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

[Ziggurat]

Cool, he's "fighting back" by confessing to obstruction and denying it in the same tweet.

That makes no sense. Strzok wasn't part of any active investigation when he was fired, so how can his firing obstruct anything? And he was removed from the Trump investigation by Mueller, not by Trump. Do you expect Mueller to charge himself with obstruction?

 

[smartcooky]

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

Whether or not the "goods' (the emails) were stolen is probably moot. Any meeting involving two or more members of a party's election campaign, with foreign nationals, to get otherwise unobtainable information to assist that campaign with election of its candidate, is a criminal conspiracy under 18 USC § 371.

 

[smartcooky]

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.

The "dirt" could also have been a cover name for the Dem's/Hillary's campaign strategy (stolen by Russian hackers) or that strategy might have been stolen along with any "dirt".

This would account very nicely for the GOP's sudden change in their strategy almost immediately after that meeting.

 

[Ziggurat]

Whether or not the "goods' (the emails) were stolen is probably moot.

There's no reason to think the information being offered was emails, stolen or otherwise.

Any meeting involving two or more members of a party's election campaign, with foreign nationals, to get otherwise unobtainable information to assist that campaign with election of its candidate, is a criminal conspiracy under 18 USC § 371.

That interpretation is unlikely to survive scrutiny.

 

[C_Felix]

Womp womp

A federal district judge, Dabney Friedrich, who was appointed by President Donald Trump has upheld Robert Mueller's appointment and constitutional authority in the special counsel's case against Russian social media propagandists.

 

[WilliamSeger]

That makes no sense. Strzok wasn't part of any active investigation when he was fired, so how can his firing obstruct anything? And he was removed from the Trump investigation by Mueller, not by Trump. Do you expect Mueller to charge himself with obstruction?

Strzok was fired by the Trump-appointed acting FBI director despite the recommendation from the ethics office that he should get a 60-day unpaid suspension. In the tweet, Trump himself links the firing to his own "fighting back" against Strzok, blaming him for the "hoax" investigation into TrumpCo's collusion. Like the Comey and McCabe firings, Trump is attempting to intimidate his "enemies" in the "deep state," threatening to ruin their careers with slander.

 

[Ziggurat]

Strzok was fired by the Trump-appointed acting FBI director despite the recommendation from the ethics office that he should get a 60-day unpaid suspension.

That might be relevant for a wrongful termination lawsuit by Strzok, but it's irrelevant to an obstruction of justice complaint, since his firing doesn't obstruct justice.

And it's funny to see certain people conceding, in a rather roundabout manner, that Strzok did in fact do something wrong.

 

[Dr. Keith]

What did Trump mean when he said he was fighting back?

 

[C_Felix]

What did Trump mean when he said he was fighting back?

Calling people names?

 

[jimbob]

There's no reason to think the information being offered was emails, stolen or otherwise.



That interpretation is unlikely to survive scrutiny.

There was Trump's very public request for Russia to provide him with the emails.

 

[Dr. Keith]

Calling people names?

But not to their faces. Never to their faces.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

But not to their faces. Never to their faces.

Do you suppose he grabs himself?

 

[Fudbucker]

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.

The problem with this is we know there was a congressional candidate who specifically asked (and got) stolen emails from Guccifer, (a front for the GRU). I find it very hard to believe this person knew there were stolen emails out there (and who to go to to get them), but everyone in Trump's campaign (people with extensive Russian connections) was oblivious. That makes no sense, AND they lie and act guilty as hell about the whole thing. If there's no fire here, it's the worst smoke cloud I've ever seen.

 

[Cain]

There's no reason to think the information being offered was emails, stolen or otherwise.

From The Guardian:

On or about 26 April 2016

The professor tells Papadopoulos that he has just met senior Russian officials in Moscow and learned that Moscow has obtained “dirt” on Clinton and “thousands of emails” connected to her. [emphasis in the original; see the timeline] Subsequently, Papadopoulos continued to correspond with the Trump campaign and with his Russian contacts about setting up a meeting and had at least one phone call with his campaign supervisor.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...-timeline-trump-campaign-adviser-russia-links

It's also worth noting that throughout servergate, Clinton's conservative critics often claimed that Russia had almost certainly intercepted/obtained her sensitive e-mails on national security. But yeah, maybe the Trump people expected to talk about Thanos' role in the MCU.

