|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Trump Presidency | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22479 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.7
|
I've read further down The Indictment. They're being charged with conspiracy (comments I make about items appear in italicized parentheses like this):
quote: Here's a section on identity theft:
quote: I've posted enough of the indictment, it goes on like that, although here's a couple particularly insidious items:
Count 2, wire fraud and bank fraud, begins on page 30. I won't quote anything from that section as I've quoted too much already, except for this summary on page 31:
quote: Count 3 about aggravated identify theft begins on page 34. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22479 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
Here's a better version of the indictment from the Washington Post that has a text version that can be cut-n-pasted: Special counsel's indictment of Russian Internet Research Agency, 13 suspects
--Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22479 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
NoNukes writes: After the election of Donald Trump in or around November 2016, Defendants and their co-conspirators used false U.S. personas to organize and coordinate U.S. political rallies in support of then president-elect Trump, while simultaneously using other false U.S. personas to organize and coordinate U.S. political rallies protesting the results of the 2016 U.S. presidential election.
Does "false US personas" mean something more than logging onto Quora or Facebook with a fake name and details? My understanding of the indictment is that indicted Russians were on American soil only in 2014, so "false US personas" means they logged in to social media, bank accounts and PayPal using fake and stolen IDs. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22479 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
NoNukes writes: But let's assume that some unnamed person in Trump's campaign was working with the Russians. Would they be involved in this particular conspiracy, or even need to know that the Russians were going to commit any of those acts? We can only go by what is publicly known of Trump campaign contacts with the Russians. The indictment makes clear how little idea we had of how much Mueller knows, and it seems unlikely, at least to me, that the indictment represents the extent of his knowledge, especially given that Papadopoulos, Flynn and Gates have already reached pleas deals with Mueller (and also Californian Richard Pinedo concerning helping the Russians commit identity theft), which means they're cooperating by providing information. But at this time there is no publicly known information connecting the Trump campaign to this Russian conspiracy, so we can only speculate about whether it exists or will exist at some point. For those who like to speculate about sinister brilliance, what a coup it would be for the Russians to drag us through the chaos of a couple years of a Trump presidency, and then dragging us through a couple more years of a Trump impeachment and trial. But returning to what we know now, the most problematic publicly known connection between the Trump campaign and Russian representatives involved Donald Trump Jr.'s meeting purportedly about Clinton emails. If Mueller has evidence that the Russians attempted to hack Clinton emails, or that Russia was responsible for the hacking of DNC emails, then Donald Jr. may be in a great deal of trouble. If Donald Sr. knew the true subject of the meeting when he composed Donald Jr.'s description for the press, then he may be in an equal amount of trouble. It means they're part of the Russian conspiracy, and their actions represent not mere crimes but treason. And regardless of any conspiring with Russia, obstruction of justice charges are looking increasingly likely. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22479 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
NoNukes writes: Here is something from an editorial I found on the Huffington Post. I don't swear to its accuracy,... I've read the indictment, and I think a significant portion of the Huffington Post editorial by Paul Blementhal is misleading (Foreigners Can Tweet About U.S. Politics. They Just Can’t Buy Ads To Promote A Candidate.). Both the headline and the first couple paragraphs make it seem like the only thing the Russians did wrong was pay for ads:
quote: While true, that's only part of the story. From a top level view, the reasons the Russians were charged were:
The editorial continues on to mention some of these things, but then at the end it returns to the point about paying for ads, lending a false impression that that's the key illegal activity, which is untrue. For example, here the indictment describes use of a false persona to send a message to a Facebook group supporting Trump:
quote: Since they didn't register as foreign agents, and since they're misrepresenting themselves as an American, this is a crime and obviously not a paid ad. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22479 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
With the indictment providing so much detail of what Russia did to interfere in the 2016 election, I think Rrhain's view that the smoke can be connected to a fire now looks a little stronger. Before the indictment revealed how much we know about what the Russians did, Donald Jr.'s meeting about Clinton emails with some Russians in Trump Tower didn't seem likely to result in charges.
