Russia and our election

[Au165]

...and then Trump Jr proactively posts email chain after being contacted by NYT for comment on emails they were about to post. In the chain confirmation he knew he was being provided information from the Russian government in an attempt to get his father elected.

[BmorePat87]

So Jr. tweeted out proof that he was told a "government lawyer" with "official documents" that could "incriminate Hillary" wanted to meet with him as "part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump".

Don Jr's response: "I love it"

He then arranged for her to meet with him, the campaign manager, and his brother in law (acting advisor to candidate Trump).

Even if her story about not working with Russia or having information is true, Don Jr. and multiple campaign officials sought to work with the Russian government to win the election.

[Belsnickel]

(07-11-2017, 01:16 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: So Jr. tweeted out proof that he was told a "government lawyer" with "official documents" that could "incriminate Hillary" wanted to meet with him as "part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump".

Don Jr's response: "I love it"

He then arranged for her to meet with him, the campaign manager, and his brother in law (acting advisor to candidate Trump).

Even if her story about not working with Russia or having information is true, Don Jr. and multiple campaign officials sought to work with the Russian government to win the election.

Is the intent to commit a crime enough to be guilty of a crime? In most cases, no, and so unless there is evidence that there was actually information being passed between them it is not a good case. Like I said earlier, based on what we know this is all circumstantial. There may be more to it, but that will be for Mueller to suss out.

[GMDino]

(07-11-2017, 01:16 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: So Jr. tweeted out proof that he was told a "government lawyer" with "official documents" that could "incriminate Hillary" wanted to meet with him as "part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump".

Don Jr's response: "I love it"

He then arranged for her to meet with him, the campaign manager, and his brother in law (acting advisor to candidate Trump).

Even if her story about not working with Russia or having information is true, Don Jr. and multiple campaign officials sought to work with the Russian government to win the election.

I really don't even care if that was why they met in the way that both sides probably tried to get info wherever they could.  If there is something illegal about it I'm glad they were caught.

But...

 It's them being SO bad at lying!  LOL!

They're just so dumb.

[*michaelsean*]

After thinking about it, my opinion, and I'm not speaking to legality, is that if someone has information and you had no part in helping to obtain it or asked for it to be done for you, and there is no quid pro quo, then I'm OK with it.

[Belsnickel]

(07-11-2017, 01:30 PM)michaelsean Wrote: After thinking about it, my opinion, and I'm not speaking to legality, is that if someone has information and you had no part in helping to obtain it or asked for it to be done for you, and there is no quid pro quo, then I'm OK with it.

Interestingly enough, even legally speaking, there may not be an issue: http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/trump-meeting-raises-question-collusion-even-crime-n781571

What that news article talks about is the differing opinions on whether or not collusion is even a crime. It looks a lot like some of the differences I see in policy: academics are more theoretical than the real world allows, partisan interest groups want to push their agenda, and the folks doing the actual work have answers that no one wants to hear (which in this case means it is wrong, and the person passing the info could be charged, but not the person accepting it, most likely).

[BmorePat87]

(07-11-2017, 01:21 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Is the intent to commit a crime enough to be guilty of a crime? In most cases, no, and so unless there is evidence that there was actually information being passed between them it is not a good case. Like I said earlier, based on what we know this is all circumstantial. There may be more to it, but that will be for Mueller to suss out.

Nothing illegal yet. However, every other week, there's a newly uncovered instance where a Russian met with a high level Trump surrogate. This comes after the flat denial of anyone meeting with Russians. Now this latest one is the son actively seeking to collude with the Russian government. I think Mueller will uncover a lot more.

(07-11-2017, 01:22 PM)GMDino Wrote: I really don't even care if that was why they met in the way that both sides probably tried to get info wherever they could.  If there is something illegal about it I'm glad they were caught.

But...

 It's them being SO bad at lying!  LOL!

They're just so dumb.

The excuses shift as the lies shift. "Fake news!" turns into "everyone does it". 

[StLucieBengal]

(07-11-2017, 01:21 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Is the intent to commit a crime enough to be guilty of a crime? In most cases, no, and so unless there is evidence that there was actually information being passed between them it is not a good case. Like I said earlier, based on what we know this is all circumstantial. There may be more to it, but that will be for Mueller to suss out.

I am with you on this stuff. All we can do is wait it out... I doubt there will be anything concrete aside from just looking bad.

They are after all amateurs In Politics.

[BmorePat87]

(07-11-2017, 01:21 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Is the intent to commit a crime enough to be guilty of a crime? In most cases, no, and so unless there is evidence that there was actually information being passed between them it is not a good case. Like I said earlier, based on what we know this is all circumstantial. There may be more to it, but that will be for Mueller to suss out.

Is conspiracy a relevant crime in this case?

[Belsnickel]

(07-11-2017, 02:07 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Is conspiracy a relevant crime in this case?

Not likely. As the NBC News article I posted pointed out, the act may not even be illegal if it occurred.

[Au165]

(07-11-2017, 02:08 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Not likely. As the NBC News article I posted pointed out, the act may not even be illegal if it occurred.

That does however counter your other point that the mere intent doesn't make it a crime. If they can tie the bigger picture to a crime, this can constitute conspiracy to commit a larger offense.

[Belsnickel]

(07-11-2017, 02:11 PM)Au165 Wrote: That does however counter your other point that the mere intent doesn't make it a crime. If they can tie the bigger picture to a crime, this can constitute conspiracy to commit a larger offense.

In order for conspiracy charges to be valid, one party must have committed the illegal action. So it is possible, however unlikely, that conspiracy charges would stick because you would have to make the case that one party actually did something illegal. The attorney may have, hard to say, but it will be difficult to prove based on information right now.

Again, this will all be for Mueller to figure out.

