Schwab:
Four quick points:
1). Your statement that it is only illegal to accept money from foreign governments is just plain wrong.
https://www.fec.gov/updates/foreign-nationals/
2). As I understand Manafort's plea agreement, he plead guilty to charges stemming from his work with Ukraine, not Russia, long before his work with the Trump campaign.
3). Your comment about going to the heart of the Trump investigation was an argument made concerning the enforcement of the plea agreement with Manafort. It wasn't a claim that Manafort's guilty plea was proof against Trump. It reflected the investigators frustration with Manafort over his not providing evidence against Trump in exchange for the plea deal. Specifically the investigators argued that Manafort's repeated lies were sufficient to void his plea agreement
4). If someone can't rely on news reports from supposedly reputable sources, then what are you relying on to make your allegations?
Moreover you're indirectly arguing that I must wait for the actual report before drawing any conclusions. But aren't you drawing conclusions before reading the reports?
Respectfully - color me unconvinced.
1. I didn't say it was
only illegal, just that it was. I said it's not illegal to hire a non-US citizen in the sense that Steele was hired. Consider the fact that a campaign purchases various goods/services from foreign companies for campaign purposes. That is not illegal. It wasn't illegal for the Trump Campaign to have purchased "Make America Great Again" hats made in China. I'm not a lawyer and not nearly bright enough to point to the technical reasons differentiating the two other than to say they were clearly different situations. The direct offer from the sovereign country being an obvious difference.
2. Thus my "gets to the heart of the investigation" comment. Read the transcript. Ukraine Peace Plan, Russian sanctions, Deripaska, Russian trolls, Trump Tower Moscow, ect are all intertwined. Russian sanctions exist because of Crimea. They cannot be viewed in isolation.
3. It wasn't related to Trump. It was related to a specific lie made by Manafort. When explaining the "materiality" to the judge, Mueller's prosecutor said that the lie gets to the heart of the investigation. He was pointing out that it was more than merely meeting the minimum materiality hurdle.
4. In this thread, lately, I've only used court documents because there was too much pushback in past months that certain articles were "fake news" and thus unconvincing. I'm trying to remind folks that conspiracy isn't just a vague allegation but that the actual conspiracy is being proven in court every week. As this thread and point #2 shows, the conspiracy is broad and includes many actors. It will take awhile to go through all the legal steps to "prove it".