But now there's the likelihood that we know a lot more than has been made public. The connection of just one Russian in that Trump Tower conference room to the election conspiracy or to trying to hack Clinton emails or to hacking the DNC emails or to something else we don't even know about yet would potentially make Donald Jr. part of the conspiracy, and Donald Sr. knew about the meeting since he wrote the false description of it for the press. The seriousness with which the courts have treated Trump's public comments and tweets regarding immigration as reflecting his true intent lends confidence that they'll also take seriously what the public comments and tweets and all these meetings (not just the Donald Jr. meeting) with Russian representatives really say about the Trump campaign's intent. Of course, Trump himself probably has little to fear from the courts. Trump campaign members could face prosecution, but Trump himself can only be tried by the Senate and the odds seem against it ever getting that far (Trump's own DOJ isn't going to charge him with anything, and it would raise constitutional issues anyway). Even if the Republican House flips Democratic this fall, why would they even bother voting articles of impeachment if the Senate remains in Republican hands - maybe as a political move. It feels like Trump is safe from impeachment, but it is beginning to seem possible that some people, beyond those already indicted, may be going to jail. Interesting fact of history: John Dean spent little actual time in jail. My recollection is hazy now, but I seem to recall that because of deals with prosecutors and time spent working with the prosecution...well, let me look this up. Ah, instead of a minimum security facility he ended up spending most days at Leon Jawarski's offices, and when the legal process finally ended Judge Sirica reduced Dean's sentence to time served, about four months, and very little of that in actual jail. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22479 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
[Comment: In the end this post turned out to be less a reply to what you said and more just me on a soapbox]
NoNukes writes: Of course, the problem with these assertions is that an investigation into criminal activities can never establish this. In fact, just as it is impossible for Clinton to claim she would have won, it is equally impossible to establish that the Russians had zero impact on the election results. And that is all any has said about the charges. Precisely right, but conservative news outlets like Fox News are endorsing and doubling down on the president's position that the Mueller indictment exonerates the Trump campaign of collusion with the Russian conspiracy. It's as if they and their audience either ignore or don't think about how little sense this makes. Many things conservative say make little sense and often involve distortion or leaving out key facts, leaving one wondering whether they have any moral compass: "In the wake of the Florida massacre, now is not the time to discuss solutions." "We care about the DACA people." "The tax cuts help the middle class the most." "The increased deficits won't affect the economy." "Russian meddling had no effect on the outcome of the 2016 election." There was an interesting interview in today's Washington Post of a former employee of the Russian's Internet Research Agency (A former Russian troll speaks: ‘It was like being in Orwell’s world’). When asked why he left he said, "I left for moral reasons. I was ashamed to work there." If a Russian troll can have a conscience, why not American conservatives? A couple more quotes:
quote: That is, in Russia the propaganda just rolls off like raindrops off a raincoat, but in America if they're already inclined to think that way they drink it up. During the 2016 election the considerable amount of absurd negative news about Hillary Clinton was like nothing I'd ever experienced in any previous election (the most ridiculous was Pizzagate, the accusation that Clinton was running a child sex ring out of pizza parlor in Washington D.C.). I chalked it up to the increasing popularity of social media amplifying voices I wouldn't have heard in previous elections, but Russian involvement now means it's not possible to know if that's all it was. I mentioned the Pizzagate conspiracy theory above and thought this excerpt from Wikipedia scary:
quote: So 28% of the American people are so stupid that they believe it possible that Clinton was running a child sex ring out of a pizza parlor. Wow! Given this, it's definitely believable that the Russian disinformation campaign elected Trump, though in my mind Comey reintroducing the Clinton email scandal just a couple weeks before election day was a very big factor. Speaking of the Clinton email scandal, I wonder how much of the negative feeling about Clinton's use of a private email server during her time at State was real and how much was stoked by Russian trolls? This article from July, 2016, characterizes what effect the scandal was having on the Clinton campaign at the time: Hillary Clinton Survived Her Email Scandal, But Not Unscathed, New Poll Shows. It says:
quote: How much of Trump calling Clinton crooked was amplified by Russian trolls and bots? Hard to say, but the use of a private email server seems a mistake, not a crime, and given that the server was never compromised while servers at State were, obviously Clinton did due diligence regarding security. But during the election opinions like mine were buried beneath a veritable deluge of negative press and social media attacks. I know it can't be quantified, but in my view the Russian trolls and bots did make possible Trump's election, and I see no diminishment in the susceptibility of the American public to conservative media outlets like Fox News and to social media. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22479 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
Naturally conservative reaction to the Mueller indictment of Russians and Russian businesses is far more muted and pointed in a different direction than everyone else, so I thought it might be interesting to rebut one of their editorials.
In Russia Launches ‘Information’ War, U.S. Responds with Lawsuit and Self-Destruction conservative National Review columnist Andrew C. McCarthy explains why the Mueller indictment of 13 Russians and 3 Russian businesses is a useless even counterproductive exercise. His essay of excuses is easy to rebut (I don't quote everything McCarthy says - for the full editorial follow the link):
quote: Mr. McCarthy, you must be operating under the delusion that Mueller thought Russia would extradite their citizens. The real reason Mueller issued the indictment was to remove all ability of the Trump administration to maintain that Russian interference in our election was a hoax. That it worked is shown by Trump's 13 tweets today that revealed a pathetic, deranged, ego-driven figure.
quote: Again, the goal of the indictment is not to try Russians in U.S. courts of law. It's to prove the Russia scandal is no hoax.
quote: McCarthy fails to mention Trump's role in making necessary the appointment of the special counsel, and he is wrong about Mueller's role being solely that of a prosecutor. First, Trump has only himself to blame for the appointment of a special counsel. The Russia probe began as a counterintelligence investigation under the direction of FBI director Comey, but then Trump fired Comey in May of 2017. Attorney General Sessions had to recuse himself because of his failure to disclose two meetings with the Russian ambassador while working for the Trump campaign, and since the FBI's new director would be appointed by Trump who was a subject of the Russia probe, it fell to deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein to appoint a special counsel. If Trump hadn't fired Comey, no special counsel. Second, Mueller's role is not just prosecutor but also investigator. He has the power to direct both FBI agents and DOJ prosecutors. The amount of detail in the Russia indictment makes clear that he has a great deal of investigative power at his fingertips. You are dead wrong that Mueller's role is solely that of prosecutor.
quote: You dig yourself a hole with this error that Mueller is just a prosecutor, then your just continue digging yourself deeper:
quote: Repeating a fallacy as you do here doesn't turn it into a truth. Trump demonstrates the failure of repetition to turn lies into truth every day.
quote: Again, the purpose of the indictment was to destroy the credibility of Trump's claims that Russian meddling in the 2016 election was a hoax.
quote: Why repeat your daft charge Mueller thinks he can arrest Russians in Russia?
quote: Yes, of course. It's time to note that you can't really believe this crap you're peddling. You'rejust doing what all defenders of presidents in trouble do. What you're doing now for Trump was done by plenty of Republicans for Nixon and plenty of Democrats for Bill Clinton. That they had no leg to stand on is made clear by how little sense they made and by how much they focused on irrelevancies. One ploy you have in common with them is casting criticism and blame on the investigators instead of the investigated, a form of misdirection that seems to fail every time, acting as a holding action at best.
quote: In this I think you are correct. Putting a stop's to Trump drumbeat of false claims that Russian meddling was a hoax was important politically.
To the extent there are questions about whether Russia truly meddled in the election, the special counsel wants to end that discussion...the indictment demonstrates that the special counsel has been hard at work. You start your piece by not getting it, but now suddenly you get it?
Through all the months of public debate over whether there was criminal-collusion evidence against the president, we have stressed that the main focus of the counterintelligence investigation is the Kremlin, not the White House. You err again. The investigation began when suspicious Trump campaign activities came to the attention of the FBI. While obviously the main suspicion is that Russia meddled in the 2016 election, it was Trump campaign activities that caused an investigation to be opened. Mueller's mandate is wide ranging, giving him the right to pursue any wrongdoing he finds. Also interesting is your reference to the "main focus of the counterintelligence investigation." You begin your piece expressing the opinion that we don't need a prosecutor but an investigator, but now you suddenly seem to understand that Mueller has considerable investigative authority.
It is good, then, that Russia has gotten so much of the special counsel’s attention. You must be only pretending to believe what you just wrote, because you can hardly have forgotten the indictments of Mannfort, Gates and Popadopoulos, nor the many meetings between members of the Trump campaign and Russians, especially the Trump Tower meeting by Donald Jr. and Kushner with Russians peddling Clinton dirt. Given the dramatic difference between what we thought Mueller knew before versus after the indictment, I'd say a number of people in the Trump campaign are likely in big trouble, but you give that possibility not even so much as a nod.
What is not good is that he is a special counsel as opposed to, say, a high-ranking intelligence or defense official. It is only natural that a prosecutor sees his job as making a criminal case, but that is not really what is called for under the circumstances. And, just like that, you're back once again to the position you just finished pounding into dust, that Mueller is nothing but a prosecutor.