[Au165]

(07-11-2017, 02:18 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: In order for conspiracy charges to be valid, one party must have committed the illegal action. So it is possible, however unlikely, that conspiracy charges would stick because you would have to make the case that one party actually did something illegal. The attorney may have, hard to say, but it will be difficult to prove based on information right now.

Again, this will all be for Mueller to figure out.

Which as I am reading more there is potential campaign laws may have been broken if you can prove that the damaging information has "value" and he knowingly accepted, or intended to accept, something of value from a foreign state. This is where a conspiracy charge could stick, but you'd have to define value here and that could be tough. As you said Mueller will figure it out, but now Trump Jr. will have to answer questions with the possibility of perjury hanging over his head.

What this all does though is cast a shadow on claims from the Trump group that they had no connection to Russia during the campaign. This is one contact we now know about, the question now becomes was this the first in a chain or the last?

[NATI BENGALS]

I wish some people would quit making excuses for the reality tv show ass clown family. Trump was a shitbag from day one. The longer you prop him up and make excuses for the con man the more damage you do to our country.

God damn. This is rediculous. Put the religious zealot Pence in charge. At least he isnt a traitorous scumbag.

[Belsnickel]

(07-11-2017, 02:25 PM)Au165 Wrote: Which as I am reading more there is potential campaign laws may have been broken if you can prove that the damaging information has "value" and he knowingly accepted, or intended to accept, something of value from a foreign state. This is where a conspiracy charge could stick, but you'd have to define value here and that could be tough. As you said Mueller will figure it out, but now Trump Jr. will have to answer questions with the possibility of perjury hanging over his head.

Like I said in my post with that article, that is the academic, or theoretical, side of things. Those who work in the field aren't so certain.

(07-11-2017, 02:25 PM)Au165 Wrote: What this all does though is cast a shadow on claims from the Trump group that they had no connection to Russia during the campaign. This is one contact we now know about, the question now becomes was this the first in a chain or the last?

Oh, absolutely. Honestly, Trump needs to do everything he can to insure the House doesn't flip next year because politically speaking his goose could be cooked.

[Au165]

(07-11-2017, 02:31 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Like I said in my post with that article, that is the academic, or theoretical, side of things. Those who work in the field aren't so certain.

It is the second part of the statute that today has them thinking they can get him after the email release.

“No person shall knowingly solicit, accept, or receive from a foreign national any contribution or donation prohibited by [this law].”

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 another person make a contribution, donation, transfer of funds, or otherwise provide anything of value.

With this now understood that he knew it was being provided information by the Russian government. He is tied through solicitation to this statute. His biggest defense before today was he didn't know they were part of Russian Government. With that now off the table he has issues.

[Belsnickel]

(07-11-2017, 02:36 PM)Au165 Wrote: It is the second part of the statute that today has them thinking they can get him after the email release.

“No person shall knowingly solicit, accept, or receive from a foreign national any contribution or donation prohibited by [this law].”

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 another person make a contribution, donation, transfer of funds, or otherwise provide anything of value.

With this now understood that he knew it was being provided information by the Russian government. He is tied through solicitation to this statute. His biggest defense before today was he didn't know they were part of Russian Government. With that now off the table he has issues.

Truth be told, I didn't notice the timestamp, either. The article was from yesterday, before Jr posted the email chain. That does change things a bit.

[*michaelsean*]

(07-11-2017, 02:36 PM)Au165 Wrote: It is the second part of the statute that today has them thinking they can get him after the email release.

“No person shall knowingly solicit, accept, or receive from a foreign national any contribution or donation prohibited by [this law].”

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 another person make a contribution, donation, transfer of funds, or otherwise provide anything of value.

With this now understood that he knew it was being provided information by the Russian government. He is tied through solicitation to this statute. His biggest defense before today was he didn't know they were part of Russian Government. With that now off the table he has issues.

I'm going to go on a limb, and say they aren't going to get by claiming info is something of value as the law describes it.  If you look at the preceding items, all of them include actual things of substance and if they wanted to include information they would have said it.  To me it sounds more like 24 hour newsroom hype. All of a sudden people will start repeating this clause as if they've known it their whole lives. Kind of like I heard everyone screaming emoluments clause when I know 90% never heard the word a year ago.

[Au165]

(07-11-2017, 03:10 PM)michaelsean Wrote: I'm going to go on a limb, and say they aren't going to get by claiming info is something of value as the law describes it.  If you look at the preceding items, all of them include actual things of substance and if they wanted to include information they would have said it.  To me it sounds more like 24 hour newsroom hype.  All of a sudden people will start repeating this clause as if they've known it their whole lives.  Kind of like I heard everyone screaming emoluments clause when I know 90% never heard the word a year ago.

A foreign national shall not, directly or indirectly, make a contribution or a donation of money or other thing of value, or expressly or impliedly promise to make a contribution or a donation, in connection with any Federal, State, or local election.


Other thing of value. There is value outside of monetary value and that is a real option here. He obviously valued it because he felt the need to acquire it. You can pretend it is "fake news" but even Fox News is being really frank about how bad this is.

[*michaelsean*]

(07-11-2017, 03:15 PM)Au165 Wrote: A foreign national shall not, directly or indirectly, make a contribution or a donation of money or other thing of value, or expressly or impliedly promise to make a contribution or a donation, in connection with any Federal, State, or local election.


Other thing of value. There is value outside of monetary value and that is a real option here.You can pretend it is "fake news" but even Fox News is being really frank about how bad this is.

I didn't say it was fake news. And yes I believe they are talking about something of substance when they list only things of substance, and then get an et al in there so that people don't say I didn't give money I gave gold.  They don't want elections funded by foreign sources. That is the purpose of the law. You have to understand the intention of the law before you start applying it.