant since the same people that are rightly jumping on Trump for possibly breaking the law--and wrongly prematurely screaming "collusion"--were the same ones who defended the Clintons' collusions to the hilt. — Thanatos Sand

I don't care if Clinton or anyone else also committed a crime. I'm arguing that there's a case that Trump Jr. did. Pointing to other criminals is a complete non sequitur.

They can seem wrong to you all you like, but that doesn't make them wrong, you haven't shown them to be wrong, and they're not wrong. And some of my examples involved elections, and the others were relevant to the topic of collusion.

If only some of them involved elections then some of them didn't, proving my point that some of your examples are wrong as they have nothing to do with the law I'm talking about.

Firstly, no educated person should use the banal term "whataboutism;" it's a banal platitude meant to preclude relevant mention of contradiction, just as you did to me above. And it is entirely relevant since the same people that are rightly jumping on Trump for possibly breaking the law--and wrongly prematurely screaming "collusion"--were the same ones who defended the Clintons' collusions to the hilt.
— Thanatos Sand

I don't care if Clinton or anyone else also committed a crime. I'm arguing that there's a case that Trump Jr. did.

And I don't care if you care; I care, and I showed why Clinton's crimes are relevant.

If only some of them involved elections then some of them didn't, proving my point that some of your examples are wrong as they have nothing to do with the law I'm talking about.

You did not prove your point, since I showed you why even the non-election examples are relevant to the discussion. And being irrelevant does not make something wrong. So, even if my correct points were irrelevant, and they're not, that wouldn't make them wrong, and they're not.

And I don't care if you care; I care, and I showed why Clinton's crimes are relevant. — Thanatos Sand

Relevant to my argument with Agustino over whether or not Trump Jr. committed a crime? No, they're not relevant. So if you want to bring up Clinton's crimes, it makes no sense to do so in response to me.

You did not prove your point, since I showed you why even the non-election examples are relevant to the discussion.

You brought up non-election issues in response to my claims regarding an election law. So, yes, they're irrelevant.

And I don't care if you care; I care, and I showed why Clinton's crimes are relevant.
— Thanatos Sand

Relevant to my argument with Agustino over whether or not Trump Jr. committed a crime? No, they're not relevant. So if you want to bring up Clinton's crimes, it makes no sense to do so in response to me.

They absolutely are relevant and I've shown how. Again, you just say they're not without showing how they're not. Considering they are relevant, I'm not surprised.

"You did not prove your point, since I showed you why even the non-election examples are relevant to the discussion."

You brought up non-election issues in response to my claims regarding an election law. So, yes, they're irrelevant.

No, as I showed above and before, they are very relevant, particularly the ones that brought up election issues. And now you're just repeating yourself, and repeating incorrect statements.

Then the Russians providing Trump Jr. with compromising material on an opponent wasn't "no strings attached", and so entails indebtedness, refuting your attempt justification. — Michael

Why? Maybe they just hated Clinton, without wanting to control Trump?

They absolutely are relevant and I've shown how. Again, you just say they're not without showing how. — Thanatos Sand

If I'm arguing that John murdered someone and Agustino is arguing that he didn't, and you respond by saying that Jane murdered someone, then your response is irrelevant to my discussion with Agustino.

If you can't see how Clinton's crimes have no bearing on whether or not Trump Jr. committed a crime then you have serious reasoning issues.

Why? Maybe they just hated Clinton, without wanting to control Trump? — Agustino

Make up your mind, Agustino. Can there be no strings attached donations or not? You keep flip-flopping.

Make up your mind, Agustino. Can there be no strings attached donations or not? You keep flip-flopping. — Michael

No. But they didn't make a donation.

Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

What does the term "truth" refer to here? — creativesoul

The "truth" you used means the to explain to the best of your memory.

No. But they didn't make a donation. — Agustino

What difference does that make? I can't give someone £10 without them being indebted to me, but I can give them a Fabergé egg or compromising material on an enemy without them being indebted to me?

But it's quite simple, Agustino. The law doesn't say that things of value cannot be received from foreign nationals except in cases where there's no indebtedness. It just says that things of value cannot be received from foreign nationals.

If you can't see how Clintons' crimes have great bearing on whether or not Trump Jr. committed a crime, then you have serious reasoning (and other) issues. — Thanatos Sand

You're absurd, and your attempts to save face are comical. You were in the wrong. Accept it and move on.

Trump and Hillary are tied together by the contexts of Washington politics and, more specifically, the 2016 election.

Whether or not Trump Jr. committed a crime in meeting with that lawyer doesn't depend on whether or not Hillary committed a similar or different crime. This is a ridiculous claim.

Why are you replying to me? :s

They absolutely are relevant and I've shown how. Again, you just say they're not without showing how.
— Thanatos Sand

If I'm arguing that John murdered someone and Agustino is arguing that he didn't, and you respond by saying that Jane murdered someone, then your response is irrelevant to my discussion with Agustino.

That's a terrible and inapt comparison, since John and Jane are only tied together by the similar act, Trump and Hillary are tied together by the contexts of Washington politics and, more specifically, the 2016 election. So, my examples and response are still relevant.

If you can't see how Clinton's crimes have no bearing on whether or not Trump Jr. committed a crime then you have serious reasoning issues.

If you can't see how Clintons' crimes have great bearing on whether or not Trump Jr. committed a crime, then you have serious reasoning (and other) issues.

compromising material on an enemy without them being indebted to me? — Michael

Yes, you can.

But it's quite simple, Agustino. The law doesn't say that things of value cannot be received from foreign nationals except in cases where there's no indebtedness. It just says that things of value cannot be received from foreign nationals. — Michael

So what? That's the letter of the law, but when you apply the law you have to take into account the spirit of the law as well. If the law says that if you hit someone's car from behind it is your fault, but in this particular case the person reverses his car to hit you, should it still be your fault? :s

Really Michael, this Phariseeism of yours is amazing. What kind of BS is this literalist interpretation of the law? By this interpretation most people should be in prison.

If you can't see how Clintons' crimes have great bearing on whether or not Trump Jr. committed a crime, then you have serious reasoning (and other) issues.
— Thanatos Sand

You're absurd, and your attempts to save face are comical. You were in the wrong. Accept it and move on.

The fact that's the best you got shows the only absurd one who needs to save face is you. And I've shown you're in the wrong, so you really should accept it and move on.

Trump and Hillary are tied together by the contexts of Washington politics and, more specifically, the 2016 election.

Whether or not Trump Jr. committed a crime in meeting with that lawyer doesn't depend on whether or not Hillary committed a similar or different crime. This is a ridiculous claim.

I never said it did, so you now are even more absurd and have even more face to save.

↪Thanatos Sand Why are you replying to me? :s

Mistake.

I never said it did, so you now are more absurd and have even more face to save. — Thanatos Sand

If you're not claiming that Hillary's crimes determine whether or not Trump Jr. committed a crime then your accusations against Hillary are irrelevant to my argument with Agustino over whether or not Trump Jr. committed a crime.

I never said it did, so you now are more absurd and have even more face to save.
— Thanatos Sand

If you're not claiming that Hillary's crimes determine whether or not Trump Jr. committed a crime then your accusations against Hillary are irrelevant to my argument with Agustini over whether or not Trump Jr. committed a crime.

Man, your reading and reasoning skills have been really poor. I brought Hillary's crimes up as a relevant comparison (and it is), not as a source of exculpation. I'm not surprised you missed that.

Really Michael, this Phariseeism of yours is amazing. What kind of BS is this literalist interpretation of the law? By this interpretation most people should be in prison. — Agustino

I go by what the experts say. They're the experts. From here, "The Federal Election Campaign Act states in unambiguous terms that any contribution by a foreign national to the campaign of an American candidate for any election, state or national, is illegal. Likewise, anyone who receives, solicits, or accepts these contributions also violates the statute.".

And even if you wanted to argue that it's only a crime if there's indebtedness, the fact that the Magnitsky Act was brought up would be a strong case for arguing that the repeal of this act was the debt that must be paid in exchange for information on Clinton.

Man, your reading and reasoning skills are really poor. I brought Hillary's crimes up as a relevant comparison (and it is), not as a source of exculpation. I'm not surprised you missed that. — Thanatos Sand

What you actually said was "And it is entirely relevant since the same people that are rightly jumping on Trump for possibly breaking the law--and wrongly prematurely screaming "collusion"--were the same ones who defended the Clintons' collusions to the hilt.".

So you think it relevant because... people are hypocrites? That has no relevance at all to my discussion with Agustino.

And you also said "it's a vulgar platitude meant to preclude relevant mention of contradiction, just as you tried to do to me above". But I fail to see how Clinton's crimes contradict my claims regarding Trump Jr. having committed a crime.

Furthermore, in response to my claim regarding an election law, your response started with "Then the Clinton Foundation was definitely breaking the law..." and preceded to list a number of supposed crimes that have nothing to do with the election law. So given that some of those crimes have nothing to do with the election law, and given that your wording was that of a conclusion derived from an election law, I was absolutely right in claiming that some of your examples were wrong. They might be crimes, but they're not crimes according to the law I was talking about.

Man, your reading and reasoning skills are really poor. I brought Hillary's crimes up as a relevant comparison (and it is), not as a source of exculpation. I'm not surprised you missed that.
— Thanatos Sand

What you actually said was "And it is entirely relevant since the same people that are rightly jumping on Trump for possibly breaking the law--and wrongly prematurely screaming "collusion"--were the same ones who defended the Clintons' collusions to the hilt.".

So you think it relevant because... people are hypocrites?

I've told you many times in previous posts why it's relevant. You just stick your head in the sand and repeat the same already answered questions.

And you also said "it's a vulgar platitude meant to preclude relevant mention of contradiction, just as you tried to do to me above". But I fail to see how Clinton's crimes contradict my claims regarding Trump Jr. having committed a crime.

I never said anything about contradiction, so your poor reading on this thread shows again. At this point, you're just chanting your same erroneous statements and already-answered questions again and again like a mantra, after you've already been shown to be wrong.

So, I will no longer encourage that by reading or responding to any of your posts. Adios.

I never said anything about contradiction, so your poor reading on this thread shows again. — Thanatos Sand

That was a direct quote from you here.

I've told you many times in previous posts why it's relevant.

You've asserted it. But your assertion is false. It isn't relevant. The only thing that is relevant to my discussion with Agustino is whether or not Trump Jr. committed a crime.

You're free to talk about Clinton and all her crimes, but that has no bearing on whether or not Trump Jr. broke any federal election laws, and so it's pointless to direct your talk at me.

You think so? I think one can do evil without awareness, but would that cease to be evil just because they don't perceive it as evil? What if someone has good intentions, but through their actions and ignorance actually cause a lot of evil? Are they not responsible? :s — Agustino

Natural events cause evil, and animals cause evil. We can say those natural events are responsible, but not morally responsible, for the evil they cause. If a human causes evil through no fault of their own then I would not call that "doing evil". Whether or not, in any particular case, a person who unintentionally causes evil is at fault due to a 'sin of omission' is perhaps never really all that clear cut. The driver who nods off for a moment and kills a pedestrian is an example. Of course he or she will be punished according to the law; but there may or may not be considered to be extenuating circumstances. There is certainly such a thing as moral luck (or unluck, as the case may be).

Right. Well to me innocence represents that state in which one is not capable to do evil. Adam and Eve were innocent before the Fall, they were not capable of evil before eating of the Tree. That's why the Serpent had to deceive them, and pressure them to eat of the Tree, they wouldn't think of doing that themselves. — Agustino

Well, I agree with this. It's just that it is very difficult to tease out exactly what kind and degree of knowledge transforms lack of awareness form being a case of innocence into a case of ignorance. So, society has laws concerning when one reaches the age of 'majority', meaning full adult responsibility, and yet everyone is different and develops at different rates. I don't believe there are any easy answers to such conundrums.

I would agree with this, except that I don't think we, as sinful human beings, are fully capable of innocence in this life. — Agustino

It's hard to makes any sense at all of the idea of original sin except via the notion of eternal individual existence, because of that I am undecided about the question of 'original sin', so I can neither agree or disagree with you on this.