• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Merged All things Trump + Russia

Status
Not open for further replies.
WaPo piece on whether the lrgal line was crossed for
(claimed attempted) conspiracy with a foreign government.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/amph...ave-just-crossed-the-legal-line-on-collusion/

tldr, it's pretty close to the line even if it doesn't cross it, which it may.

ETA

I haven't seen the actual email thread, but if in response to "do you want illicitly obtained information damaging to a candidate in an American election from a foreign government?" one answers "Hell, ya!" then its game over, even if the email is a trolling fake, especially since it was acted on by attending the meeting. IMO no other details are relevant to the clear intent to commit election fraud and conspire with a foreign power to do so. Waste of time to argue he was tricked or did not know what he was doing, or that the lawyer worked for no one.
 
"We didn't meet with Russians. Fake News!" -->
"Oops, we omitted incidental encounters. Fake News!" -->
"What's the harm in attempting to conspire with Russian operatives? Fake News!"

Yup.

I'm honestly disgusted to see that the GOP has fallen to this level, and I honestly hope that the entire party falls apart and we get a new political party in it's place - even if it's a better conservative party.
 
If one relies on Fox News: Fox News host wrong that no law forbids Russia-Trump collusion it's no wonder one might repeat the same misinformation that no laws were broken.
"Collusion is not a crime, only an antitrust law," he said on May 30. "You can collude all you want with a foreign government in an election. There's no such statute."

Jarrett made the same point in an article on the Fox News website. He wrote that special counsel Robert Mueller had been given the "futile" task of investigating a crime that doesn’t exist.

"As special counsel, Mueller can engage in all manner of spectacular jurisprudential gymnastics," Jarrett wrote. "However, it will not change the fact that colluding with Russia is not, under America’s criminal codes, a crime."

Politifact's experts that were consulted beg to differ:
In sum, legal experts mentioned four criminal laws that might have been broken. The key is not whether those statutes use the word collusion, but whether the activities of the Russians and Trump associates went beyond permissible acts....
Three prominent election law scholars said there are at least four laws that would prohibit the sort of activities under investigation, whether those laws mention collusion or not. Jarrett’s focus on a single word fails to reflect the reach of the criminal code.
The details are in the link.

Vox consulted additional legal experts: Legal experts say Donald Trump Jr has just confessed to a federal crime
Trump Jr. had already admitted in a statement that he took the meeting with the Russian attorney, a woman named Natalia Veselnitskaya, to get useful information on Hillary Clinton. His defense of his actions was that the meeting didn’t bear fruit: that “it quickly became clear that she had no meaningful information.” In other words, there’s no way this constituted meaningful collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia because Veselnitskaya didn’t provide him with anything useful.

But experts on national security and election law say this “defense” is, legally speaking, no defense at all.

“The emails are simply-put damning as a legal matter,” explains Ryan Goodman, a former Defense Department special counsel and current editor of the legal site Just Security. “The text of the emails provide very clear evidence of participation in a scheme to involve the Russian government in federal election interference, in a form that is prohibited by federal criminal law.”
Jens David Ohlin, a law professor at Cornell University, is even blunter: “It’s a shocking admission of a criminal conspiracy.”

Trump Jr.‘s decision to take the meeting in and of itself likely violated campaign finance law, which does not require you to actually get anything useful from foreigners. In other words, the mere fact that Trump Jr. asked for information from a Russian national about Clinton might have constituted a federal crime.

“The law states that no person shall knowingly solicit or accept from a foreign national any contribution to a campaign of an item of value,” Goodman tells me. “There is now a clear case that Donald Trump Jr. has met all the elements of the law, which is a criminally enforced federal statute.”

So there are two legal issues here. One, Jr's soliciting an item of value for the campaign from a foreign government. And two, the separate investigation of collusion which violates other criminal laws. Jr's emails admit to breaking the election law, the collusion charge is still being investigated.

Evidence for the collusion certainly includes all of Trump's actions to end the sanctions on Russia and Russian Oligarchs. It is bound to include a lot of money such as loans and laundering via real estate deals. And there was that change in the GOP platform backing off supporting Ukraine. In exchange the leaked DNC and Podesta emails were made public. I doubt those emails needed to pass through Trump's hands directly.

Trump's speech that he would be announcing Clinton dirt just after Jr's meeting was significant. All the denied meetings with Russians on security clearance forms occurred in numbers too big to ignore. And don't forget Jr's bragging (though not confirmed) that Russia funded all Trump's golf courses. Trump's loans had to have come from somewhere. And Kushner appeared to be soliciting a bailout for his underwater NY property when he met with the sanctioned Russian banker. Then there were the efforts to set up back-channel communication with Moscow via the Russian embassy or the Seychelles (Eric Prince) or wherever/however to circumvent the CIA's surveillance.

There is so much here, Mueller must be having a field day.
 
I didn't start that thread. And the original claim wasn't made in that thread either.

Ah, cool. Then my bringing it up in this thread is not off-topic because I didn't that this thread, either. :rolleyes:

Yes, it really is.

I'm going to have to ask you for your definition of "playing games", then.

And I don't believe you either.

You don't believe that I don't believe you? That is weird. You really are in knee-jerk disagreement mode.
 
If Russia had true information exposing a Hillary scandal, and Trump Jr. obtained that information and made it public, how does that count as "sabotage" of US elections? You seem to be arguing that the less the public knows about the candidates it votes for, the better. That's a peculiar position to be taking.

