Merged All things Trump + Russia

[Belz...]

We're not dealing with treason here, though, at last check, given that we're not at war with Russia.

Since when does treason require a state of war? You can commit treason to something other than a foreign government. Unless the US is using a peculiar definition.

Treason is simply betrayal of the country, it doesn't imply doing it to an enemy country during a war.

 

[WilliamSeger]

Yes it is. The clear implication is that the purpose of the meeting was to trade dirt on Hillary

The state has no compelling interest in preventing people from spreading "dirt" on a candidate. In fact, allowing people to transmit information that a politician doesn't like is precisely one of the reasons we have the 1st amendment to begin with.

Your argument is disingenuous to the point of being deliberately obtuse: You left out the most important part of the quote so you could attack a straw man. Here it is again, and if you're not going to address the point, don't just pretend to.

Yes it is. The clear implication is that the purpose of the meeting was to trade dirt on Hillary -- a thing of obvious value for the purpose of electing Trump -- for some favor from a potential Trump administration.

We're not talking about preventing people from spreading dirt on Hillary. Campaigns are not allowed to solicit or accept anything of value from a foreign national, because doing so creates at least the appearance of quid pro quo. In this case, Jr., Kushner, and Manafort certainly knew that the Russians were looking to make a deal in exchange for the in-kind service of oppo research, and your argument that that's not something of value is absurd. That's true even if the dirt was obtained legitimately, but if it turns out that Trump people knew there was illegal activity such as hacking involved, that would be grounds for charging conspiracy to aid and abet that crime.

Perhaps, but the reading of the law under which this is supposedly criminal wouldn't have changed at all if the meeting was not secret.

No, but the apparent intent of the actors does, and that will certainly be a factor if anybody gets charged with a crime.

That's not relevant if the action isn't prohibited to begin with.

And that's not relevant, since soliciting campaign contributions from a foreign national is prohibited, as is conspiring to commit a crime.

First off, as a practical matter the state cannot protect itself against any foreign influence. Second, it's not clear that we should, even if we could. Third, the statutes do not protect against all forms of foreign influence, only very specific kinds. And lastly, there is a much higher burden for statutes that restrict speech than there is for statutes that restrict most other actions. That the state can meet that burden in many non-speech cases doesn't mean that they could meet it about speech such as this.

If Jr.'s lawyer doesn't have a better argument than that, he's toast.

To paraphrase Milton Friedman, you don't get good governance by making sure the right people get elected, you get good governance by making sure whoever get elected has incentive to do the right thing.

And yet you still don't see any "compelling state interest" in throwing the book at Jr., Kushner, and Manafort?

 

[Mumbles]

An ex-FBI agent assesses Trump and Russia:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/post...g-shocks-me/?tid=a_inl&utm_term=.eb73c8af69d7

This one is completely obvious, really - it doesn't take an ex-FBI agent to tell you this.

*However*, I can say that, for reasons, I suspect this extremely dim view of Toupee Fiasco's behavior in this episode has become very common among the FBI - an FBI that he has already antagonized repeatedly. I'll freely admit that I was initially worried about handing the president to a obvious authoritarian white supremacist. I've been pleased too discover that, at the very least, he's far too stupid to be as effective a force for ...well, evil, when you get down to it... as he could be. So far, he's mostly been effective in kneecapping himself, and in blaming everyone aside from himself. overall, it looks to be about as good as we can hope for, given what a horrible person he is.

 

[jimbob]

Since when does treason require a state of war? You can commit treason to something other than a foreign government. Unless the US is using a peculiar definition.

Treason is simply betrayal of the country, it doesn't imply doing it to an enemy country during a war.

I believe that in the US, the legal definition does require a state of war.

The Rosenbergs were convicted of espionage not Treason

 

[quadraginta]

Since when does treason require a state of war? You can commit treason to something other than a foreign government. Unless the US is using a peculiar definition.

Treason is simply betrayal of the country, it doesn't imply doing it to an enemy country during a war.

The U.S. actually does have a "pecular" definition of "treason".

It is the only crime specifically spelled out in the Constitution.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.

In this usage the term "Enemies" is considered to refer to parties which the U.S. is at war with, as suggested by the second clause of the sentence.

The "only" is significant and deserves emphasis. The authors of the Constitution were rather sensitive about the looseness with which the concept had been applied in the past in English Common Law, and wanted to be certain that it wasn't quite so cavalierly used here.

