Mueller Investigation pt5

Status
Not open for further replies.
delete - duplicate. forum is acting up and emptying the edit window again.
 
Last edited:
Drysdale said:
The massive amount of evidence of conspiracy between Trump's campaign and Russia is there if one simply opens their eyes.
Click to expand...
I'll bite, what exactly is this evidence and where is it?
Be specific please.
Click to expand...
The Empty Wheel has this concise summary of the quid pro quo between Trump Org and Moscow:





  1. January 20, 2016, when Michael Cohen told Dmitry Peskov’s personal assistant that Trump would be willing to work with a GRU-tied broker and (soft and hard) sanctioned banks in pursuit of a $300 million Trump Tower deal in Russia.
  2. June 9, 2016, when Don Jr, knowing that currying favor with Russia could mean $300 million to the family, took a meeting offering dirt on Hillary Clinton as “part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump.” At the end of the meeting, per the testimony of at least four attendees, Don Jr said they’d revisit Magnitsky sanctions if his dad won.
  3. August 2, 2016, when Paul Manafort and Rick Gates had a clandestine meeting with Konstantin Kilimnik at which Trump’s campaign manager walked Kilimnik through highly detailed poll data and the two discussed a “peace” plan for Ukraine understood to amount to sanctions relief.
  4. December 29, 2016, when (working on instructions relayed by KT McFarland, who was at Mar-a-Lago with Trump) Mike Flynn said something to Sergey Kislyak that led Putin not to respond to Obama’s election-related sanctions
  5. January 11, 2017, when Erik Prince, acting as a back channel for Trump, met with sanctioned sovereign wealth fund Russian Direct Investment Fund CEO Kirill Dmitriev.
 
carlitos said:
The Empty Wheel has this concise summary of the quid pro quo between Trump Org and Moscow:





  1. January 20, 2016, when Michael Cohen told Dmitry Peskov’s personal assistant that Trump would be willing to work with a GRU-tied broker and (soft and hard) sanctioned banks in pursuit of a $300 million Trump Tower deal in Russia.
  2. June 9, 2016, when Don Jr, knowing that currying favor with Russia could mean $300 million to the family, took a meeting offering dirt on Hillary Clinton as “part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump.” At the end of the meeting, per the testimony of at least four attendees, Don Jr said they’d revisit Magnitsky sanctions if his dad won.
  3. August 2, 2016, when Paul Manafort and Rick Gates had a clandestine meeting with Konstantin Kilimnik at which Trump’s campaign manager walked Kilimnik through highly detailed poll data and the two discussed a “peace” plan for Ukraine understood to amount to sanctions relief.
  4. December 29, 2016, when (working on instructions relayed by KT McFarland, who was at Mar-a-Lago with Trump) Mike Flynn said something to Sergey Kislyak that led Putin not to respond to Obama’s election-related sanctions
  5. January 11, 2017, when Erik Prince, acting as a back channel for Trump, met with sanctioned sovereign wealth fund Russian Direct Investment Fund CEO Kirill Dmitriev.
Click to expand...

Hell, they practically admitted to it when they said the meeting was to discuss Russian adoptions. Of course, restrictions on adoptions were only put into place as a retaliation for the Magnitisky sanctions. Discussing adoptions is discussing sanctions.
 
The Big Dog said:
Here are some very insightful comments from Rod Rosenstein, that should dampen the ardor of people in anticipation of the Mueller report, and throw a wet blanket over Schiff's grandstanding

https://twitter.com/mattzap/status/1100102220257857536
Click to expand...

Rosenstein: "...if we aren't prepared to prove our case beyond a reasonable doubt in court, then we have no business making allegations against American citizens."

Which suggests evidence of wrong-doing. Last semester, an international student submitted an amazing seven page essay. After reading his other work/e-mails, I came to realize that he almost certainly paid for it. How do I prove this malfeasance? I could've quizzed him, and, taking a page from the Trump playbook, he could delay and call it a witch-hunt. By the time the actual quiz rolls around and he answers basic questions incorrectly, he could say his memory is fuzzy and he's been so busy with other projects. Laypeople would give him the benefit of the doubt (just as they were initially inclined to give Melania's plagiarism the benefit of the doubt -- "all those speeches sound the same").

As for making the report public... Mueller investigated Russian interference in the election, so of course the public should know. Trump's staff keep insisting "this is a democratically elected president" (except one of those democracies where, you know, the person with the second most votes wins). We should also have an informed electorate when it comes to Trump's re-election. Finally, the fact this president appointed the people tasked with overseeing him is reason to make as much of the report public as possible.

Despite the first sentence in this post, I wouldn't read too much into Rosenstein's comments.
 
quadraginta said:
I have added, in boldface, the part of that statement about the Senate investigation which TBD seems to consistently leave out.

I'm sure it is completely inadvertent. :rolleyes:

(Direct evidence being much harder to come by when it is so studiously avoided.)
Click to expand...

Not just didn't find direct evidence, purposefully didn't look where it might have been found.
 
Cain said:
Rosenstein: "...if we aren't prepared to prove our case beyond a reasonable doubt in court, then we have no business making allegations against American citizens."

Which suggests evidence of wrong-doing.
Click to expand...

No, actually it does not, it literally states the opposite.

Cool quiz story tho
 
Cain said:
Rosenstein: "...if we aren't prepared to prove our case beyond a reasonable doubt in court, then we have no business making allegations against American citizens."
Click to expand...
That's very strange wording. Prosecutors don't decide what is resaonable doubt : jury members do that. Prosecutors present a case, the jury decides if it passes the "beyond a reasonable doubt" test. Clearly, prosecutors should not present entirely spurious cases, but it's not for them to decide what is "beyond reasonable doubt". What they should judge is whether there's a case to present which can reasonably be expected to convince a jury.

If prosecutors can decide what is reasonable doubt they might well set the bar unreasonably high for questionable reasons in certain cases.
 
CapelDodger said:
That's very strange wording. Prosecutors don't decide what is resaonable doubt : jury members do that. Prosecutors present a case, the jury decides if it passes the "beyond a reasonable doubt" test. Clearly, prosecutors should not present entirely spurious cases, but it's not for them to decide what is "beyond reasonable doubt". What they should judge is whether there's a case to present which can reasonably be expected to convince a jury.

If prosecutors can decide what is reasonable doubt they might well set the bar unreasonably high for questionable reasons in certain cases.
Click to expand...

Nothing strange about it, it says, if they can't prove their case, then they are not going to release a public statement about people they think are innocent
 
CapelDodger said:
That's very strange wording. Prosecutors don't decide what is resaonable doubt : jury members do that. Prosecutors present a case, the jury decides if it passes the "beyond a reasonable doubt" test. Clearly, prosecutors should not present entirely spurious cases, but it's not for them to decide what is "beyond reasonable doubt". What they should judge is whether there's a case to present which can reasonably be expected to convince a jury.

If prosecutors can decide what is reasonable doubt they might well set the bar unreasonably high for questionable reasons in certain cases.
Click to expand...

Clever wording there. A prosecutor can decide there is not sufficient evidence to prove a case beyond a reasonable doubt and therefore not prosecute. In such a situation the prosecutor has decided there is no "beyond a reasonable doubt" without any input from a judge or jury.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom