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

[Ziggurat]

If it was hacked info or not doesn't seem relevant to the theoretical legal case we're discussing, I don't think.

Depends who "we" is. People in this thread have put forth the idea that the meeting constituted a conspiracy to receive stolen goods.

 

[Ziggurat]

You're ignoring that one of the few things we know about the meeting is that the Russians wanted to talk about the Magnitski Act sanctions

That wasn't known prior to the meeting.

That's why they went to the campaign with the dirt instead of the press.

They didn't go to the campaign with the dirt. Hell, the dirt may not even exist (one would think Hillary supporters would be pushing that fact a little harder, but life is ironic). As far as we can tell, the Russians showed up to the meeting empty handed.

 

[BobTheCoward]

That wasn't known prior to the meeting.



They didn't go to the campaign with the dirt. Hell, the dirt may not even exist (one would think Hillary supporters would be pushing that fact a little harder, but life is ironic). As far as we can tell, the Russians showed up to the meeting empty handed.

But does it matter if they showed up empty handed if the campaign went to the meeting planning to break the law? The question how is it they went to the meeting without thinking they were breaking the law.

 

[kellyb]

Why? There isn't a law about the principals selling at a market rate.

Look again at the specific language in the email:

"The Crown prosecutor of Russia...offered to provide the Trump campaign with some official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father.

This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump."

I'm not seeing "reasonable doubt" room that "offered to provide" means "talked about putting on the open market and possibly selling".

 

[plague311]

Over a page of this thread getting bobbed. Literally no advancement of the ******* conversation at all. I just pissed away 30 minutes reading the last few pages thinking the conversation would pass this nonsense bickering. Nope, semantic arguing over nothing. Neat.

 

[kellyb]

They didn't go to the campaign with the dirt. Hell, the dirt may not even exist (one would think Hillary supporters would be pushing that fact a little harder, but life is ironic). As far as we can tell, the Russians showed up to the meeting empty handed.

I'm getting the sense that the dirt doesn't exist, too. My wild guess is that if any of "it" actually existed, it was internal Russian gov info relating to Uranium One/Rosatom, but when Trump's lawyers looked at it, they found it to not be incriminating beyond what was already publicly known.

 

[kellyb]

Over a page of this thread getting bobbed. Literally no advancement of the ******* conversation at all. I just pissed away 30 minutes reading the last few pages thinking the conversation would pass this nonsense bickering. Nope, semantic arguing over nothing. Neat.

Well, it is a discussion about the letter of the law. That's always nitpicky to the point of maddening.

See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZbqAMEwtOE

 

[WilliamSeger]

They didn't know it was about that before the meeting (supposedly). So their attending the meeting wouldn't be a conspiracy.

They didn't need to know that for it to be a conspiracy to violate the law; accepting anything of value from a foreign national would be illegal. They had also been warned that the Russians would try to infiltrate their campaign, so innocent people would have gone straight to the FBI. My point is that there is ample evidence of intent and mens rea on both sides, which a prosecutor would need to prove to get a conviction, and which would be highly unlikely in the hypothetical cases you bring up.

 

[plague311]

Well, it is a discussion about the letter of the law. That's always nitpicky to the point of maddening.

See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZbqAMEwtOE

I generally love that stuff, this is barely that. It's completely circular, as someone said before. It's revolving around Bob making up completely ******** scenarios and people actually giving them any amount of worthwhile consideration. The insane drivel about ex lovers, and weird ass scenarios has nothing to do with this thread at all and should be moved to either CT or AAH.

 

[BobTheCoward]

I generally love that stuff, this is barely that. It's completely circular, as someone said before. It's revolving around Bob making up completely ******** scenarios and people actually giving them any amount of worthwhile consideration. The insane drivel about ex lovers, and weird ass scenarios has nothing to do with this thread at all and should be moved to either CT or AAH.

It seems if they end up needing a legal defense, Don Jr and kushner are going to be trying some sort of argument that they were actually intending to meet the letter of the law ("oh, regardless if they wanted to give it to us, we were going to pay for it. We tell people all the time we cant accept that gift, but we will gladly pay for it).

I feel like if I said during the malheur standoff, "but none of the employees have tried going to work, so they are not actually blocking anyone," I would have been equally mocked (rightfully so). But that argument actually worked.

 

[Dr. Keith]

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.

That it didn't happen in this meeting does not mean it didn't happen.

And Mueller is now part of the left?

 

[WilliamSeger]

Who is claiming "collusion"?

Mainly, the ones who want to insist that "collusion isn't illegal." Theprestige's argument has expired anyway, since we know there was "collusion" and that the Russians did attempt to influence the election (and very plausibly did), and that for unexplained reasons Trump kisses Putin's ass. Now we're just waiting for Mueller's indictments, and then I suppose we lefties will have a vote to determine "the Left's entire election narrative."

 

[BobTheCoward]

Mainly, the ones who want to insist that "collusion isn't illegal." Theprestige's argument has expired anyway, since we know there was "collusion" and that the Russians did attempt to influence the election (and very plausibly did), and that for unexplained reasons Trump kisses Putin's ass. Now we're just waiting for Mueller's indictments, and then I suppose we lefties will have a vote to determine "the Left's entire election narrative."

You two should make a bet.

 

[Trebuchet]

It seems if they end up needing a legal defense, Don Jr and kushner are going to be trying some sort of argument that they were actually intending to meet the letter of the law ("oh, regardless if they wanted to give it to us, we were going to pay for it. We tell people all the time we cant accept that gift, but we will gladly pay for it).

I feel like if I said during the malheur standoff, "but none of the employees have tried going to work, so they are not actually blocking anyone," I would have been equally mocked (rightfully so). But that argument actually worked.

Oh, they were planning to pay for it all right, by relaxing or removing the Obama-imposed sanctions on Russia.

 

[theprestige]

That it didn't happen in this meeting does not mean it didn't happen.

I fully agree. What I expect is that this meeting will continue to figure in the ongoing motte-and-bailey work on the subject. Whenever it's being closely examined, we'll admit that it isn't actually relevant to the central claim. Whenever it's not being closely examined, it will be put forward as evidence in support of the central claim. And I predict a page or two of thrashing about exactly what the significance of the meeting is, and defending its usefulness to the narrative.

And Mueller is now part of the left?

In the sense of the left having a narrative about the election? I hope not. Mueller should be investigating possibilities, not narrating a story whose ending he's already written.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Look again at the specific language in the email:

"The Crown prosecutor of Russia...offered to provide the Trump campaign with some official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father.

This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump."

I'm not seeing "reasonable doubt" room that "offered to provide" means "talked about putting on the open market and possibly selling".

Provide also means you get paid for it

http://www.fusiongps.com

Fusion GPS is based in Washington, DC and provides premium research, strategic intelligence, and due diligence services to corporations, law firms, and investors worldwide.

 

[Dr. Keith]

I fully agree. What I expect is that this meeting will continue to figure in the ongoing motte-and-bailey work on the subject. Whenever it's being closely examined, we'll admit that it isn't actually relevant to the central claim. Whenever it's not being closely examined, it will be put forward as evidence in support of the central claim. And I predict a page or two of thrashing about exactly what the significance of the meeting is, and defending its usefulness to the narrative.

I predict the discussion here to be completely unrelated to the actual evidence used for any indictments.

I also think this meeting is important in showing that the campaign was excited to break the law when the opportunity was presented, whether the meeting itself was actually illegal or not. That will be useful for all sorts of narratives, from the midterms on through to 2020.

Because what few here seem to remember is that there is no indication that Mueller would indict a sitting president. So, while this is a legal struggle for many, it is a political struggle for Trump. That is why he hasn't, and won't, shut up about it. Miranda warnings don't apply to political struggles.

 

[kellyb]

Provide also means you get paid for it

http://www.fusiongps.com

Touché.

Although I doubt the The Crown prosecutor of Russia is in the for-profit dirt-gathering business on the open market.

 

[acbytesla]

They didn't know it was about that before the meeting (supposedly). So their attending the meeting wouldn't be a conspiracy.

Don Jr. certainly did and if Manafort and Kushner actually knew the purpose of the meeting they did too.

 

[acbytesla]

You're ignoring that one of the few things we know about the meeting is that the Russians wanted to talk about the Magnitski Act sanctions... er, adoptions. That's why they went to the campaign with the dirt instead of the press. About the only defense seems to be claiming that DJTJ, Kusher, and Manafort were all too stupid to realize the Russians were looking for a very valuable quid pro quo for their dirt.

I don't believe for one second that this meeting was about that act. I think that was/is a cover story.