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

[acbytesla]

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

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?

You keep ignoring that this was a foreign national trying to meddle in our election. The foreign agent is engaging in a crime simply by offering the dirt. That you meet with them is conspiracy to commit that crime.

 

[acbytesla]

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

It's also not legal.

 

[theprestige]

Who is claiming "collusion"?

You lost me. If nobody is claiming collusion, what's the problem?

 

[acbytesla]

You lost me. If nobody is claiming collusion, what's the problem?

Its called conspiracy.

 

[theprestige]

Its called conspiracy.

You're mad that I said colluded in place of conspired?

 

[acbytesla]

You're mad that I said colluded in place of conspired?

I'm not mad. I'm just saying the term colluding is a catch all term. The actual crimes this cabal committed have specific descriptions that don't use the word 'colluded' or 'collusion'. However, it is easy to find 'conspiracy'.

 

[Cain]

I'm not mad. I'm just saying the term colluding is a catch all term. The actual crimes this cabal committed have specific descriptions that don't use the word 'colluded' or 'collusion'. However, it is easy to find 'conspiracy'.

Maybe Trump's been telling the truth all along. He said he might not accept the outcome of the election due to shenanigans, then liberals were the ones who cried about the result (citing shenanigans). He said he's never colluded, and now Demonrats are agreeing (he conspired). Gotta listen to your favorite president.

 

[acbytesla]

Maybe Trump's been telling the truth all along. He said he might not accept the outcome of the election due to shenanigans, then liberals were the ones who cried about the result (citing shenanigans). He said he's never colluded, and now Demonrats are agreeing (he conspired). Gotta listen to your favorite president.

Sure.

Synonyms are not words that mean the same thing. Oh wait, they are.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Well, not quite. There is no evidence of an agreement to payment terms for the dirt

Doesn't matter, in fact if they were paying to get the dirt then it'd be less likely to have been a criminal act under the law, it's that they were going to be given the information for free as per the email that created the criminality.

only an agreement to meet to talk about it.

And this is Conspiracy against the US in terms of violating the Election Laws, penalty is up to 3 years in jail.

So it's really two issues that are not at all clear: 1)Is merely meeting to talk about getting dirt a crime?

Yes, because it's an action that is made to further the Conspiracy agreed to in the E-Mails.

2)Is there not-currently-public evidence that some kind of quid pro quo was agreed to?

It doesn't matter, no quid pro quo is required.


Here's the thing, the offer in the email to give dirt on Clinton that had been gathered by the Russian Government was illegal. The correct response is... "No thanks, er can't have anything to do with this." followed by an Email to the FEC to tell them that you have been approached illegally.

Accepting the offer to meet becomes a Conspiracy to act, and taking any action to further that Conspiracy, i.e. setting up a meeting, cements the Conspiracy as a Criminal action.

Had Jr taken this email to the Manafort, Kushner, and his dad, and they had said, nope, we can't do that, and he'd then emailed back, "Hey ignore my previous email, we can't act on this," again, we wouldn't be here arguing about it, but they didn't. They went ahead with the meeting, and in doing so committed the offence of Conspiracy against the US.


Look at it this way. I come up to you in a pub and offer you the chance of a life time to rob a bank. If you say no, you haven't committed a crime. If you say "sounds good," then you are potentially committing a crime. If you then come back before any other steps have been taken and say "I changed my mind, I'm out," then again you haven't broken the law. But, if you say, let's have a meeting to sort out the details, and then set up the meeting and bring in the rest of the crew expecting to be setting up a bank robbery, then yes, you have committed a crime, even if the end result of the meeting doesn't have the outcome of creating a bank robbery plan and the bank was never actually robbed.

 

[acbytesla]

Doesn't matter, in fact if they were paying to get the dirt then it'd be less likely to have been a criminal act under the law, it's that they were going to be given the information for free as per the email that created the criminality.

And this is Conspiracy against the US in terms of violating the Election Laws, penalty is up to 3 years in jail.

Yes, because it's an action that is made to further the Conspiracy agreed to in the E-Mails.

Here's the thing, the offer in the email to give dirt on Clinton that had been gathered by the Russian Government was illegal. The correct response is... "No thanks, er can't have anything to do with this." followed by an Email to the FEC to tell them that you have been approached illegally.

Accepting the offer to meet becomes a Conspiracy to act, and taking any action to further that Conspiracy, i.e. setting up a meeting, cements the Conspiracy as a Criminal action.

Had Jr taken this email to the Manafort, Kushner, and his dad, and they had said, nope, we can't do that, and he'd then emailed back, "Hey ignore my previous email, we can't act on this," again, we wouldn't be here arguing about it, but they didn't. They went ahead with the meeting, and in doing so committed the offence of Conspiracy against the US.

Look at it this way. I come up to you in a pub and offer you the chance of a life time to rob a bank. If you say no, you haven't committed a crime. If you say "sounds good," then you are potentially committing a crime. If you then come back before any other steps have been taken and say "I changed my mind, I'm out," then again you haven't broken the law. But, if you say, let's have a meeting to sort out the details, and then set up the meeting and bring in the rest of the crew expecting to be setting up a bank robbery, then yes, you have committed a crime, even if the end result of the meeting doesn't have the outcome of creating a bank robbery plan and the bank was never actually robbed.

Very good detailed description.

What bothers me most about this meeting isn't that Donnie and Subway son in law had this meeting. It's that Manafort attended this meeting. Donnie's sperm and son in law have at least ignorance on their side, even though that is not a legal excuse. Manafort KNEW better. But given that the Feds have Manafort dead to rights breaking all kinds of laws, I guess it isn't that surprising.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I'm not mad. I'm just saying the term colluding is a catch all term. The actual crimes this cabal committed have specific descriptions that don't use the word 'colluded' or 'collusion'. However, it is easy to find 'conspiracy'.

"Collusion" is a red herring as if calling it something else changed reality.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Very good detailed description.

What bothers me most about this meeting isn't that Donnie and Subway son in law had this meeting. It's that Manafort attended this meeting. Donnie's sperm and son in law have at least ignorance on their side, even though that is not a legal excuse. Manafort KNEW better. But given that the Feds have Manafort dead to rights breaking all kinds of laws, I guess it isn't that surprising.

This is something that gets me too. But more because while I can accept that Jr and Jared are both new, and even Trump himself could be ignorant of the law, when I see their supporters excusing the behaviour and the coverup because of the Trump administration's stupidity, I can't help but ask myself why they are so willing to support and protect such an incompetent and stupid administration.

I don't get why they wouldn't rather have a competent, cleaner, more "morale", and well run Republican administration under President Pence, then the mess of bumbling, corrupt, incompetents that are in there now, people that are driving the traditional Republicans from the party in droves, and are harming the brand of the GOP and Conservatives more each day that they are in power.

And then I feel a little better that they are protecting Trump, because I hold out hope that in 3 months we're going to hopefully see a switch in either the House or the Senate, perhaps if the gods smile, and Democratic voters get off their butts and to the polls, both, and Trump will either be Impeached or spend out the last two years of his presidency as a lame duck.

 

[portlandatheist]

I can't believe we are even having this conversation.

 

[Ziggurat]

Here's the thing, the offer in the email to give dirt on Clinton that had been gathered by the Russian Government was illegal.

I keep hearing this, but all the arguments put forth to support this are, to put it charitably, weak.

 

[BobTheCoward]

I keep hearing this, but all the arguments put forth to support this are, to put it charitably, weak.

I think an accurate answer is it's untested.

 

[xjx388]

Doesn't matter, in fact if they were paying to get the dirt then it'd be less likely to have been a criminal act under the law, it's that they were going to be given the information for free as per the email that created the criminality.

That's the open question that hasn't been cleared up, though. Plus, it really makes no sense: why can you hire a foreign national for dirt but you can't get it for free? I'm assuming that it's because it would be considered a contribution from a foreign national but as I've pointed out and cited in support, that is not at all clear. Such a prosecution would be unprecedented.

And this is Conspiracy against the US in terms of violating the Election Laws, penalty is up to 3 years in jail.



Yes, because it's an action that is made to further the Conspiracy agreed to in the E-Mails.

Here is where you are going beyond the evidence made public thus far: that there was a conspiracy between Trump and Russia to hack the emails. I understand where people are inferring that such happened but there is no direct evidence that it happened.

It doesn't matter, no quid pro quo is required.

I'm not so sure about that. If there was a plan to exchange dirt for sanction relief or help in hacking the DNC servers, that's clearly a crime. If there was no such plan? Not so clear.

Here's the thing, the offer in the email to give dirt on Clinton that had been gathered by the Russian Government was illegal. The correct response is... "No thanks, er can't have anything to do with this." followed by an Email to the FEC to tell them that you have been approached illegally.

That's a declarative statement. But it's subject is a matter of question. I totally agree that the Trump campaign shouldn't have touched this but there are reasons beyond legality as well. It's really bad optics even if it isn't illegal.

Accepting the offer to meet becomes a Conspiracy to act, and taking any action to further that Conspiracy, i.e. setting up a meeting, cements the Conspiracy as a Criminal action.

Again, that's extrapolating beyond publicly available evidence.

Had Jr taken this email to the Manafort, Kushner, and his dad, and they had said, nope, we can't do that, and he'd then emailed back, "Hey ignore my previous email, we can't act on this," again, we wouldn't be here arguing about it, but they didn't. They went ahead with the meeting, and in doing so committed the offence of Conspiracy against the US.


Look at it this way. I come up to you in a pub and offer you the chance of a life time to rob a bank. If you say no, you haven't committed a crime. If you say "sounds good," then you are potentially committing a crime. If you then come back before any other steps have been taken and say "I changed my mind, I'm out," then again you haven't broken the law. But, if you say, let's have a meeting to sort out the details, and then set up the meeting and bring in the rest of the crew expecting to be setting up a bank robbery, then yes, you have committed a crime, even if the end result of the meeting doesn't have the outcome of creating a bank robbery plan and the bank was never actually robbed.

Robbing a bank is clearly a crime. Conspiracy to rob a bank is therefore also a crime. Accepting information from a foreign national is not clearly a crime, though it may turn out to be. If it turns out not to be a crime, then there can't be an illegal conspiracy.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

I can't believe we are even having this conversation.

Look on the bright side. We're more than six thousand posts into this topic. If it weren't for the people who somehow manage to find themselves "confused" about the same issues, over and over and over, we wouldn't have anything to talk about at all.

[ETA] Just for funzies, I clicked back to page 14 to see what we were up to 2k posts ago. It really is the same conversation with the same people, about a slightly different topic.

 

[acbytesla]

That's the open question that hasn't been cleared up, though. Plus, it really makes no sense: why can you hire a foreign national for dirt but you can't get it for free? I'm assuming that it's because it would be considered a contribution from a foreign national but as I've pointed out and cited in support, that is not at all clear. Such a prosecution would be unprecedented.

Here is where you are going beyond the evidence made public thus far: that there was a conspiracy between Trump and Russia to hack the emails. I understand where people are inferring that such happened but there is no direct evidence that it happened.

I'm not so sure about that. If there was a plan to exchange dirt for sanction relief or help in hacking the DNC servers, that's clearly a crime. If there was no such plan? Not so clear.


That's a declarative statement. But it's subject is a matter of question. I totally agree that the Trump campaign shouldn't have touched this but there are reasons beyond legality as well. It's really bad optics even if it isn't illegal.

Again, that's extrapolating beyond publicly available evidence.

Robbing a bank is clearly a crime. Conspiracy to rob a bank is therefore also a crime. Accepting information from a foreign national is not clearly a crime, though it may turn out to be. If it turns out not to be a crime, then there can't be an illegal conspiracy.

I think you're being deliberately obtuse because you don't wan to admit the obvous.

In this instance, there is no nuance. Donnie's email (or was it a text?) said all that is necessary. Combined with the meeting at Trump Tower he committed conspiracy. And then he and Jared followed it up by lying to Congress another felony, and if Trump encouraged them to lie, thats obstruction.

 

[phiwum]

That's the open question that hasn't been cleared up, though. Plus, it really makes no sense: why can you hire a foreign national for dirt but you can't get it for free? I'm assuming that it's because it would be considered a contribution from a foreign national but as I've pointed out and cited in support, that is not at all clear. Such a prosecution would be unprecedented.

Here is where you are going beyond the evidence made public thus far: that there was a conspiracy between Trump and Russia to hack the emails. I understand where people are inferring that such happened but there is no direct evidence that it happened.

I'm not so sure about that. If there was a plan to exchange dirt for sanction relief or help in hacking the DNC servers, that's clearly a crime. If there was no such plan? Not so clear.


That's a declarative statement. But it's subject is a matter of question. I totally agree that the Trump campaign shouldn't have touched this but there are reasons beyond legality as well. It's really bad optics even if it isn't illegal.

Again, that's extrapolating beyond publicly available evidence.

Robbing a bank is clearly a crime. Conspiracy to rob a bank is therefore also a crime. Accepting information from a foreign national is not clearly a crime, though it may turn out to be. If it turns out not to be a crime, then there can't be an illegal conspiracy.

I'm a little surprised that is your position. Anyway, we might see if that's a crime. Or maybe not, since there might be other issues

 

[acbytesla]

I'm a little surprised that is your position. Anyway, we might see if that's a crime. Or maybe not, since there might be other issues

I'd be surprised if Don Jr. and Jared weren't indicted by Mueller at some point for at least conspiracy and for lying to Congress.

With Trump himself, his position as POTUS complicates matters. Mueller probably won't indict him, but he will issue a report that lists crimes for Congress and perhaps a recommendation that they prepare Articles of Impeachment.