Cont: Breaking: Mueller Grand Jury charges filed, arrests as soon as Monday pt 2

[LSSBB]

First off, it isn't treated like the transmission of stolen property. It's treated quite differently. Second, the whole reason you brought up trade secrets is to try to justify the claim that you can criminalize listening. But as your own source proves, trade secrets laws do not criminalize just listening.

You were wrong, and now you're basically arguing that your example was irrelevant to begin with. Impressive.

You can't even say I was wrong, if you don't do your homework. The rest is meaningless blather, because you started from a position where you flat out said you couldn't see how "just listening" could be illegal.

Do your homework.

Before you declare victory.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

AFAIK, none of us are lawyers specializing in this area of law, so there are a lot of ifs ands or buts. Your reading of the law is that it was a crime. Fine. But there is a lot of gray area when you read actual expert opinion in the media.

It's not that gray. But of course there are the facts and the alternative facts.

It may be gray as to whether or not Mueller will bother indicting Trump campaign people who were at the meeting. It may be that Jr's email incriminates him but there is no smoking gun for the others.

What is not gray is the solicitation of dirt from foreign nationals on Clinton was illegal.

 

[Ziggurat]

If someone sent an email offering to sell the Trump campaign some dirt on Hillary, and the trumpers met with them to see if it was worth the asking price, would that dirt be a "thing of value" that could be legally purchased? I believe it would be. Why would it not be a thing of value if it's offered as a bribe, in exchange for sanctions relief instead of money?

But there's no evidence that it was offered as a bribe. Prior to the meeting, there were no demands for anything in exchange for the dirt. At the meeting, a request for sanctions relief was made, but no dirt was offered, and no agreement for an exchange was made. It's almost as if the dirt didn't exist, and was only used to get Trump Jr. to the meeting.

 

[Ziggurat]

You can't even say I was wrong, if you don't do your homework.

But you were wrong. Contrary to your claim, trade secret law doesn't criminalize listening. And I know you were wrong because I paid closer attention to what your own source said than you did. Does that not qualify as doing my homework?

 

[tyr_13]

Has anyone been keeping track of how many Mondays ago the "Monday" in the OP Title was referring to?

It comes up every couple dozen pages, and it is again pointed out that charges were indeed filed (with arrests iirc) that Monday, and many more since that time.

 

[tyr_13]

No they did not. They ruled that speech doesn't stop being speech because you paid for it.



True. We cannot evaluate the merits of non-public information, obviously. But from publicly available information, there is no evidence of a crime at that meeting.

Circumstantial evidence is evidence.

(Also, you've already been linked to the election law and criminal conspiracy stuff, so I won't go into that again.)

 

[LSSBB]

But you were wrong. Contrary to your claim, trade secret law doesn't criminalize listening. And I know you were wrong because I paid closer attention to what your own source said than you did. Does that not qualify as doing my homework?

No, because it's you (not a lawyer) reading commercial law (not election law) to attack my claim (which I did not make beyond illustrating a potential path) to defend your claim (which you still haven't done the homework to validate).

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

...

There is evidence of their trying to influence the elections, but whether Trump took a serious role in substantial collusion to ruin the election integrity has yet to be established... although you do have solicitation meetings for oppo research that can be looked into that doesnt seem to be going anywhere at the moment

I think some of us are much more familiar with the details than others. So those who aren't aware of some of the details believe Trump has not yet been implicated.

He has.

He was at the pre-meeting to the Tower meeting, there is phone evidence Jr kept Dad informed, it's been admitted to that Trump penned Jr's adoption discussion excuse, Trump's comments in certain speeches are incriminating...

So I'm not sure why you think there is no evidence Trump played a role.

In addition to the Trump Tower meeting, there is the entire coordination of Cambridge Analytica's use of voter profiling from both FaceBook but also with the voter data that was hacked by the Russians. Kushner was heavily involved in that, but it's extremely unlikely Trump didn't know what was going on.

This whole line of inquiry is under the radar because the Tower is in the news at the moment. But there is a mountain of evidence there.

Then there are some other crimes of corruption, Kushner's soliciting money to prop up his Soho building, contacts with the obscure Russian bank, Cohen getting hundreds of thousands of dollars from a couple corporations, and those are just a fraction of what has been uncovered.

Mueller is paying attention even if the shiny Tower is distracting other people.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

From your source:

A trade secret owner can enforce rights against someone who steals confidential information by asking a court to issue an order (an injunction) preventing further disclosure or use of the secrets. A trade secret owner can also collect damages for any economic injury suffered as a result of the trade secret's improper acquisition and use.

...

In addition, the trade secret owner must show that the information was either improperly acquired by the defendant (if the defendant is accused of making commercial use of the secret) or improperly disclosed by the defendant (if the defendant is accused of leaking the information).
​

The recipient of a trade secret is only in potential trouble if they use that trade secret. So no, merely receiving that information is not enough.

Trade secrets?

I do believe you are reading a different section of the law books.

 

[Ziggurat]

Circumstantial evidence is evidence.

(Also, you've already been linked to the election law and criminal conspiracy stuff, so I won't go into that again.)

Yes, and those arguments are all crap.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...esearch-by-asking-foreigners-for-information/

 

[xjx388]

You seem to have your own unique legal opinion here. Multiple legal experts that aren't on Fox News have said you don't have to get the goods for a crime to have been committed.

Jr's emails exchanges are incriminating all by themselves. And much as Jr and the Trump legal spokes-folks, Dershowitz and Giuliani, keep trying to insert an alt-reality into Trump supporters, the rest of the legal pundit world all say it was a crime.

Politico: However, it’s also 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.

There's more at the link but you know that. This isn't new. You don't appear to have taken the time to check your facts.