Obviously, if there were strong evidence that Americans had aided and abetted our foreign adversaries in their hostile acts, it would be essential to prosecute them. My objection has been that a special counsel was assigned despite the absence of strong evidence that crimes were committed by Trump-campaign figures. As explained earlier, there was no choice but to appoint a special counsel. There was already an ongoing investigation that with the firing of Comey was leaderless. Sessions had to recuse himself, a new head of the FBI would be nominated by a potential target of the investigation, so there was no choice but to appoint a special counsel to take over the ongoing investigation.
It is freely conceded that I do not favor special-counsel appointments except when a severe Justice Department conflict of interest leaves no other option. Precisely the case here, but you seem blind to what is right in front of your face.
Thus, I do not see why a special counsel would have been needed for any Russia case involving suspects unconnected to the Trump campaign. You again misrepresent reality by saying that election meddling was "unconnected to the Trump campaign." Suspicions about illegalities involving the Trump campaign were why Comey originally opened the investigation.
But all that said, I have never contended that the assignment of a Justice Department prosecutor would be inappropriate if there were concrete grounds to believe Americans were guilty of crimes. You're attempting to leave yourself a safety net, but one doesn't open an investigation when there are "concrete grounds to believe Americans were guilty of crimes." With "concrete grounds" one simply issues arrest warrants, but when there is only suspicion or suggestions of crimes one opens an investigation. Which is what Comey did.
Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein suggested on Friday that, with formal charges now filed, the Justice Department will turn to the next step in the legal process: seeking the defendants’ extradition. Once the Russians stop laughing, I imagine they’ll send us a curt note in Cyrillic or maybe they’ll just flip us the bird, the universal language. This is true that the U.S. will follow the standard legal process after an indictment and seek extradition, but there is no extradition agreement between the U.S. and Russia, and Rosenstein gave no indication that the U.S. expects Russia would honor any extradition requests.
There are reasons besides ineffectiveness to be concerned about turning this diplomatic dispute into a criminal-justice issue. Really. And what, pray tell Mr. McCarthy, are those reasons?
This is a dangerous game to play. Our government, American organizations, and individual Americans regularly take actions and engage in political expression (including pseudonymous expression) with the intention of affecting foreign political campaigns or that could be understood that way regardless of American intent. In its lead story on Mueller’s indictment, the New York Times observes that for decades, the CIA has work[ed] covertly to influence political outcomes abroad. The Obama administration, on the American taxpayer’s dime, tried to get Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu defeated and agitated against Brexit. The Bush administration tried to democratize the Middle East. It is de rigueur to tut-tut that such meddling is unseemly, but it is what governments do and have always done. They have interests, and those interests can be profoundly affected by who is governing other countries. Oh, Mr. McCarthy, great reason! Election meddling is just something governments do, so why should there be any legal action?
Moreover, it is the proud boast of the United States that we promote the virtues and benefits of liberty throughout the world and encourage oppressed peoples to stand up against tyrants. Our government funds Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty precisely to expose people to news and ideas that their despotic governments censor. Do we really want to signal that we see such agitation-by-information as an indictable crime, in response to which the affected government should issue arrest warrants that will inevitably make it risky for Americans to travel outside the U.S.? Oh, Mr. McCarthy, another great reason. If we criminalize foreign interference in our democratic processes, then foreign countries might criminalize Radio Free Europe?
Remember, we are talking here about a case in which Russia’s campaign, despite its energy and funding, was a drop in the ocean of American campaign spending and messaging. It barely registered. It had no impact. Oh, Russian meddling had an impact. While Russian spending on their meddling efforts was a "drop in the ocean", so were the 70,000 votes responsible for Trump's victory.
And, again, the indictment that has been filed is a gesture that will result in no prosecutions. Is it really worth opening this can of worms? As pointed out above, of course it was worth "opening this can of worms." Just look at much it riled up Trump, 13 angry and error-filled tweets over the weekend. Obviously he's hiding something. I guess we also have to allow the possibility that his ego is so large that he's willing to destroy our democratic institutions in order to protect his belief that he won the election with no help from Russia. But whatever the reason, Trump has likely pushed over the boundaries of responsible opposition and into obstruction.
I know what you’re going to tell me: It’s not the same thing because we don’t do what they do: When we meddle, it is not through the kind of fraudulent activities that Mueller alleges the Russians engaged in including bank fraud, wire fraud, and identity theft. But don’t kid yourself: What we are green-lighting here is criminal prosecution as a response to interference by alleged agents of a foreign power in another country’s elections and public debates. Once that is the rule of the road, we are not going to be able to control decision-making in other countries about what kind of conduct constitutes actionable interference. It is greatly doubtful that this indictment will have any impact on out ability to control decision-making in other countries.
Finally, since the indictment is a political document, we should evaluate its political impact at home. Since you recognize that the indictment is a political document and perhaps even understand that it likely wouldn't have been made public were it not for Trump's attempts at obstruction, why did you write all that crap about the reaction of Russia and other foreign despotic governments?
On balance, it is good for President Trump. You think it's good for Trump? I think Trump might disagree with you, as his 13 weekend tweets clearly attest.
The Russian election-meddling scheme stretches back to the years before he became a political candidate. You're kidding. You're uttering this obvious fallacy? Nobody had declared their candidacy for president in 2014.
To the extent there was Russian outreach to the Trump campaign, the indictment makes clear that the campaign acted unwittingly. Not only does that mean there was no collusion on the face of things; it means there was almost surely no collusion at all Mr. McCarthy, it means no such thing. This is just one indictment. Mueller's investigation is not through. To mention just one recent development, Gates is in the process of agreeing to a plea deal. Publicly there is a great deal of smoke regarding collusion, and given how Mueller's indictment just surprised everyone with how much he knows, if you're a betting man I very much doubt that you'd bet Mueller knows nothing about possible collusion.
Had there been an established framework of Trump—Russia coordination, there would have been no need for Russians to reach out to unwitting Trump-campaign officials. The use of the word "unwitting" in the indictment refers generally to politically active Americans who didn't know they were interacting with Russians. The members of the Trump campaign who met with Russians knew they were meeting with Russians and were not unwitting.
All that said, the indictment perhaps unwittingly, if I may say so tells an unflattering story about the state of our country. I'm more focused on what your opinion piece says about you, Mr. McCarthy.
Thus, we get nonsense like, The Kremlin wanted Trump to win and Putin was motivated by his fear and loathing of Hillary Clinton, etc., etc. If the Kremlin didn't want Trump to win, why is the indictment full of evidence of Russians trying to influence the election in favor of Trump? Will you not even try to make sense.
In reality, what happened here could not be more patent: The Kremlin hoped to sow discord in our society and thus paralyze our government’s capacity to pursue American interests. The Russian strategy was to stir up the resentments of sizable losing factions. It is not that Putin wanted Trump to win; it is that Putin figured Trump was going to lose. That is why the Kremlin tried to galvanize Trump supporters against Clinton, just as it tried to galvanize Sanders supporters against Clinton, and Trump supporters against Cruz and Rubio, during the primaries. It is why the Russians suddenly choreographed anti-Trump rallies after Trump won. The palpable goal was to promote dysfunction: Cripple a likely President Clinton before she could even get started, wound President Trump from the get-go when he unexpectedly won, and otherwise set American against American whenever possible. This is actually a good statement of the Kremlin's high level goals. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22479 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
As if there was any doubt, a New York Times survey of 170 members of the Presidents and Executive Politics section of the American Political Science Association found that Trump is the worst American president of all time: How Does Trump Stack Up Against the Best and Worst Presidents?. He has three years to climb out of gutter.
--Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22479 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
An article on today's CNN's website, Trump is helping to undermine US democracy. That's just what Russia wants, gets it wrong when describing how the Mueller indictment says "unwitting" persons interacted with Russians:
quote: That's not what the indictment said. I now quote from the indictment
quote: The indictment says, "unwitting individuals associated with the Trump Campaign," not "Trump campaign aides." A campaign aide is an assistant to an important person in the campaign, not "unwitting individuals associated with the Trump Campaign." This section of the indictment is definitely not referring to Donald Jr. or Kushner or Sessions or Popadopoulos and so forth, and definitely not to Trump himself. It is referring to ordinary rank and file workers for the Trump campaign. The indictment also includes "other political activists" among the unwitting. This claim by Trump supporters that the indictment absolves Trump and everyone in his campaign of colluding with Russians should be countered at every opportunity, because it is an obvious and shameful misrepresentation of what the indictment actually says. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22479 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
The Washington Post also has an article: Son-in-law of Russian businessman to plead guilty to making false statements in Mueller probe. Neither the CNN article nor the Washington Post article is very clear (at least to me), but the information document actually filed by Mueller's office is very clear. It says that Alex Van der Zwaan made false statements to the Special Counsel's Office and agents of the FBI:
The information document is short and to the point and an easier read than either of the two news articles. So why does Mueller care? My guess is that for Mueller the Van der Zwaan lies are just leverage to get him to enter into a plea deal in return for his testimony, but it's unclear why. It is within Mueller's mandate to pursue any illegal activity that comes to his attention in the course of his investigation, so it is possible that this has nothing to do with the Russia scandal and is just related to money laundering committed by Gates and Mannafort that Mueller uncovered during the investigation. But it is also possible that Gates, Mannafort and Van der Zwaan know something about Trump campaign involvement with Russian election meddling. Stay tuned. --Percy Edited by Percy, : Grammar.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22479 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
I just became aware of this report from the Center for American Progress from August 2, 2017: Russiagate: The Depth of Collusion. I quote an email exchange from the report between Rob Goldstone (head of Oui 2 Entertainment that assisted the Trump organization in bringing the 2013 Miss Universe pageant to Russia) and Donald Trump Jr.:
quote: While I've seen this email exchange described before (especially the "I love it" part), I've never seen the actual emails. I find it difficult taking seriously exchanges only indirectly described in news articles. What people actually wrote or said written out in black and white is much more convincing. The report represents that there were actually two campaigns to elect Trump, one by the Trump campaign and one by the Russians. The key question is whether there was any collusion between the two campaigns. Seeing these email excerpts makes much more real to me what the report says next, that this by itself is sufficient evidence that the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians:
quote: Yes, this is collusion. Mueller already has enough information to wrap this all up in the language of conspiracy (which is the word used in legal statutes), so he works on to discover the exact extent of Trump campaign involvement regarding campaign aides and Trump himself. I hope he's not expending too much effort on pre-2016 money laundering charges against Gates and Mannafort - I hope that's just leverage for gaining more testimony about Russian collusion. The report is long but makes good reading. It contains much information that we've probably all seen mentions of in news articles, but never in original form and never gathered in one place. It's incredible that it only represents what was publicly known six months ago. Note that the report, though it appears to me to be fact focused, is from a partisan group. The Center for American Progress was founded by John Podesta, chairman of the Clinton campaign and he of the hacked emails that WikiLeaks dribbled out during the 2016 election campaign. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22479 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
PaulK writes: It’s pretty bad - there was an offer of collusion and Trump jr was definitely interested - but we haven’t seen the evidence that there was anything more than talk. Conspiracy requires little more than talk. Some overt act is required, but that could be anything. Here's the definition of conspiracy from the Cornell law library.
quote: One overt act in this case is the Russian hacking of Podesta and DNC emails. Notice the part about "derivative liability" where each conspirator is responsible for the actions of all other conspirators. Also note that Russiagate: The Depth of Collusion describes the extensiveness of contacts between the Trump campaign and Russia representatives:
quote: --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22479 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
PaulK writes: This is not to say that there was no agreement, only that the evidence so far made public doesn’t show that. I guess we can differ on what constitutes an agreement and sufficient evidence, but boiled down this is what does it for me. From the emails between Goldstone and Donald Jr.:
Goldstone: "The Crown prosecutor of Russia...offered to provide the Trump campaign with some official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary...and be very useful to your father." Donald Jr.: "...I love it..." And then they attended the meeting. There are suspicious things not even in the Russiagate: The Depth of Collusion report. For example, one day after Hillary Clinton announced Tim Kane as her running mate on July 22, Wikileaks began dumping the DNC emails. One hour after the Access Hollywood tape became public on October 7, Wikileaks began dumping the Podesta emails. Russia was the source of all the email hacks - Wikileaks was only the vehicle. --Percy Edited by Percy, : Typo.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22479 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
NoNukes writes: Actually, absent a bit more, this looks like a plot[1] to collude because apparently there was no actual dirt or a furthering of a plot to get dirt, at least that is according to what we've been told about that meeting. From Trump campaign—Russian meetings:
quote: Details about who is who can be found at the link. Claims about what was in the document vary, Akhmetshin's being just one version, but apparently information changed hands. Donald Jr. characterizes this as opposition research, and it would be were the other people at the meeting representatives of your average everyday opposition research firm, but since they were Russian agents it does look like collusion to me that can be connected (because of derivative liability) to all the other Russian election-related meddling. --Percy
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024