Mueller Investigation pt5

Status
Not open for further replies.
I've no time to do research now but I'm sure I've posted quite a bit about that meeting. Find the name of the female Russian who participated and then search my posts for it, and you'll find Fred Flintstone.
 
This was in USA Today last August and it seems relevant:
“Don’t be fooled by word games,” Victoria Nourse, a professor at Georgetown Law, told us [USA Today] via email. “There is no legal term ‘collusion.’ The legal term for collusion is the crime of conspiracy. If you agree to kill someone and take a step toward that (hired the killer, or encouraged the killer, met with the killer) you are guilty of conspiracy to commit murder. Link
Click to expand...
USA Today went on to report that various legal pundits had varying interpretations as to whether opposition research even by a foreign government could be illegal.



This next excerpt I found unexpectedly. The hilited part begins to get the Trump campaign into treacherous waters. They're talking about information -- "official documents" -- about Clinton's dealing with Russia. That's it "very high level stuff" and is part of Russian government support for Donald Trump's election.
In emails exchanged with Trump Jr. to arrange the meeting, music publicist Rob Goldstone said the meeting was to “provide the Trump campaign with some official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary [Clinton] and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father [Trump Sr.]. This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump.” The younger Trump responded, saying, “If it’s what you say I love it especially later in the summer.”
Click to expand...

I also found this nugget which applies to both issues. (Did the Russian government seek to aid the Trump campaign and did the Trump campaign conspire with the Russians in carrying out same?)
The special counsel’s office charged three Russian organizations and 13 Russian nationals in February [2018] with violating U.S. criminal laws to interfere in the 2016 U.S. elections, which included spending “millions of dollars” on a pro-Trump social media campaign. The indictment specifically alleged the defendants conspired to defraud the United States “by impairing, obstructing, and defeating the lawful functions of the Federal Election Commission, the U.S. Department of Justice, and the U.S. Department of State in administering federal requirements for disclosure of foreign involvement in certain domestic activities.”
Click to expand...

Anyone still want to argue the Russians didn't attempt to help the Trump campaign? But to the present part of the discussion, members of the Trump campaign could have possibly been charged with conspiracy along with the Russians who were indicted. Why weren't they? Anyone know?

Here's a link to a PDF copy of the 37-page indictment: Link
 
Ziggurat said:
What part of your source indicates the information on offer was obtained illegally? Because I see nothing in there which indicates that.
Click to expand...
Getting something of value to a campaign from a foreign power is a an illegal campaign contribution according to FEC regulations. This has already been explained to you.


Ziggurat said:
But the activity you're conspiring to do still has to BE a crime.

We've got allegations that the information Russia offered was obtained illegally, but no evidence to back that up. And we've got allegations that giving information to Trump would have been an illegal campaign finance violation, bases on a suspect reading of FEC regulations with serious first amendment problems, and which Mueller somehow didn't think was worth going after for reasons. But that's it so far. Not impressive.
Click to expand...
It doesn’t matter if you’re impressed or not. What matters is that it’s against the law and potentially prosecutable as a criminal charge.
 
Upchurch said:
Getting something of value to a campaign from a foreign power is a an illegal campaign contribution according to FEC regulations. This has already been explained to you.
Click to expand...

You've lost the thread of the conversation. It was suggested that the Russians obtained their "dirt" on Hillary illegally. I was asking for evidence that they had obtained it illegally. The issue of the transfer of that information to the Trump campaign is a separate issue, and was not what I asked about in the post you responded to.

It doesn’t matter if you’re impressed or not. What matters is that it’s against the law and potentially prosecutable as a criminal charge.
Click to expand...

I don't agree with your claim that it's against the law. I think you've misread the law. Furthermore, even under your reading of the law there's a missing step. If it's illegal to give that info to the Trump campaign because it counts as a donation as a "thing of value", then it's not illegal if the Trump campaign buys that information because then it's not a donation. But you can't prosecute anyone for not paying if the donation never happened, and there wasn't even an agreement to transfer the information without paying.
 
Ziggurat said:
You've lost the thread of the conversation. It was suggested that the Russians obtained their "dirt" on Hillary illegally. I was asking for evidence that they had obtained it illegally. The issue of the transfer of that information to the Trump campaign is a separate issue, and was not what I asked about in the post you responded to.
Click to expand...
Weird, not remotely relevant to the Trump Tower meeting, and not from me, but okay. The rest of your points are still irrelevant.



Ziggurat said:
I don't agree with your claim that it's against the law. I think you've misread the law. Furthermore, even under your reading of the law there's a missing step. If it's illegal to give that info to the Trump campaign because it counts as a donation as a "thing of value", then it's not illegal if the Trump campaign buys that information because then it's not a donation. But you can't prosecute anyone for not paying if the donation never happened, and there wasn't even an agreement to transfer the information without paying.
Click to expand...
You still don’t understand conspiracy, but your understanding is not necessary.
 
Upchurch said:
You still don’t understand conspiracy, but your understanding is not necessary.
Click to expand...

Let's put it to the test, to the extent that we can.

Do you think anyone from the Trump campaign will be prosecuted for conspiracy in relation to the Trump Tower meeting? I predict that no one will be.
 
Ziggurat said:
Let's put it to the test, to the extent that we can.

Do you think anyone from the Trump campaign will be prosecuted for conspiracy in relation to the Trump Tower meeting? I predict that no one will be.
Click to expand...

It doesn’t matter what I think. There are a number of reasons at play where even it were perfectly reasonable to bring charges against members of the Trump campaign, a prosecutor might not want to.
 
The Big Dog said:
I enjoy when dead end Resistance Grifters get called out on their lies in real time by the network crawl:

Tip for @Maddow: if you're going to keep misleading your audience, make sure your producers aren't correcting you in real-time. Here, the chyron accurately states Friday's news Mueller is "assisting" Barr w/ redactions. Meanwhile, @Maddow is falsely claiming the exact opposite:
Click to expand...

Huh, maybe she's reading from her script instead of that "Breaking News" chyron. When did that news break?

And she's still asking a good question: Why should Barr need to be involved in the redacting at all, especially given the terrible optics?

Really lame attack -- trumpers get more pathetic every day.
 
Hacking into John Podesta and the DNC email accounts was a criminal offense no matter who did it. This is from a legal site, FindLaw:
For starters, merely accessing another person's e-mail or social media accounts without authorization violates a decades-old federal law, and can also violate state and local criminal laws...Under federal law, the unauthorized access of another person's computer or device can be grounds for criminal charges. This includes guessing someone's password, and even just using an account that someone inadvertently forgot to log out from. Link
Click to expand...
 
Upchurch said:
It doesn’t matter what I think.
Click to expand...

Then why are you even posting?

There are a number of reasons at play where even it were perfectly reasonable to bring charges against members of the Trump campaign, a prosecutor might not want to.
Click to expand...

And there are a number of reasons why prosecutors sometimes bring bogus cases. Which is why I said we should test it to the extent possible. It's not a perfect test, but it's the best we can do.
 
WilliamSeger said:
Huh, maybe she's reading from her script instead of that "Breaking News" chyron. When did that news break?

And she's still asking a good question: Why should Barr need to be involved in the redacting at all, especially given the terrible optics?

Really lame attack -- trumpers get more pathetic every day.
Click to expand...

Obvious response: everything I wrote and linked was correct, Maddow was full of ****, and Barr is the person actually ultimately responsible for releasing the report and actually worked with Mueller to redact the report despite ******* Maddow's lies.

You think that showing resistance grifter Maddow lied is a lame attack??

'k.
 
Ziggurat said:
Possibly not, but what information was obtained illegally?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure that's relevant. The Trumpsters wanted to get "dirt" on Clinton. Sure, technically that could be called speech whether it was in written form or in a recording, but so what? It's already been established that getting something of that sort to influence US elections from foreign parties is not legal. They've already judged this as not legal. Also, it's the person receiving the "speech" who's at fault, so it's not a free speech issue.
 
Liberal media says the slightest thing incorrect...... Mountains of poutrage, handwringing and pearl clutching from Trumptards

Faux News tells outright lies, such as "the caravan is bringing smallpox to the USA"...... Crickets
 
Belz... said:
I'm not sure that's relevant. The Trumpsters wanted to get "dirt" on Clinton. Sure, technically that could be called speech whether it was in written form or in a recording, but so what? It's already been established that getting something of that sort to influence US elections from foreign parties is not legal. They've already judged this as not legal. Also, it's the person receiving the "speech" who's at fault, so it's not a free speech issue.
Click to expand...
Getting it could mean receiving a gift. Or it could mean paying for it.

My understanding is that campaign consultants who are paid for their work are not subject to the laws and regulations for campaign donations. Does that extend to foreign consultants? If the Trump campaign were to buy the "dirt", would it be a campaign contribution?

If the "dirt" were obtained legally, would there be any crime at all, in paying for it?

But these questions are moot, since no "dirt" was given.

The deal may or may not have been a crime, depending on the exact details. But there are no details, because there was no deal. All you have is a Just So Story, connecting the dots like a gutter trash conspiracy theory.
 
The Big Dog said:
Obvious response: everything I wrote and linked was correct, Maddow was full of ****, and Barr is the person actually ultimately responsible for releasing the report and actually worked with Mueller to redact the report despite ******* Maddow's lies.

You think that showing resistance grifter Maddow lied is a lame attack??

'k.
Click to expand...

********, it wasn't a lie if she didn't know about that "breaking news," and it's not even relevant anyway -- it doesn't begin to answer to the issue. So Barr is going to ask Mueller which parts should be redacted -- good idea -- and then Barr gets to delete whatever else he wants, with no oversight? No, the Independent Councel Act does not give him that responsibility, and it's not gonna fly. If Barr doesn't deliver the unredacted report to Congress tomorrow, which he apparently doesn't intend to do, then it'll be subpoenaed. Your petty and pathetic "gotcha" doesn't even pretend to address the issue Maddow raises: Why is Barr doing this, and why should we trust him?
 
smartcooky said:
Liberal media says the slightest thing incorrect...... Mountains of poutrage, handwringing and pearl clutching from Trumptards

Faux News tells outright lies, such as "the caravan is bringing smallpox to the USA"...... Crickets
Click to expand...

It ain't just whataboutism, folks, it is next level gaslighting.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom