Author Topic: Russia Investigation.  (Read 32501 times)

MarkS

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 377
Re: Russia Investigation.
« Reply #330 on: August 06, 2018, 07:24:43 AM »
Hi Schwab,

Interesting points.  I certainly understand your concerns.  However, I have some issues with your evidence.  Here is what you're mostly relying on:

"The Crown prosecutor of Russia met with his father Aras this morning and in their meeting offered to provide the Trump campaign with some official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father."

 it seems to me that "official" modifies "documents and information" .  In other words the sentence could fairly be written: "official documents and official information." This cuts against your argument that the information being offered was "illegally stolen oppo material." The use of the word "official" strongly suggests that these alleged documents were Russian documents not documents hacked from the DNC.  Moreover the statement goes on to say "that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia." I don't recall any hacked email from the DNC trove that was about Clinton's work with the Russians. From where I sit - the cheap seats - this actually supports DJT jr. assertions that the meeting was a nothing burger.

It also strikes me that your claim that about "acceptance" by the Trump campaign is a little off.  You have a point that they accepted a meeting to hear what the offer was about.  But that's a long way from establishing that the Trump campaign accepted stolen hacked emails from the DNC.  In fact the only person who accepted the hacked documents was Assange. I'm not being picky.  The statue clearly requires actually accepting something of value from a foreign entity by the campaign. 


Finally if accepting opposition research by itself is a crime under the statute, Clinton is far more likely to have violated the statute.


MarkS

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 377
Re: Russia Investigation.
« Reply #331 on: August 06, 2018, 03:12:50 PM »
Here is a blog post by a Law Professor at Fordham.  He discusses the likelihood of information alone meeting the thing of value requirement under the statute.

 https://shugerblog.com/2017/07/11/update-on-don-jr-emails-and-criminal-case-what-is-a-thing-of-value-what-is-collusion/

investor-man

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 537
Re: Russia Investigation.
« Reply #332 on: August 06, 2018, 11:55:51 PM »
Here is a picture of Rinat Akhmetshin and Natalia Veselnitskaya at an inauguration party - Trump's inauguration. They both attended the Trump Tower meeting.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/resizer/rMHYTZuonS4NvzAC2srrrFWr6p0=/1484x0/arc-anglerfish-washpost-prod-washpost.s3.amazonaws.com/public/OUKOCYH32YI6PG25XPYNUMJBJU.jpg

It's from this Washington Post article that highlights other high ranking Russian officials who attended the inauguration: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/amid-trumps-inaugural-festivities-members-of-russias-elite-anticipated-a-thaw-between-moscow-and-washington/2018/01/20/0d767f46-fb9f-11e7-ad8c-ecbb62019393_story.html

The timeline after the meeting gives a pretty clear indication that a deal was struck between the Trump campaign and Russia (emails release, GOP changes platform on Ukraine, high ranking Russian officials attend inauguration, etc.)

What we know keeps getting worse for Trump with each passing day. One can make a pretty solid guess that Cohen and Gates, who are both in a lot of trouble (Gates still faces 5 to 10 years of prison even after his deal to testify against Manafort), have the information necessary to make the case against Trump truly criminal.

At this point Trump has lied and been caught so many times that I don't know how you could trust anything that comes out of his mouth.
« Last Edit: August 06, 2018, 11:59:24 PM by investor-man »
Ferengi Rule of Acquisition #3 "Never spend more for an acquisition than you have to."

investor-man

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 537
Re: Russia Investigation.
« Reply #333 on: August 07, 2018, 12:02:01 AM »
also everything I mentioned above is evidence toward Trump conspiring with Russia. The case for obstruction of justice just seems like a slam dunk at this point.
Ferengi Rule of Acquisition #3 "Never spend more for an acquisition than you have to."

MarkS

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 377
Re: Russia Investigation.
« Reply #334 on: August 07, 2018, 05:38:35 AM »
Investor-man

Sounds more like wishing thinking than evidence.  But who am I?

As to the obstruction of justice slam dunk, I'm not so sure that Trump as a sitting President could face criminal charges.  He could face impeachment. It would have to get through the house and then get through the senate with a two thirds vote. Besides the slam dunk obstruction case isn't so slam dunk.  It looks like he had plenty of legitimate reasons to fire Comey.

doughishere

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1361
Re: Russia Investigation.
« Reply #335 on: August 07, 2018, 05:48:57 AM »
https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/06/politics/paul-manafort-trial-rick-gates-donald-trump/index.html

Gates says he and Manafort didn't report 15 foreign accounts, knew it was illegal

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/08/what-rick-gatess-testimony-means-for-manafortand-trump/566939/

Quote
“Were you involved in any criminal activity with Mr. Manafort?” a prosecutor asked.

“Yes,” Gates replied.

“Did you commit any crimes with Mr. Manafort?”

“Yes,” Gates said again.

cameronfen

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 230
Re: Russia Investigation.
« Reply #336 on: August 07, 2018, 06:19:25 AM »
Here is a blog post by a Law Professor at Fordham.  He discusses the likelihood of information alone meeting the thing of value requirement under the statute.

 https://shugerblog.com/2017/07/11/update-on-don-jr-emails-and-criminal-case-what-is-a-thing-of-value-what-is-collusion/

Even if what this professor says is right and I'm not a lawyer so I have no reason to disagree, the case against Trump for obstructing justice is still quite strong.  He lied to the public (we don't know if he lied to the FBI) about those meetings, and then as Comey was very visibly investigating Trump for those Russian meetings, he fired him and then tweeted (or said in some official way) that firing coming lifted a cloud from over him.  Combine that with his tweets fuming about replacing sessions for recusal or about Mueller.  Whether what he did was illegal at the meeting or not, he was certainly trying to obstruct an official investigation. 

MarkS

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 377
Re: Russia Investigation.
« Reply #337 on: August 07, 2018, 07:57:47 AM »
The obstruction case is complicated by the fact that Trump had legitimate reasons to fire Comey.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-39866767
See also the IG  report.

Comey isn't particularly pure either. Many think that he lied to Congress under oath and also violated the same statues that Hillary Clinton allegedly violated.
https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/law-prof-mccabe-firing-suggests-comey-lied-to-congress-while-under-oath/

If you get passed the above hurdles, you then face the question of whether you can actually bring criminal charges against a sitting President.
http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/can_a_sitting_president_be_indicted_the_constitution_doesnt_give_a_definiti

So that leaves impeachment as the most likely possibility.  It would have to get passed the house and a two thirds vote in the Senate.  if successful that means Mike Pence is President - who would most likely pardon Trump like Ford pardoned Nixon.  (Also Mike Pence will not eat a meal with a woman other than his wife without a chaperone.  So be very careful what you ask for.)

I don't hold myself out as an expect on all of this.  If anyone else has a better handle please wade into the conversation.  My main point:  This is a very complex area and the odds of any slam dunks are slim.

investor-man

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 537
Re: Russia Investigation.
« Reply #338 on: August 07, 2018, 07:22:54 PM »
So that leaves impeachment as the most likely possibility.  It would have to get passed the house and a two thirds vote in the Senate.  if successful that means Mike Pence is President - who would most likely pardon Trump like Ford pardoned Nixon.  (Also Mike Pence will not eat a meal with a woman other than his wife without a chaperone.  So be very careful what you ask for.)

I think (hope) Trump will be a lame duck after November. We may have to settle for just that, but this investigation needs to continue and he and his cronies need to be charged. We can't have future presidents behaving like this.

As an aside - I'd take Pence any day over Trump, and I think people are being a bit harsh with his meal/chaperone thing. I'm not religious, but I also feel weird having a meal alone with a woman who is not my wife. I've done it, but it's certainly something I make sure my wife knows about, and I make sure to stick to a schedule I've related to her.
Ferengi Rule of Acquisition #3 "Never spend more for an acquisition than you have to."

cobafdek

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 426
Re: Russia Investigation.
« Reply #339 on: August 17, 2018, 10:23:48 AM »
https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/17/politics/paul-manafort-trial-friday/index.html

"Before leaving for the day Thursday, the jury sent Ellis four questions, including one asking whether he could 'redefine' the meaning of 'reasonable doubt,' the legal threshold for acquitting a defendant."

This is too funny.  If you're on the jury and you've concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that Manafort is guilty, would you ask this question?

This is not conclusive, but hung juries probably start like this.