Summations Only

Yep. I was just commenting on the part of the analogy about not knowing the goods were stolen. Again, I was only saying that Carter Page didn't have much time to get a conspiracy started. Otherwise I agreed with you. I refer you to where I said, "You're of course right...etc..."You're also right that Carter Page was a member of the Trump campaign for a number of months. Trying to remember where I got the information that it was just a month, I think it came out of the White House. When will I learn that if their lips are moving they're lying. Boy, it must have been a sight to see Sanders struggle through today's press conference about Rob Porter. She won't admit it to the press core, but inside she knows she was lied to by multiple people multiple times. Yeah, that's what I mean, we need some hard evidence. Yep, I remember all that. I was just unable to verify that Trump "started crowing about the sanctions" immediately after the Trump Jr. meeting. Sure, that would do, though I wouldn't hold my breath that one will turn up, and who videotapes anything anymore?
I'm just saying better evidence is needed than Trump treating Russia favorably regarding things like sanctions. Sure, but how do you prove a connection between a comment in a campaign speech and something the Russians always do anyway? I'm not thinking about what it would take to convince me but what it would take to convince the DOJ or the House. Again, I thought you were talking about debt that would give Russians leverage over Trump. This doesn't do that. Seems pretty weak as evidence. Only some of which is verified. Again, I'm not thinking about what it would take to convince me. I'm thinking about what it would take to convince the DOJ or the House.--Percy

Hopefully, this will clear up something in your discussion.Let's postulate that a group of people get together to form a criminal act. In colloquial terms we might call that a conspiracy, but let me describe the legal fine points here.When the folks gather together and plan the criminal act they are conspiring. In order to be convicted of the crime of the conspiracy, one of the conspirators must do an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy. Something like buying burglary tools or a bugging device would suffice. Even legal acts, like withdrawing money from the bank to finance the crime, even if the money never gets used is enough. Even if the actual crime fails or is frustrated, you can still be convicted of a conspiracy.However, there must be an underlying crime. Just saying that Russians were part of the plan does not mean diddly squat absent some reason why such participation was illegal.Okay, next let's say that some of the folks in the conspiracy go to the next step of trying to bug a DNC computer to gather dirt and intelligence. Whether or not the plot succeeds, the conspirators are guilty of an attempt at whatever the actual crime was. But something more than the niggling act that suffices for conspiracy is necessary. You cannot just buy a map to DNC headquarters to be guilty of attempt. Someone would actually have to hammer at the door or try to pick a lock or something similar.Finally, let's assume that the entire planned crime gets carried out. In that case, all of the conspirators can be charged with the underlying crime.In short, conspiracy is getting together to plan something, the attempt is just trying to carry out the plan, and then there is the actual crime itself. If the crime is a felony, then separately, attempt and conspiracy are also felonies. Unless there are specific statutes saying otherwise, the state can pursue charges for any of those things at approximately the same severity as if the crime fully was committed.As a result, most prosecutors just go with charging conspiracy because the level of effort on the state's part is usually substantially less than that required to prove that all elements of the actual crime were carried out. That is particularly the case if some conspirators were not even participants in the breaking and entering, tampering or whatever.In your discussion, you seem to be simply using conspiracy to represent the whole enterprise. That is simply not the case legally.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Trump's lawyer says he paid $130,000 to porn star ahead of election | CNN PoliticsIn what would seem to be a bizarre turn of events even on this day full of news, Trump's personal lawyer, Michael Cohen says that he paid Stormy Daniels $130,000 using his (Cohen's) own money, and that there is no connection to Trump.Regarding why he might have done so Cohen said the following:

quote:

---

When asked why he made the payment, Cohen told CNN: "Just because something isn't true doesn't mean that it can't cause you harm or damage. I will always protect Mr. Trump."

---

Not sure what to make off this report, but Cohen would not answer questions that would help clear things up, like whether Trump was aware of the payment, or why in the heck he used his own money.On its face, Cohen's story would seem to make very little sense.

quote:

---

Michael Dean Cohen is an American attorney who works as a lawyer and spokesperson for U.S. President Donald Trump. Prior to this appointment he was Executive Vice-President of the Trump Organization and special counsel to Trump.

---

Perhaps it makes sense if the goal is preventing additional reasons to look into the Trump Inc finances.

At the end of December the Washington Post ran an editorial titled The 10 worst things Trump has done in his first year in office. You have to be suspicious of it because it is by Marc A. Thiessen, a rabid Trump Republican apologist, but here's the list:

1. He has failed to condemn the alt-right.
2. He stood by Roy Moore.
3. He has dismissed Russian interference in the 2016 election.
4. He fired James B. Comey.
5. His noxious tweets undermine his presidency.
6. He has attacked the FBI and the intelligence community.
7. He is giving Miranda rights to captured terrorists.
8. He is empowering al-Qaeda in Syria.
9. He has spent more time attacking Republicans than Democrats.
10. He has made no effort at bipartisanship.