That's a plain misreading of the Politico article:

We contacted legal experts shortly after the meeting came to light July 2017. They cautioned against drawing any premature legal conclusions, but said the interaction raised serious concerns about whether U.S. federal election law was broken.

. . .

While illegal foreign contributions typically take the form of money, legal experts told us it’s possible a court could find that "information" satisfies the legal requirement if it’s considered valuable to a campaign. "Contributions definitely do not need to be in the form of cash to constitute a thing of value," said Michael S. Kang, a law professor at Emory University Law School. "However, it also needs to be said that this is an unusual situation quite unlike the usual context for an illegal foreign contribution, typically in the form of money rather than information."

Emphasis mine.
So it's definitely not as clear cut as you make it out to be.

As to your statement that, "the rest of the legal pundit world all say it was a crime," well, that's wrong too. I'm sure you might find a few that say it was a definitely crime but most of them say it might be a crime depending on the details. Virtually no article I've seen say what you say they say. Here's an example:

But not all legal experts agree that damaging information on Clinton would be deemed a “thing of value” for legal purposes. In a blog post for the Washington Post, Eugene Volokh, a law professor at UCLA, argues that if “politically useful information about a candidate’s opponent is in general a thing of value” then the law is legally “substantially overbroad” and unconstitutional. And if, he argues, a “thing of value” does not include information, “then Donald Trump Jr.’s expression of willingness to accept such information from foreigners (including ones linked to foreign governments) wouldn’t be covered by the statute.”

Sounds to me like confirmation bias.

 

[acbytesla]

I don't think it's that simple. There is nothing illegal about meeting to discuss the acquisition of dirt form a foreign national. There may be a crime is in the details of the exchange, if it even occurred. We don't have those details.

I can agree to meet a woman in a hotel room for sex. If I get to the hotel room and she says, "I charge $500/hour," I don't have to accept those illegal terms. I can turn her down and not commit a crime. She might be guilty of solicitation but I am guilty of nothing except being stupid.

Wow! Talk about distorting an analogy! You're right if you thought you were going to her room to have sex without payment, no crime would have been committed...unless of course you accepted the exchange/offer delivered in the room.

However, If she told you in the lobby she charges $500 and you accompanied her to her room you're guilty whether you go through with it or not.

This is what Don Jr. Kushner and Manafort did. Don accepted in the lobby and they all went to the room. What actually happened is unproven.beyond that part of the meeting was about getting dirt.

 

[a_unique_person]

Once again, there is no evidence the meeting had anything whatsoever to do with the DNC emails. You're grasping for straws.

Yet Trump has felt compelled to deny the facts right from the start for some reason.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I hope that 'Ziggurat' and the rest of you all who are participating in this discussion do not mind me chiming in, but I do see a detail that I think needs a bit of clarification ...

Specifically, 'Ziggurat' has been discussing things that Trump has done which are "illegal", while the other posters are pointing out things that Trump has done which are "wrong".

Accordingly, 'Ziggurat' is correct in pointing out that of this moment, Trump himself has not been caught/discovered of doing anything illegal. However, the other posters are also correct in pointing out a number of things that Trump has done which are wrong.

Therefore, I ask all concerned need to please keep in mind that an elected official can get into serious trouble for getting caught doing something that is illegal, getting caught for doing something that is wrong, or getting caught for doing something that is both illegal and wrong.

Thanks much.

No, nope, no. People are looking at different sections of the law and trying to apply them. Note, this does not apply to hiring Steele.

Election law, you cannot solicit anything of value from a foreigner. You don't have to get the goods, soliciting it is enough.

Now whether or not Mueller chooses to charge anyone like Jr based on his emails which showed intent is a separate matter.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Yes really. The 1st amendment has few exceptions, which the courts have already established standards for. None of those exceptions apply here.

So if I say this is a stick-up, hand over your money, that's protected free speech?

Then there's all that libel and slander law. You're way off base here trying to pull the 1st Amendment in.

 

[acbytesla]

Yet Trump has felt compelled to deny the facts right from the start for some reason.

They all did. Both Kushner and Don Jr lied to Congress about the meeting. Trump Sr even crafted aboard Air Force One the phoney statement about the meeting was about adoption. And if you accept GOP standards applied toward Bill Clinton, this was obstruction of justice. It's one of the Articles of Impeachment drafted against Bill. Encouraging others to lie.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I don't think it's that simple. There is nothing illegal about meeting to discuss the acquisition of dirt form a foreign national. ..

You are wrong. And the law and legal experts have been cited here ad nauseum.

Unless that's your paid employee, it is illegal.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Oh, I'm fine with separating legal issues -- like letting Mueller finish the damned investigation!

I'm fine with him finishing his investigation, but I'm presuming innocence until it's established that he actively played a role. Thus far, his actions against Russia with sanctions and diplomat expulsions would contradict the evidence that he intended to collude in election manipulation. But who knows, maybe Mueller will find "it".

I still find it ironic how much the Russian involvement got balked at until Trump actually won.

 

[phiwum]

Yeah, I don't think so. I think the idea that merely listening can be criminalized will crash spectacularly into the 1st amendment.



Mueller wouldn't be the final word on the matter.

Fair enough. I'll wait for a judge's ruling.

Of course, when it comes to the big guy, that may be a while. But I can wait.

 

[acbytesla]

I'm fine with him finishing his investigation, but I'm presuming innocence until it's established that he actively played a role. Thus far, his actions against Russia with sanctions and diplomat expulsions would contradict the evidence that he intended to collude in election manipulation. But who knows, maybe Mueller will find "it".

I still find it ironic how much the Russian involvement got balked at until Trump actually won.

I think the opposite is clearly true. Trump, opposed sanctions against Russia and was incredibly slow in implementing them. The campaign changed the GOP platform and Trump has been opposing our allies in NATO.