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

[BobTheCoward]

Please, you can conduct your thought experiments offline. Do you have any point relevant to the topic at hand?

What makes the Russian sensitive documents exactly.ple different from the BBC example? What pushes it to conspiracy to violate election law?

 

[Minoosh]

I thought it was good practice to.try and start at the boundaries, work to the line, and then see where the actual situation falls, was a good strategy for learning.

I see what you're doing there and it doesn't particularly bother me, though apparently I am in the minority.

If a foreign national contacted me, a U.S. campaign operative, for the purpose of peddling information damaging to my political opponent, I think I'd cover my rear with a legal opinion head of time.

And if I were the Russians I think I'd be a bit surprised by Team Trump's ignorance of the law and/or willingness to flout it.

 

[kellyb]

I thought of another exchange of a thing of value for something.

BBC gets a story on a scandal. They ask the campaign for a comment before publishing. They are giving the campaign something valuable, a headstart to prepare their messaging. They are receiving something of value, additional creditability that they chased the story appropriately.

Can the BBC do that?

Bonus, they are an extension of the government. So we have foreign nationals providing limited information to the campaign. Plus we took the side of their enemies 30 years ago.

That sounds more like the press doing what the press does in the most fundamental and basic way, not a gift to a campaign along the lines of an offer "to provide the campaign with some official documents and information that would incriminate your rival and be very useful to your candidate."

 

[BobTheCoward]

That sounds more like the press doing what the press does in the most fundamental and basic way, not a gift to a campaign along the lines of an offer "to provide the campaign with some official documents and information that would incriminate your rival and be very useful to your candidate."

True. It would not be for purposes of influencing the campaign. Then we are just back to the lover example. I think I'm convinced that holding the press conference with the ex lover would break the law. But I wouldn't be shocked if the supreme court called that a first amendment violation.

 

[WilliamSeger]

What makes the Russian sensitive documents exactly.ple different from the BBC example? What pushes it to conspiracy to violate election law?

Intent.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Intent.

What makes it different from the ex lover scenario?

 

[WilliamSeger]

What makes it different from the ex lover scenario?

[/bob]

 

[acbytesla]

I agree on all counts. But I don't think the Helsinki press conference could be submitted as evidence in a Don Jr trial. In that framework, I don't know what a prosecutor would do.

It doesn't have to be. Sure, it would be great to be able to prove what Trump gave the Russians and might be still giving the Russians. The only question really is did the Trump people believe it could be valuable to the campaign? That individuals who make millions of dollars took the meeting means yes, they thought it could or would be.

Also, the real problem for the nation is this. Imagine these Russians took this meeting promising some serious dirt on Hillary Clinton and all Trump had to do was change certain minor US policies toward Russia if elected. And lets say that Donnie and Jared and Paul Manafort said 'consider it done, no problem'. Now imagine that they recorded it all. What's to keep the Russians from adding to their requests? Except from this point on, they can just blackmail Trump with exposing the criminality.

 

[BobTheCoward]

It doesn't have to be. Sure, it would be great to be able to prove what Trump gave the Russians and might be still giving the Russians. The only question really is did the Trump people believe it could be valuable to the campaign? That individuals who make millions of dollars took the meeting means yes, they thought it could or would be.

Also, the real problem for the nation is this. Imagine these Russians took this meeting promising some serious dirt on Hillary Clinton and all Trump had to do was change certain minor US policies toward Russia if elected. And lets say that Donnie and Jared and Paul Manafort said 'consider it done, no problem'. Now imagine that they recorded it all. What's to keep the Russians from adding to their requests? Except from this point on, they can just blackmail Trump with exposing the criminality.

Then why no charges yet? I'm pretty convinced now, which makes the lack of charges rather shocking.

 

[Minoosh]

What makes it different from the ex lover scenario?

The mainstream media, as far as I know, would release its information to everyone, therefore making it less valuable. It's no hardship for everyone to get the facts first. But if something is being peddled under the table to give one candidate an edge, that changes. It becomes a something of value.

 

[BobTheCoward]

The mainstream media, as far as I know, would release its information to everyone, therefore making it less valuable. It's no hardship for everyone to get the facts first. But if something is being peddled under the table to give one candidate an edge, that changes. It becomes a something of value.

Thank you. I meant more along the lines of ex lover and sensitive russian documents? Or do you think the ex lover is breaking the law?

 

[Minoosh]

Thank you. I meant more along the lines of ex lover and sensitive russian documents? Or do you think the ex lover is breaking the law?

I don't see why that would be breaking the law, unless it was untrue in which case she could be sued for liable. But IMO you're missing the key point. The news media makes it open to everyone, so its value is diminished. Offering something directly to the campaigners (and no one else) means you are willing to negotiate in exchange for valuable information.

 

[acbytesla]

Then why no charges yet? I'm pretty convinced now, which makes the lack of charges rather shocking.

Not really. They build their cases and it really hasn't been that long.

No charges against Nixon were ever filed. The burglary took place in June of 72 and pretty much immediately they were investigating and Nixon didn't resign until August of 74.

The Trump Tower meeting happened in June of 2016 and wasn't exposed until April of 2017 and it took quite a while for some of the more incriminating aspects to come to light. Mueller was appointed In May of 2017. He's indicted and convicted a few people already.

Manafort is now having the screws put to him. With reports that Manafort's trial has taken an unexpected recess. This easily could be a sign that Manafort might be looking to deal.
He was at that Trump Tower meeting with Don Jr and Kushner. And Trump is panicking attacking Sessions today.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Not really. They build their cases and it really hasn't been that long.

No charges against Nixon were ever filed. The burglary took place in June of 72 and pretty much immediately they were investigating and Nixon didn't resign until August of 74.

The Trump Tower meeting happened in June of 2016 and wasn't exposed until April of 2017 and it took quite a while for some of the more incriminating aspects to come to light. Mueller was appointed In May of 2017. He's indicted and convicted a few people already.

Manafort is now having the screws put to him. With reports that Manafort's trial has taken an unexpected recess. This easily could be a sign that Manafort might be looking to deal.
He was at that Trump Tower meeting with Don Jr and Kushner. And Trump is panicking attacking Sessions today.

What case do they need other than the email?

 

[BobTheCoward]

I don't see why that would be breaking the law, unless it was untrue in which case she could be sued for liable. But IMO you're missing the key point. The news media makes it open to everyone, so its value is diminished. Offering something directly to the campaigners (and no one else) means you are willing to negotiate in exchange for valuable information.

Revenge would be a good reward

 

[acbytesla]

What case do they need other than the email?

More details would be nice. A full account from Manafort would be good. As illegal as that meeting was, they want it all. My guess is they suspect evidence to come to light on a lot more crimes. The Steele dossier says that Michael Cohen was a liaison between Russian operations and the Trump campaign. What was Roger Stone's involvement? Is there evidence of money laundering and other financial crimes? And as compelling as the evidence is against Jr, Kushner and Manafort, it could be better against Sr.

 

[kellyb]

More details would be nice. A full account from Manafort would be good. As illegal as that meeting was, they want it all. My guess is they suspect evidence to come to light on a lot more crimes. The Steele dossier says that Michael Cohen was a liaison between Russian operations and the Trump campaign. What was Roger Stone's involvement? Is there evidence of money laundering and other financial crimes? And as compelling as the evidence is against Jr, Kushner and Manafort, it could be better against Sr.

For all we know, they might be building multiple cases against him.

 

[jimbob]

No, its you who doesn't get it. The "dirt" came from the emails and THE EMAILS WERE STOLEN.

Breaking into a computer and stealing private documents & correspondence is a criminal offence (just like breaking into a hotel and stealing documents from the headquarters of an opposition party) is a criminal offence - sound familiar?

► If Trump only found out the emails were stolen after they were stolen, and still received them, or information from them, that makes him an accessory after the fact to the theft, and he has received stolen property. Both are criminal offences.

► If Trump knew the emails were going to be stolen and received them, or information from them, that makes him an accessory before the fact to theft, and he has received stolen property. Both are criminal offences.

► If he asked for the emails to be stolen (he did so publicly - that is on record) and received them, or information from them, that makes him an accessory before the fact to theft, and he has received stolen property. Both are criminal offences.

► If he colluded with the Russians to steal those emails, even if he never received them or any information from them, then he has participated in a criminal conspiracy to steal those documents.

Indeed, if I got hold of your interest banking credentials, it would be a crime for me to sell them to anyone.

 

[quadraginta]

I see what you're doing there and it doesn't particularly bother me, though apparently I am in the minority.

If a foreign national contacted me, a U.S. campaign operative, for the purpose of peddling information damaging to my political opponent, I think I'd cover my rear with a legal opinion head of time.

And if I were the Russians I think I'd be a bit surprised by Team Trump's ignorance of the law and/or willingness to flout it.

I think they had lots of company. Especially that last part.

I don't think anyone really expected Trump to be quite so blatant.

It hasn't deterred or even discouraged any of his supporters, though. And the politicians riding on his coattails seem to relish the newfound freedom.

 

[Darat]

As a juror, I wouldn't ask myself. I would have to rely on the information presented by the prosecutor. So, the prosecutor would have to make the argument that the person isn't capable of embarrassment.

Talking about the size of his knob during his election campaign would be a good example, for a prosecutor if they wanted to establish Trump's lack of ability to be be embarrassed.