This is a milquetoast list, and I think I can come up with a much better one:

1. Obstructing Russia scandal investigation, e.g., firing FBI director James Comey, criticizing intelligence agencies.
2. Ignoring Russian meddling in the American democratic process.
3. Phasing out the DACA program.
4. Dismantling the EPA by appointing Scott Pruit.
5. Attacks on the Affordable Care Act.
6. Alarming allies throughout the world.
7. Blatant racism, e.g., saying "There were good people on both sides" after Charleston.
8. Blatant misogyny, e.g., comments about Rob Porter, criticizing gold star widow after death of husband.
9. Withdrawal from climate accords.
10. Roiling already unstable relationship with North Korea.
11. Coddling Russia and cozying up to Vladimir Putin.
12. Muslim travel ban.
13. Withdrawal from Pacific trade pact.
14. Support of Ray Moore.
15. Abandoned Puerto Rico.
16. Made "fake news" a rallying cry for dictators the world over.
17. Made lying standard operating procedure for himself and his administration.
18. Brought respect for the US and the office of the Presidency to new lows.
19. Did not make tax returns public as promised.

Once I started I couldn't stop, so there's many more than 10 items in my list. I attempted to order it by severity.
Anyone want to suggest their own list?--PercyEdited by Percy, : Add failure to make tax returns public to the bottom of my list.

Just out of curiosity, is that supposed to be a bad thing?

Your list is fine. I am not sure I could argue strongly even for a change in the order. I might have chosen a different climate accord bullet point. Maybe. I'd probably rank disassembling the state department in the top 10.I would expect that even Republicans that were not hanging off of Trump's "strap" might have some issues with the list, so I added some comments on their behalf.

quote:

---

These four on everyone's list:

​

Obstructing Russia scandal investigation, e.g., firing FBI director James Comey, criticizing intelligence agencies.
Ignoring Russian meddling in the American democratic process.
Phasing out the DACA program.

​

There two were Republican priorities well before Trump. Not on a Republicans list:

​

Dismantling the EPA by appointing Scott Pruit.
Attacks on the Affordable Care Act.

​

These three should be on anyone's list
Alarming allies throughout the world.
Blatant racism, e.g., saying "There were good people on both sides" after Charleston.
Blatant misogyny, e.g., comments about Rob Porter, criticizing gold star widow after death of husband.

​

These two probably resonate with most Republicans. Not on their list
Withdrawal from climate accords.
Roiling already unstable relationship with North Korea. (top five on my list)
Coddling Russia and cozying up to Vladimir Putin.

​

Resonant with large portions of the Republican base. Not on their list.
Muslim travel ban.

​

These are okay with most Republicans. Not on their list.
Withdrawal from Pacific trade pact.
Support of Ray Moore.

​

I hope that most folks are not okay with this. I have no idea.
Abandoned Puerto Rico.

​

Most Republicans are onboard with calling facts they don't like fake news:
Made "fake news" a rallying cry for dictators the world over.
Made lying standard operating procedure for himself and his administration.

​

Many Republicans don't see it that way. Not on their list.
Brought respect for the US and the office of the Presidency to new lows.

---

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

After Trump's press Secretary was dragged from pillar to post yesterday because Trump could not find it in his heart to say some words of support for the women who had suffered physical abuse from is staff member, Trump came out with some strong words today.Donald Trump says he is 'totally opposed to domestic violence' as White House faces questions about ex-aide accused of spousal abuse | The Independent | The Independent

quote:

---

Donald Trump says he is 'totally opposed to domestic violence' as White House faces questions about ex-aide accused of spousal abuse

---

Roflmao! Totally opposed to wife beating eh? And what else? Forest fires? Is he on the right side of that issue too?

quote:

---

Everyone knows that and it almost wouldn't even have to be said.

---

Trump latter statement is correct. If you don't spend the first half week supporting wife punching pieces of crap or praising neo nazi's, you almost would not have to come out and pretend to care about folks with black eyes, or who had been deliberately run over by a manic in a car.Yeah, I am pissed.

Yeah, that's from the Thiessen list, I'm not really sure. NoNukes probably knows a lot more about the appropriateness of extending Miranda rights to foreign nationals, combatants and terrorists not arrested on American soil.This is the Thiessen item I found most interesting:

9. He has spent more time attacking Republicans than Democrats.

So I thought I'd compose a list of Trump nicknames for American politicians and government employees and see whether more Republicans or Democrats are on the list.

1. Crooked Hilliary (Hillary Clinton (D))
2. Pocahontas (Senator Elizabeth Warrren (D-MA))
3. Little Adam Schiff (Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA)
4. Sloppy Steve (Steve Bannon (R))
5. Dicky Durbin (Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin (D-IL))
6. Sneaky Dianne Feinstein (Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA))
7. Jeff Flakey (Senator Jeff Flake (R-AZ))
8. Al Frankenstein (Senator Al Franken (D-MN))
9. Liddle Bob Corker (Senator Bob Corker (R-TN))
10. Wacky Congresswoman Wilson (Rep. Frederica Wilson (D-FL))
11. Little Marco (Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL))
12. Lyin' Ted (Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX))
13. Low Energy Jeb (Governor Jeb Bush (R-FL))
14. Crazy Bernie (Senator Bernie Sanders (D-VT))
15. Crying Chuck (Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY))
16. Leakin' James Comey (Former FBI Director James Comey (R))

The count:

• Republicans: 7
• Democrats: 9

So at least according to the derogatory nicknames Trump has used, he attacks Democrats more. Wikipedia has a good list of Trump nicknames that is broader, extending outside the political realm.Of course, Thiessen is right that Trump is hardest on those who work for him or who are in his own party, and he demands complete loyalty. Who can forget the televised cabinet meeting where one cabinet member after another obsequiously offered their obeisance to Trump.What would be a good nickname for Trump? I like liar-in-chief.Note: I forgot to include that Trump didn't make his tax returns public in my list, I'll add it now at the bottom.--Percy

That's an easy one to answer. The constitution says that folks under US jurisdiction have constitutional rights. The Supreme court has interpreted that to mean that combatants captured on the battlefield do not have those rights until they are under US jurisdiction. There are some complicated rulings that affect folks at Guantanamo Bay as well as some issues that have not been ruled on, but perhaps that is beyond the scope needed here. The question involved seems to be about the more common case.In the case of folks accused of terrorism, its pretty clear that they do have rights to due process and under the 4, 5th and 6th amendments, but it is equally clear that the political will to actually enforce the constitution in this area is not very strong. But mostly their rights are recognized.Let's recall that Miranda rights do not prevent you from being tortured. Those rights only apply to whether any revealed content can be used in a trial. Only human decency and the rule of law prevent us from torturing anyone at any time. Yes, that was funny. But it was matched by that Republican get together after passing the latest tax legislation. Among those few who refused to participate in the arselicking at the aforementioned cabinet meeting, I believe only General Mattis is still part of the administration.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Russians charged over US 2016 election tamperingThirteen charged, 3 cases of wire fraud and 5 of aggravated identity theft.They’re accused of promoting Trump and Sanders against their rivals.Apparently they had a budget of $1 million per month.However there are no allegations of anyone in either campaign colluding with these Russians.

Other articles about the indictments of Russians for 2016 election meddling:

• Washington Post: Russian troll farm, 13 suspects indicted for interference in U.S. election]
  
• New York Times: 13 Russians Charged With Interfering in 2016 Election

One of those indicted Yevgeniy Viktorovich Prigozhin, a Russian businessman who helped with financing the disinformation campaign, in effect said Americans are naive and that he was proud to be indicted:

quote:

---

"The Americans are very impressionable people and they see what they want to see. I respect them very much. I am not at all disappointed that I appear in this list. If they want to see the devillet them.

---

Naturally Russia will not extradite their own citizens to the US, but this could prevent them from traveling outside Russia.Interesting that the Russians were pushing Sanders during the primaries - I wasn't expecting that.--Percy

Hillary never reached the point where she wanted out of her marriage to Bill, and I assume Melania will never try to escape her marriage to Trump, but she sure has plenty of reasons. In addition to all the sexual harassment claims, Stormy Daniels is now free to talk about her 2006 affair with Trump, and there are reports that former Playboy Playmate Karen McDougal also had an affair with Trump from 2006 to 2007. Add this to Summer Zervos' (Apprentice contestant) suit against Trump for defamation after he called her a liar when she alleged he sexually assaulted her.Washington Post article: The latest alleged Trump affair coverup is a damningly familiar tale--Percy

Right, but let's look at what these Russians are being charged with...

quote:

---

The goal was "to sow discord in the U.S. political system," including the presidential election, by supporting the Trump campaign and disparaging his Democratic opponent, Hillary Clinton, with ads and rallies.

​

They’re charged with failing to disclose those expenditures, failing to register as foreign agents and obtaining visas through false and fraudulent statements.

---

As I read it, these folks had some very sinister goals, but apparently spreading lies, discord in an attempt to affect democracy isn't a crime. Heck, there is nothing about their campaign that would not be legal for any US citizen to do. Did these guys do anything any worse than the "Swift-boating" of John Kerry? I don't think so.Apparently what the charges in the indictment currently consist of is incidental crimes and rule flaunting necessary only because these folks were hiding their identities as Russians. I would not be surprised if they failed to find a single person from the campaigns who was involved in those kinds of things.

The Wire Fraud charges open the door into tracing money movements and that is the only thing Trump Inc fears.