And if that's not the position that you're taking, then nothing about your claim is clear. Why is getting more information to voters "sabotage"? Why is that "betrayal"?
The source matters and you'd say the same thing if a newspaper printed a questionable story based on the word of an anonymous informant. When the source is a Russian citizen who may be acting as an agent of the Russian government, that matters, both to the public and to the law.
 
"We didn't meet with Russians. Fake News!" -->
"Oops, we omitted incidental encounters. Fake News!" -->
"What's the harm in attempting to conspire with Russian operatives? Fake News!"
Coming soon, "It's not treason when you win the election. Fake News!"
 
I haven't seen the actual email thread, but if in response to "do you want illicitly obtained information damaging to a candidate in an American election from a foreign government?" one answers "Hell, ya!" then its game over, even if the email is a trolling fake, especially since it was acted on by attending the meeting.

You should read the actual email. Here's the offer:

"Emin just called and asked me to contact you with something very interesting.
The Crown prosecutor of Russia 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."

Nothing to indicate it's illicitly obtained information. Also note that the alleged subject of this information doesn't overlap with the DNC hacks.

IMO no other details are relevant to the clear intent to commit election fraud and conspire with a foreign power to do so. Waste of time to argue he was tricked or did not know what he was doing, or that the lawyer worked for no one.

Um... that's not what election fraud means, not even if Trump Jr. knew it was illicitly obtained. Hell, even if Trump Jr. HIMSELF illicitly obtained information about Hillary, that still wouldn't be election fraud.
 
The source matters and you'd say the same thing if a newspaper printed a questionable story based on the word of an anonymous informant.

Sure, it absolutely matters to the credibility of the information, if that information cannot be independently confirmed. But from all evidence, no information actually exchanged hands, so the question of evaluating the credibility of information that we don't even have becomes moot.

When the source is a Russian citizen who may be acting as an agent of the Russian government, that matters, both to the public and to the law.

I see how that might matter to the public. But how does it matter to the law?
 
You don't believe that I don't believe you? That is weird. You really are in knee-jerk disagreement mode.

As opposed to knee-jerk refusal to define your terms mode?

I've already spotted the tell here, there's no sense in getting upset about it.
 
... Nothing to indicate it's illicitly obtained information. Also note that the alleged subject of this information doesn't overlap with the DNC hacks.

This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump...
Ahem. 2+2, or is Jr also an idiot?

Um... that's not what election fraud means, not even if Trump Jr. knew it was illicitly obtained. Hell, even if Trump Jr. HIMSELF illicitly obtained information about Hillary, that still wouldn't be election fraud.

Fine. Let's just leave it at conspiracy with a foreign power to potentially influence a US election, which in and of itself admits whatever agenda that power might have in mind.
 
I don't think you are concentrating on the correct information.

"Emin just called and asked me to contact you with something very interesting.
The Crown prosecutor of Russia 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."

I've tried to highlight the more pertinent passages.
 
"Notable aid" cannot refer to simply talking to people. That would be such a clear infraction of the 1st amendment right to speech that the law could never stand, if that is the meaning it is supposed to have.

(1) a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make—
(A) 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.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/52/30121

You asked for the text of the law. There you go. I've hilited the portion that is most relevant.

If you think that asking someone to perform an illegal act transgresses the first amendment, then I'd like to hear your argument.
 
Was the meeting illegal? Was any other collusion illegal? I don't know, because IANAL. That doesn't stop it from being creepy as hell. Why is ANYONE defending a president who got there with help from a murdering Russian dictator who wants to reinstate the USSR?
 
I've tried to highlight the more pertinent passages.

Pertinent to what, exactly? Affecting the election? Sure. And? That's what campaigns do, they try to affect the election. That's their entire purpose. That's what Hillary's camp tried to do with Ukraine. You might find it distasteful, but is it fundamentally different than when a tabloid exposes a sex scandal of a candidate? Not really.
 
You should read the actual email. Here's the offer:

"Emin just called and asked me to contact you with something very interesting.
The Crown prosecutor of Russia 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."

Nothing to indicate it's illicitly obtained information. Also note that the alleged subject of this information doesn't overlap with the DNC hacks.


That fact that Trump, Jr. sought to collude with an adversary of the United States is very damaging to say the least. What Trump, Jr. should have done was to immediately contact the FBI, which he failed to do because he thought that working with the Russians to get his father elected was more important than the interest of the United States, and that is totally unacceptable and detrimental to the well-being of America and here we are now just 6 months into Trump's presidency and he is driving America toward disaster and has made his presidency a laughingstock.

On Jun 3, 2016, at 10:36 AM, Rob Goldstone wrote:

Good morning

Emin just called and asked me to contact you with something very interesting.

The Crown prosecutor of Russia 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.

What do you think is the best way to handle this information and would you be able to speak to Emin about it directly?

I can also send this info to your father via Rhona, but it is ultra sensitive so wanted to send to you first.


On Jun 3, 2016, at 10:53, Donald Trump Jr. wrote:

Thanks Rob I appreciate that. I am on the road at the moment but perhaps I just speak to Emin first. Seems we have some time and if it's what you say I love it especially later in the summer. Could we do a call first thing next week when I am back?

Best,

Don


Needless to say, this revelation is most despicable!!
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom