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

[PhantomWolf]

It's being reported that Mueller has documentary evidence as well as witness testimony saying that, contrary to Trump's lawyers statements, Trump knew Flynn was under criminal investigation when he spoke to Comey about him

I'm afraid you can't ask any questions about Obstruction of Justice here.

 

[WilliamSeger]

This whole conversation annoys me. I can't make up my mind whether these Trump defenders actually believe this wasn't a crime or that they know it was and just don't care. That they keep hearing these absurd commentaries on Hannity and Fox and Friends and are now just convinced and nothing can get them off this entrenched position.

What bugs me is the attitude that if it wasn't technically illegal, then it's okay, nothing to see here. No, if it's not technically illegal, it ought to be and we ought to make it so, because it certainly violates the spirit of a law intended to prohibit a source of foreign influence on a potential office holder. We can't leave that door standing open. At the very least, there has to be a political penalty for it.

The Trump Tower meeting was not an isolated incident; it was part of a pattern of "bad optics" covered up by lies from everyone involved, and anyone who attempts to defend Trump -- the man who betrayed his country in Helsinki -- by arguing legal technicalities should be ashamed of themselves.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

An unexpected recess in the Manafort trial has fuelled further speculation of a plea deal

Seth Abramson thread giving a legal perspective on the possibility

 

[phiwum]

All I’m really trying to say is that we, the denizens of this little corner of the internet, can only speculate as to whether or not any of what happened there is crime. We simply don’t have enough information to make the kinds of declarative and affirmative statements that are being made here.

I’d like to understand the issues better but I can see that this probably isn’t the place to do it. Which is a shame, really.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm happy to wait and see what comes out of this investigation. I tend to think that meeting with Russians (or other foreigners) in order to get dirt on one's opponent without an explicit payment is a bad thing. We'll see if it's also illegal in due time.

 

[BobTheCoward]

What bugs me is the attitude that if it wasn't technically illegal, then it's okay, nothing to see here. No, if it's not technically illegal, it ought to be and we ought to make it so, because it certainly violates the spirit of a law intended to prohibit a source of foreign influence on a potential office holder. We can't leave that door standing open. At the very least, there has to be a political penalty for it.

The Trump Tower meeting was not an isolated incident; it was part of a pattern of "bad optics" covered up by lies from everyone involved, and anyone who attempts to defend Trump -- the man who betrayed his country in Helsinki -- by arguing legal technicalities should be ashamed of themselves.

Outside of the Donald on Reddit, is there a lot of people saying the behavior is acceptable?

 

[xjx388]

The precedent for a political party being offered political dirt on their opponent by a foreign Government and not instantly rejecting the notion is to our knowledge unprecedented. However, people have been prosecuted for receiving and helping foreign nationals give money to a political Campaign before, in particular Bill Clinton's Campaign had money funneled to it via a Chinese American who was getting fund sent to him from China. As a result the campaign had to refund the money and several people involved in knowingly funneling the money ended up with convictions.

Now at this point I guess we need to decide is "Information" is "anything of value"?

While there are many arguments about how much and even if Information should be valued, I would suggest that in the end it comes down to this, is this information something that campaigns would generally expect to pay, and in fact do pay for. There is a whole mathematical theory devoted to showing this that you can go through if you want, though it made my brain hurt.

Based on that simple definition, I think that few people would really argue that "Political Dirt" is in fact information that has zero value to a campaign, and as such any offer becomes an offer of "anything of value" which is explicitly disallowed by law for foreign nationals to offer to give, or for campaigns to solicit.

as a result, IMO, and I hazard the opinions of a number of others I have seen, including lawyers, making the offer of information is an illegal action, thus in accepting and setting up a meeting, those involved were clearly furthering that illegal action.



You seem to totally misunderstand my statement here, I'll assume that this was not deliberate and re-explain it for you. It had nothing to do with Clinton's nor the DNC emails, but rather the email exchange between Jr and Rob Goldstone.

Goldstone made it quite clear that the information that he was offering was "very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump"

At this point Jr should have backed out and gotten as far from it as possible, but he didn't. He kept going and then set up the meeting. In doing so he creating and then was taking further steps to partake in a Conspiracy.



Again, no need to offer anything back in return. As long as you accept that information that generally would be something that campaign would have paid to get was being offered for free, then a crime was occurring. If the campaign members partook in solicit for that information, then they too directly committed a crime. If they merely took part in attempting to get the information, knowing it's source, then they committed Conspiracy, even if they failed to gain the information that they wanted.

Just to be clear, Solicit here means "to ask, request or recommend, explicitly or implicitly, that another person make a contribution, donation, transfer of funds or otherwise provide anything of value. A solicitation is an oral or written communication that, construed as reasonably understood in the context in which it is made, contains a clear message asking, requesting or recommending that a person make a contribution, donation, transfer of funds or otherwise provide anything of value. A solicitation may be made directly or indirectly."

Now let's be quite clear here, from the emails between Jr and Goldstone, I have no beliefs to the Trump Campaign soliciting the material at this point. That may have occurred later, and one could certainly suggest that Trump did so in asking Russia to find Hillary's emails, but that's not really here nor there as far as the meeting goes, in that there was only the criminal action of a conspiracy to have a foreign national contributing a thing of value to the campaign.



Yes it is, and I think I have shown why. Personally I don't even think that the Meeting was the worst issue in this whole saga, assuming a conviction, it's a slap on the wrist of a fine and likely probation for those involved. The lies to the FEC and Congress over it were worse.

To me I think that far more interesting ball of yarn is that whole change in direction of the Trump Campaign, including millions of dollars in advertising and trips being cancelled in what were assumed to be battleground states, and diverted to what were seen as blue states just a week after the Russians stole the DNC's analytics and gameplay book at the end of September 2016.



Not at all, and I have explained why.



It hinges on if Information can be defined as something of value, and I believe that yes, it not only can, but it is something with a value to it.

I can’t really disagree with your analysis and it does make your argument here much clearer. So thank you for that.

I might quibble with the severity of the penalties involved with getting something of value to the campaign for free. IOW, as you point out, other campaigns have had similar issues and no one has been impeached as a result. If that’s all Mueller has, then it stands to reason that Don Jr, et al might have some legal issues but it may not result in Trump’s impeachment. Of course, we don’t know what all Mueller has at this point.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Cain]

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.

Yeah, good point. It's OK for a police officer to buy donuts from the same place every Monday, but not OK for him to get those donuts for free?? Why do liberals hate Trump and cops?

 

[Ziggurat]

Conspiracy to commit a crime comes to mind (for some reason ).

That's pretty much criminalizing speech. Even if no crime is ever committed.

This is like arguing that since you can't legally threaten to kill someone, the first amendment doesn't actually protect speech. Are you deliberately trying to misunderstand the issue?

 

[Ziggurat]

I think an accurate answer is it's untested.

Technically, it's also untested whether the US government can confiscate the children of Olympic athletes in order to raise an army of super soldiers. And yet, I think most of us can see why that wouldn't fly.

But when it comes to Trump, any novel legal theory seems to be acceptable as long as it can be used to nail Trump, and who cares about the implications of adopting it?

 

[Ziggurat]

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.

You really can't see the first amendment problem with such an interpretation? Foreign nationals within the US have first amendment rights.

 

[kellyb]

But when it comes to Trump, any novel legal theory seems to be acceptable as long as it can be used to nail Trump, and who cares about the implications of adopting it?

I dunno.

I'm imagining a hypothetical world where it was Sanders and Trump in the general, and N Korea hacked the Trump campaign as a gift to Bernie (after Bernie called on them to do it) and did other stuff to try to help Sanders win, and Sanders won and was lifting or trying to lift sanctions on N Korea, allowing them to use Cuba as a client state, etc, apparently to repay the favor.

I think a lot of people would have a big problem with that.

 

[kellyb]

You really can't see the first amendment problem with such an interpretation? Foreign nationals within the US have first amendment rights.

Not first amendment rights to participate in a crime. If "the dirt" is information that qualifies as "a thing of value", it was criminal to even offer it.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Not first amendment rights to participate in a crime. If "the dirt" is information that qualifies as "a thing of value", it was criminal to even offer it.

Where is the line? Can they offer to disseminate public but not commonly known dirt?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

It's being reported that Mueller has documentary evidence as well as witness testimony saying that, contrary to Trump's lawyers statements, Trump knew Flynn was under criminal investigation when he spoke to Comey about him

I thought that was already confirmed by Sally Yates?

 

[kellyb]

Where is the line? Can they offer to disseminate public but not commonly known dirt?

I believe they're supposed to stay completely out of our elections.

 

[Foolmewunz]

This is like arguing that since you can't legally threaten to kill someone, the first amendment doesn't actually protect speech. Are you deliberately trying to misunderstand the issue?

Are you just Bobbing us? I can't trace this back (or can't be bothered to) but you're the one who keeps returning to it. This has nothing to do with free speech. Conspiracy to commit a crime is not protected by the First Amendment.

All that remains is to hear the rest of the evidence. My personal bet is that either Rudy or DJT, believing that they've got their Vulcan Invisibility Shield of Collusion is not a Crime will come right out and admit that Donnie and the kids knew it was about the emails. Those were stolen. Receiving stolen property is against the law. Conspiring to receive stolen property is against the law. Conspiring to disseminate/distribute stolen property is against the law.

And if the Fifth Avenue Feebs don't blurt it out. Mr. GQ, Roger Stone, is quite likely to 'fess up. They're coming at Stone from three different angles and he only imagines that he's Lex Luthor.

I can only hope it comes down to these idiots rolling up in a little ball, sucking their thumbs and whining "Free Speech". Even Clarence Thomas would probably throw 'em under the jail.

 

[BobTheCoward]

I believe they're supposed to stay completely out of our elections.

So if a foreign. National business guy goes on cnbc and praises a presidential candidate for what they will do for the economy, where does that fall? It is a thing of value.

ETA: I don't know the answer, but I am asking socratically to explore the boundaries.

 

[kellyb]

So if a foreign. National business guy goes on cnbc and praises a presidential candidate for what they will do for the economy, where does that fall? It is a thing of value.

It depends on if they coordinated/"arranged" the praise with the campaign or candidate, I think.

 

[Ziggurat]

Not first amendment rights to participate in a crime. If "the dirt" is information that qualifies as "a thing of value", it was criminal to even offer it.

This is circular logic. You're justifying criminalizing speech because the speech is a crime. Why is that speech a crime? Because you criminalized it, which you can do because it's a crime, which it is because you criminalized it, which....

No. That's not how it works. You can only criminalize speech under some pretty narrow exceptions to the first amendment. If the speech doesn't qualify for any of those exceptions, then the first amendment applies, and you cannot criminalize it.

So, do any of those exceptions apply here? Nobody has put forth any that might apply. People keep referring to "conspiracy" as justification, but the alleged conspiracy is a conspiracy to speak. And if the speech isn't criminal (and I don't think it can be, given the first amendment), then it cannot be a conspiracy.

Moreover, do you even want any exception to apply in this manner? Imagine that some foreign national had proof that Trump conspired with Putin to hack voting machines for 2020. Would you want it to be illegal for that foreign national to tell that to the Democratic candidate's campaign? Or would that be the sort of information that would be important for voters to know, and therefore should be legally protected as well?

The anti-Trump position here seems to have no concept of how their own argument could come back to bite them on the ass.

 

[Ziggurat]

Are you just Bobbing us? I can't trace this back (or can't be bothered to) but you're the one who keeps returning to it. This has nothing to do with free speech. Conspiracy to commit a crime is not protected by the First Amendment.

No. You don't get the argument at all, despite its simplicity. The argument is that the underlying action which is supposedly criminal cannot be criminal because it is protected by the first amendment. And if the underlying action is not criminal, then there cannot be a criminal conspiracy.

The underlying action is two people talking to each other. There are few exceptions to the first amendment which make two people talking to each other a crime. None of them apply here.

My personal bet is that either Rudy or DJT, believing that they've got their Vulcan Invisibility Shield of Collusion is not a Crime will come right out and admit that Donnie and the kids knew it was about the emails. Those were stolen. Receiving stolen property is against the law. Conspiring to receive stolen property is against the law. Conspiring to disseminate/distribute stolen property is against the law.

We've been over this multiple times now. The "dirt" was alleged Clinton dealings in Russia. If such dealings occurred, and if evidence of such dealings existed, then why on earth would that evidence have ever been on the DNC email servers? That makes no sense. Furthermore, if such dealings occurred, then the Russian government could logically have obtained the evidence through legal means, since the Russian government could legally search for records on the Russian half of any such dealings. Therefore there was no reason for anyone in the Trump campaign to suspect that the evidence being offered came from the hack of the DNC's emails. And that's ignoring the fact that it wasn't even public at that point that the DNC had been hacked, which also makes such a belief basically impossible.