 

[Mumbles]

The state has no compelling interest in preventing people from spreading "dirt" on a candidate. In fact, allowing people to transmit information that a politician doesn't like is precisely one of the reasons we have the 1st amendment to begin with.

Ridiculous. The US has a very long history of doing everything possible to ensure that foreign powers do not interfere in it's elections - what on earth do you think that whole "natural born citizen" thing in the constitution is about? No court would accept that there's "no compelling interest" here, particularly given that the foreign power involved is a well-known adversary that multiple presidents have already attempted to work with, only to be rebuffed in a fit of Putin's anger and paranoia towards the US.

 

[Belz...]

This one is completely obvious, really - it doesn't take an ex-FBI agent to tell you this.

*However*, I can say that, for reasons, I suspect this extremely dim view of Toupee Fiasco's behavior in this episode has become very common among the FBI - an FBI that he has already antagonized repeatedly. I'll freely admit that I was initially worried about handing the president to a obvious authoritarian white supremacist. I've been pleased too discover that, at the very least, he's far too stupid to be as effective a force for ...well, evil, when you get down to it... as he could be. So far, he's mostly been effective in kneecapping himself, and in blaming everyone aside from himself. overall, it looks to be about as good as we can hope for, given what a horrible person he is.

I have to admit that, from outside the US, this whole deal has been both worrying and incredibly amusing.

 

[skyeagle409]

No, I'm not conflating two things. The relevant interest here is the interest that this specific law advances.

Firstly, Trump, Jr., Paul Manfort, and Jared Kushner attended a meeting with the intention of illegally colluding with the Russian government and we have his emails as proof. Secondly, their second mistake was to not report their contacts to the FBI and the third mistake were multiple lies to cover-up that meeting.

Did they receive "dirt" on Hillary Clinton at that meeting? Well, we can take a look at certain activities and revelations in the days, weeks and months after that meeting to make that determination.

 

[Ziggurat]

We're not talking about preventing people from spreading dirt on Hillary. Campaigns are not allowed to solicit or accept anything of value from a foreign national, because doing so creates at least the appearance of quid pro quo.

I don't think that's the reason for the law, and even if it were, the interpretation being suggested here is still far too broad to serve that purpose, since it applies even in cases where there is no serious possibility of quid pro quo. This is an unconstitutionally broad interpretation of the statute.

In this case, Jr., Kushner, and Manafort certainly knew that the Russians were looking to make a deal in exchange for the in-kind service of oppo research,

It didn't become clear that they were looking for something specific in return until the meeting took place, and as far as we know no deal happened.

and your argument that that's not something of value is absurd.

I'm not claiming it's not valuable. I'm claiming it cannot qualify as a "thing of value" under the statutory definition, or that if it does, that renders the law unconstitutional.

That's true even if the dirt was obtained legitimately, but if it turns out that Trump people knew there was illegal activity such as hacking involved, that would be grounds for charging conspiracy to aid and abet that crime.

First, the hacking wasn't public knowledge until after the meeting. Second, the information offered could not have come from the hacking anyways. Third, you're wrong: if a crime already took place, then talking about it afterwards, even in secret, doesn't constitute a crime. This is why the NYT doesn't get charged with criminal conspiracy when they publish information from the Wikileaks hack.

No, but the apparent intent of the actors does, and that will certainly be a factor if anybody gets charged with a crime.

Sure, it's a factor in sentencing. But that's getting a little ahead of things.

And that's not relevant, since soliciting campaign contributions from a foreign national is prohibited, as is conspiring to commit a crime.

It's not a contribution. And the hacking had already been done (but again, it wasn't public knowledge at that point), they can't have conspired to do it unless they had access to a time machine.

And yet you still don't see any "compelling state interest" in throwing the book at Jr., Kushner, and Manafort?

For what, exactly?

 

[Ziggurat]

Firstly, Trump, Jr., Paul Manfort, and Jared Kushner attended a meeting with the intention of illegally colluding with the Russian government and we have his emails as proof.

The emails are not proof that anything was illegal.

Secondly, their second mistake was to not report their contacts to the FBI

That's a political mistake. Unless specifically asked about this by the FBI, then it's not criminal.

and the third mistake were multiple lies to cover-up that meeting.

Again, a political mistake, not a crime.

 

[Belz...]

The emails are not proof that anything was illegal.

They're proof that they knew the meeting was about obtaining something from the Russians, and they'd be stupid not to expect to have to give something in return. Haven't we established that such an exchange is illegal? Doesn't that make the e-mail proof that it was illegal, since the meeting took place?