 

[Cain]

Strzok was fired by the Trump-appointed acting FBI director despite the recommendation from the ethics office that he should get a 60-day unpaid suspension. In the tweet, Trump himself links the firing to his own "fighting back" against Strzok, blaming him for the "hoax" investigation into TrumpCo's collusion. Like the Comey and McCabe firings, Trump is attempting to intimidate his "enemies" in the "deep state," threatening to ruin their careers with slander.

Are you suggesting others tasked with potentially being at odds with the administration might "tread carefully" because of potential retaliation? That's nonsense. If they do their jobs honestly -- unlike Strzok -- then they have nothing to fear. The only person who has something to fear is Donald Trump as it relates to sitting down with Mueller for an interview under oath. Just ONE lie and he could catch a perjury charge.

 

[phiwum]

That might be relevant for a wrongful termination lawsuit by Strzok, but it's irrelevant to an obstruction of justice complaint, since his firing doesn't obstruct justice.

And it's funny to see certain people conceding, in a rather roundabout manner, that Strzok did in fact do something wrong.

I'm willing to say he did something wrong. I don't have an opinion about the appropriate response, but, yeah, his texts went across the line, I think. It's not clear that his actions crossed that line, but saying what he said was arguably crossing a line.

 

[phiwum]

There was Trump's very public request for Russia to provide him with the emails.

Yeah, but it's hard to press him on that. Totally could have been a joking request.

That's the thing. One never knows when he's serious. In any case, the emails were gone. The Russians couldn't have retrieved them.

 

[smartcooky]

There's no reason to think the information being offered was emails, stolen or otherwise.

That interpretation is unlikely to survive scrutiny.

Jesus H. Godfearing Christ!! This is like trying to teach toddlers.

https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates...-taking-receipts/who-can-and-cant-contribute/

Here, I've broken down for you in nice little colour-coded baby steps.

Foreign nationals
Campaigns may not solicit1 or accept contributions2 from foreign nationals3. Federal law prohibits contributions, donations4, expenditures5 and disbursements6 solicited, directed7, received or made directly or indirectly by or from foreign nationals in connection with any election — federal, state or local. This prohibition includes contributions or donations made to political committees8 and building funds and to make electioneering communications9. Furthermore, it is a violation of federal law to knowingly provide substantial assistance in the making, acceptance or receipt of contributions or donations in connection with federal and nonfederal elections to a political committee, or for the purchase or construction of an office building. This prohibition includes, but is not limited to, acting as a conduit or intermediary10 for foreign national contributions and donations.

Solicit: For the purposes of 11 CFR Part 300, to solicit 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. The context includes the conduct of persons involved in the communication. A solicitation does not include mere statements of political support or mere guidance as to the applicability of a particular law or regulation. 11 CFR 300.2(m).

Contribution: A gift, subscription, loan, advance or deposit of money or anything of value given to influence a federal election; or the payment by any person of compensation for the personal services of another person if those services are rendered without charge to a political committee for any purpose. 11 CFR 100.52(a) and 100.54.

Donation: A payment, gift, subscription, loan, advance, deposit or anything of value given to a person but does not include contributions.11 CFR 300.


Its worth noting that when Dolt 45 publicly asked Russia to find those missing emails, that could well fall under solicitation, "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."

 

[Slings and Arrows]

Its worth noting that when Dolt 45 publicly asked Russia to find those missing emails, that could well fall under solicitation, "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."

Yeah, but Crooked Hillary assured us that her deleted emails only dealt with Yoga lessons and Chelsea's wedding -- having no value at all.

Are you insinuating that she lied to us?

 

[Cain]

Yeah, but Crooked Hillary assured us that her deleted emails only dealt with Yoga lessons and Chelsea's wedding -- having no value at all.

Are you insinuating that she lied to us?

I wouldn't be surprised if the e-mails also contained snide comments about current and former presidents, as well as colleagues, rivals and foreign leaders.