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

[smartcooky]

What gets me the most is this absurd attempt to pretend that this meeting was no big deal and is political SOP. IT WAS A CRIME. No ifs or buts, it was illegal and was treasonous. Any so called patriot would actually know this without being told. They wouldn't equivocate if offered dirt from a hostile foreign government, they would be on the phone to the FBI immediately.

Yup. If it was Hillary and her entourage who had that meeting with the Russians, and then went on to kiss Putin's arse at Helsinki, and crap all over NATO, the Party of Trump would be screaming "Treason" from the rooftops of Washington DC!

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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.

Were you at this meeting? Do we have a transcript? How do you know what the Russians wanted in exchange or what was or was not agreed to?

The evidence points to them wanting some or all of the Magnitsky Act repealed. They wanted their two Russian diplomatic compounds in states of Maryland and New York back.

As for what they got in exchange, the hacked emails were released to Wikileaks. Roger Stone seems to have had something to do with that but we don't know much yet.

Just because nothing was handed over at the meeting (apparently) doesn't mean there were no arrangements made.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Trump defenders contend in vain when striving to convince themselves that conspiracy (nee collusion) is not a crime. What, do they think prosecutors are or would be just making up law on the spot or something?!

1) I'm not a Trump defender

2) As soon as someone actually files charges against someone in Trump's campaign/cabinet for conspiracy related to the election, then you'll have a point. Until then, you have speculation - you speculate that it's conspiracy because you believe it to be conspiracy; I speculate that there doesn't seem to be sufficient evidence (as opposed to the massive volume of speculation, hypotheses, and opinion pieces floating around) to say that it is conspiracy and that the elements presented as evidence thereof are insufficient in and of themselves. An unbiased reader would perhaps note that I have at no point said that no conspiracy exists.

 

[acbytesla]

If it was Hillary and her entourage who had that meeting with the Russians, and then went on to kiss Putin's arse at Helsinki, and crap all over NATO, the Party of Trump would be screaming "Treason" from the rooftops of Washington DC!

I agree. Just when you think Republicans couldn't get more craven and unprincipled, they do.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

That's a plain misreading of the Politico article:

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:

Sounds to me like confirmation bias.

You are conflating a discussion of the law, solicitation is not legal, with the discussion as to whether there is evidence Jr's email is sufficient to incriminate him.

It's not about whether soliciting without getting anything is illegal, it is.

Zig is making the argument if you don't get anything, it's not illegal. That is not true.

It is a separate argument from, 'is the evidence sufficient that anything was sought or offered' and that is what Politico was referring to in the paragraph you cited.

 

[acbytesla]

1) I'm not a Trump defender

Tell that one to people that haven't been reading your posts for the last 2 plus years. They might believe you.

2) As soon as someone actually files charges against someone in Trump's campaign/cabinet for conspiracy related to the election, then you'll have a point. Until then, you have speculation - you speculate that it's conspiracy because you believe it to be conspiracy; I speculate that there doesn't seem to be sufficient evidence (as opposed to the massive volume of speculation, hypotheses, and opinion pieces floating around) to say that it is conspiracy and that the elements presented as evidence thereof are insufficient in and of themselves. An unbiased reader would perhaps note that I have at no point said that no conspiracy exists.

Nonsense. They are just working their way up the ladder. Hell, Trump is doing a damn good job of incriminating himself and others in his tweets.

 

[Segnosaur]

I'm fine with him finishing his investigation, but I'm presuming innocence until it's established that he actively played a role.

While the concept of "innocent until proven guilty" is an important legal concept, we are not in a court of law... its an on-line forum, where whatever is written will have minimal impact (if any at all) on Trump's presidency. Thus, many (most) people are following the preponderance of the evidence (even if we don't yet have a "guilty" verdict) when we say that Trump likely knew what was going on.

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".

The fact that Trump has expelled some diplomats and imposed some sanctions doesn't necessarily mean he's not being pro-Russia.

There have been many situations where Trump's actions have suggested a pro-Russia bias:
- Suggesting Russia re-enter the G7/G8, despite the fact that they are still in Crimea
- Failure to fully accept the conclusions of U.S. intelligence agencies that Russia was behind the hacking of the 2016 election and to take action to prevent similar problems in the future
- Attempts to roll back existing sanctions imposed by Obama

The fact that the Trump administration did impose sanctions over their assassination attempts seems less like "Trump is tough on Russia" and more like "Ok, we need to appear tough to overcome bad publicity but we'll quietly repeal sanctions later."

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...be-paul-manafort-campaign-links-a7771386.html

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

Balked at by who? Obama tried to get some bipartisan support against Russian hacking, but Republican Mitch McConnell had the statement wattered down.

Of course, I could see what would happen if Obama unilaterally raised more concerns... all of a sudden he gets criticized for trying to 'rig' the election.

 

[jadebox]

Listening isn't a crime ... by itself. Setting up and attending a meeting with someone you have reason to believe represents a foreign government in order to get information of value which you hope will affect the election .. well, that could be.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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

Balked at? You mean when Mitch McConnell threatened Obama if he made the investigation into Russian meddling public before the election?
PoliticsUSA (leans left but isn't full of lies):

Republicans need to look no further than the nearest mirror if they’re looking for who to blame for Russian’s attack on the United States. Mitch McConnell refused to do the right thing for his country when the Russians attacked us. Instead, he did what he always does; when asked by President Obama to take a unified stand against Russia, McConnell threatened President Obama....

The Senate Majority Leader of the United States, Republican Mitch McConnell (R-KY), threatened President Obama against publicizing Russian meddling before the 2016 election.

“It was Barack Obama who wanted to issue a joint statement condemning Russian election meddling with Republicans, but Mitch McConnell refused to cooperate,” Jason Easley had to explain in response to Trump transition team member and House Intelligence Committee Chair Devin Nunes'(R-CA) absurd suggestion that if the Russians did attack the United States and Donald Trump and the Russian Congress were doing nothing, it was Obama’s fault.

And there was this move: Snopes: Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell signaled during a 19 December 2016 television interview that he doesn't believe it is necessary to set up a special committee to investigate reported Russian hacks during the 2016 election.

 

[Dr. Keith]

Listening isn't a crime ... by itself. Setting up and attending a meeting with someone you have reason to believe represents a foreign government in order to get information of value which you hope will affect the election .. well, that could be.

Well said.

 

[Segnosaur]

1) I'm not a Trump defender

Sure you're not. I really really believe you. Really I do.[/quote]

2) As soon as someone actually files charges against someone in Trump's campaign/cabinet for conspiracy related to the election, then you'll have a point. Until then, you have speculation - you speculate that it's conspiracy because you believe it to be conspiracy

No, we speculate that its a conspiracy because that is where the preponderance of evidence is pointing.

Being a skeptic doesn't mean automatically rejecting everything until 100% proof is found... it means following the evidence in a rational, logical manner. And if all the evidence is pointing to Trump colluding with Russia, then that is what we assume happened, even if Mueller hasn't yet filed charges.

I speculate that there doesn't seem to be sufficient evidence (as opposed to the massive volume of speculation, hypotheses, and opinion pieces floating around) to say that it is conspiracy and that the elements presented as evidence thereof are insufficient in and of themselves. An unbiased reader would perhaps note that I have at no point said that no conspiracy exists.

But you are severely downplaying the evidence that has been revealed, which pretty much amounts to the same thing.

Its like a moon-hoaxer saying "I never claimed that man didn't land on the moon... I just reject all the moon rocks, the testimony of all the people who worked for NASA, and the pictures/video."

 

[acbytesla]

Listening isn't a crime ... by itself. Setting up and attending a meeting with someone you have reason to believe represents a foreign government in order to get information of value which you hope will affect the election .. well, that could be.

What do you think? Is it possible that meeting with someone to listen to their proposal to kill your parents for their estate might just be a crime?

 

[abaddon]

Have you ever watched any movies or TV shows where the cops engage in a sting operation? Have you noticed how the cops always wait until the transaction takes place?

There's a reason for that.

Sure. Movies and TV shows are where all the best lawyers study.

 

[Cain]

You have this exactly wrong, that isn't the conclusion of most legal scholars, and certainly not of the courts.

Yeah, no.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...9ed2e672adf_story.html?utm_term=.4f49af2a8373

In [this common] hypothetical, it is the acceptance of the bribe (which is not a legitimate function of office) which is the crime, NOT the firing. In fact, the acceptance of the bribe is a crime even if the firing never occurs (see United States v. Brewster).

Yawn. I imagine almost everyone agrees bribery is a crime -- unless bribery charges were brought against Trump.

All of this is old ground, the same issue came up over the attempt to prosecute Rick Perry for a veto, a prosecution which I correctly predicted would fail. The same argument about bribery was used there too, and failed for the same reason.

Texas justice. Frankly, I prefer killing hookers with an AK-47.

 

[xjx388]

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.

Well, of course. There were clear payment terms agreed to.

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.

Well, not quite. There is no evidence of an agreement to payment terms for the dirt, only an agreement to meet to talk about it. So it's really two issues that are not at all clear: 1)Is merely meeting to talk about getting dirt a crime? and 2)Is there not-currently-public evidence that some kind of quid pro quo was agreed to?

 

[theprestige]

Hold on.

If the crime was listening to a proposal and walking away without making a deal, doesn't that mean that no collusion actually happened?

 

[Dr. Keith]

Hold on.

If the crime was listening to a proposal and walking away without making a deal, doesn't that mean that no collusion actually happened?

I think the point is that you don't have to prove the deal. Taking the meeting for the reasons stated is not kosher.

 

[Ziggurat]

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.

Those are standard examples of well-established exceptions. Which exception do you imagine applies here? Be specific.

Hint:

none.

 

[theprestige]

I think the point is that you don't have to prove the deal. Taking the meeting for the reasons stated is not kosher.

The claim is that Trump colluded with the Russians to influence the election. If that collusion didn't actually happen, it would force a reevaluation of the Left's entire election narrative.

 

[LSSBB]

The claim is that Trump colluded with the Russians to influence the election. If that collusion didn't actually happen, it would force a reevaluation of the Left's entire election narrative.

Who is claiming "collusion"?