 

[Ziggurat]

Ridiculous. The US has a very long history of doing everything possible to ensure that foreign powers do not interfere in it's elections - what on earth do you think that whole "natural born citizen" thing in the constitution is about?

Strangely enough, that restriction isn't a restriction on speech.

No court would accept that there's "no compelling interest" here

In preventing any speech between foreign nationals and a campaign that might have any relevance to the campaign? No, I don't see a compelling interest in such a broad prohibition.

particularly given that the foreign power involved is a well-known adversary that multiple presidents have already attempted to work with, only to be rebuffed in a fit of Putin's anger and paranoia towards the US.

Once again, that's not relevant to the statute in question. You can't read a statute the way you want it to just because of peculiar conditions irrelevant to the text of that statute. This might suffice to justify some narrower restriction, but the restriction you're actually arguing for doesn't depend on any of this, in any way.

 

[Ziggurat]

They're proof that they knew the meeting was about obtaining something from the Russians, and they'd be stupid not to expect to have to give something in return. Haven't we established that such an exchange is illegal?

No, we haven't. Not every quid pro quo is illegal. Hell, even in cases where a quid pro quo is illegal, such as an explicit bribe, the act of listening to a bribe offer is still not illegal.

Doesn't that make the e-mail proof that it was illegal, since the meeting took place?

No.

 

[C_Felix]

It is illegal to take the life of; to kill another human being.

MURDER IS LEGAL!
Murder isn't mentioned!

 

[Belz...]

No, we haven't. Not every quid pro quo is illegal. Hell, even in cases where a quid pro quo is illegal, such as an explicit bribe, the act of listening to a bribe offer is still not illegal.

Sounds like you've made sure that nothing of the sort could ever be illegal. No matter if they met, why, or what happened, you'll always find a way to deny that anything wrong happened or that it should be punished or discouraged.

We have a clear statute on this, and direct evidence of intent, but it's not enough because... free speech, apparently.

 

[pgwenthold]

Ridiculous. The US has a very long history of doing everything possible to ensure that foreign powers do not interfere in it's elections - what on earth do you think that whole "natural born citizen" thing in the constitution is about? No court would accept that there's "no compelling interest" here, particularly given that the foreign power involved is a well-known adversary that multiple presidents have already attempted to work with, only to be rebuffed in a fit of Putin's anger and paranoia towards the US.

I continue to be amazed at the extent that republicans are willingly accepting Russia working to get a specific person elected as President.

This well beyond "not the party of Eisenhower" and has reached the level of "not the party of Reagan"

Russia's overwhelming support for Trump (irrespective of their work in the election) should have been a huge red flag. As in, "Wait a minute - Russia wants him to be our President? That doesn't sound good." Because communist or not, there's no reason to be thinking that Russia wants what's best for the US.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Sounds like you've made sure that nothing of the sort could ever be illegal. No matter if they met, why, or what happened, you'll always find a way to deny that anything wrong happened or that it should be punished or discouraged.

We have a clear statute on this, and direct evidence of intent, but it's not enough because... free speech, apparently.

Free speech is actually a very good argument. There are a whole host of laws on the books that people think would not survive an appeal to the supreme Court. Having that position is not laughable.

 

[varwoche]

... the information offered could not have come from the hacking anyways.

Incorrect, hacking occurred before the meeting.

 

[Ziggurat]

Incorrect, hacking occurred before the meeting.

Yes, I know that. The timeline isn't the problem with that theory, the information itself is. And the alleged information was about Hillary's dealings with Russia. That information would not have been on he Democratic National Committee's servers. So it could not have been obtained from hacking those servers.

 

[Ziggurat]

Sounds like you've made sure that nothing of the sort could ever be illegal. No matter if they met, why, or what happened, you'll always find a way to deny that anything wrong happened or that it should be punished or discouraged.

There are things which could conceivably have happened at the meeting which could be illegal. But it isn't enough to conceive of possible illegal actions. The question is the legality of what we actually have evidence for. We do not, for example, have any evidence that Trump Jr. asked the Russians to murder Hillary. That would certainly be illegal, and despite my opinion of being highly unlikely, it is literally possible.

We have a clear statute on this

Your interpretation of the statute isn't clear at all.

and direct evidence of intent, but it's not enough because... free speech, apparently.

As Bob has pointed out, plenty of laws have failed to survive first amendment challenges, including many election laws.