Anonymous
Post 07/12/2017 10:25     Subject: Re:Kushner, Manafort and Don Jr. met with a Russian lawyer with Kremlin ties during the campaign
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:What concerns me are the reports that the FBI either didn't know about this meeting or at least, didn't know about these emails. Kinda worried what else they/Mueller may be missing?

Is there a source for this assertion? I don't remember seeing anything in the articles to suggest this information was unknown to the FBI. Undisclosed to the public? Sure.


Exactly. If you hear about the FBI knowing about this information, we'll be receiving yet another 3am rambling tweet from our dear leader about leakers.

I haven't seen it either, but hope the FBI is only being circumspect about its knowledge and sources. If not, isn't it likely Russia is feeding this to NYT? Not arguing that makes it untrue; it's all clear as day in the email, but to sow unrest here. I mean, we are handicapped right now. Also, not trying to say it shouldn't have been reported. Obvs it should. I've just been crazy curious about who the leakers have been throughout this whole debacle and what their true motivation is.
Anonymous
Post 07/12/2017 10:13     Subject: Kushner, Manafort and Don Jr. met with a Russian lawyer with Kremlin ties during the campaign
Anonymous wrote:I have a question to all you brilliant DCUM legal minds out there. What's the legal standard/definition for collusion in this context? The more that comes out, the more certain it sounds like the Trump campaign had at least some knowledge of Russian involvement in the election during campaign season. However, this doesn't necessarily mean they acted on this knowledge. But would being complicit meet a collusion threshold test?

My pure speculation here. I have a feeling all these meetings that took place were about the Russians telling the Trump campaign what kind of information they had and what they were going to do with the information, while team Trump so sat there and nodded their heads.


I don't know. But let me ask you this,

Guy talks to a 14 YO girl online. Agrees to meet her for sex.

Shows up, no sex. Instead, an officer waiting to arrest him.

He's guilty of attempting to have sex with her and goes to jail.

Uday electronically agreed to meet with the Russians to get info. Showed up, no info. But he still went to the meeting. Question is what was his intent? Was his intent to collude? Is attempted treason illegal or just successful treason?

I am beginning to think Richard Nixon was merely a man before his time.
Anonymous
Post 07/12/2017 10:10     Subject: Kushner, Manafort and Don Jr. met with a Russian lawyer with Kremlin ties during the campaign
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:I have a question to all you brilliant DCUM legal minds out there. What's the legal standard/definition for collusion in this context? The more that comes out, the more certain it sounds like the Trump campaign had at least some knowledge of Russian involvement in the election during campaign season. However, this doesn't necessarily mean they acted on this knowledge. But would being complicit meet a collusion threshold test?

My pure speculation here. I have a feeling all these meetings that took place were about the Russians telling the Trump campaign what kind of information they had and what they were going to do with the information, while team Trump so sat there and nodded their heads.


"Collusion" is a general umbrella term for all the inappropriate coordination that TeamTrump had with Russian agents. It is not referring to a specific violation of a specific statute in this context. "Collusion" is also a legal term for a specific crime, but in a entirely different context, so it can get confusing. Several people (some ignorantly, some intentionally) are trying to muddy the waters between the two concepts to suggest Team Trump violated no laws here.

There are several laws that Team Trump may have violated - specific crimes with specific elements that prosecutors will determine whether they can prove. For example, some of the people on Team Trump may have conspired to violate election laws. Others may have offered or received bribes. Still others may have lied under oath. Others may have obstructed justice. Others may have willfully failed to report information accurately (a version of perjury, I suspect.) Addressing each of those potential crimes in detail is a complex undertaking because each has about 3-6 elements that must be assessed for each situation. There are a number of articles that discuss crimes generally, but you may need to dig a little deeper to find the ones that list out the specific elements for each likely crime and apply the facts we know to those elements. Doing that is interesting for practicing lawyers, but not usually of much interest for the general public, so mainstream media like CNN or Fox rarely go into that sort of detail. I have read a few of those articles that lay out the specific elements, and it seems several people on Team Trump are well on their way to checking off all the boxes that allow them to get charged. Some of those elements are a little subjective, so it's still debatable. But they're pretty close to the red line based just on public disclosures. There are certainly lots of other facts and communications that the investigators have that are not yet public.

Hth



PP again. Here are a couple articles that describe some potential crimes that might be investigated or charged:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/11/us/politics/collusion-trump-russia-campaign.html
http://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-jr-emails-illegal-campaign-2017-7

Here is the one people are most focused on right now, 52 USC 30121:
§?30121.
Contributions and donations by foreign nationals

(a) Prohibition. It shall be unlawful for—

(1) a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make—
(A) a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election; ...

(2) a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) from a foreign national.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/52/30121


In the context of this Don Trump Jr situation, Trump likely thought he was meeting with a "foreign national" because the email describes her as a "Russian government lawyer" and says clearly that she is relaying information from the Russian government. The "thing of value" is the opposition research and secret info that's described in the email. When Don Jr wrote "I love it" and arranged the meeting, he took a substantial step toward soliciting and accepting the contribution.

Criminal defense lawyers would offer many counter-arguments, such as by saying the opposition research wasn't really of any value, or that Don Jr wasn't really intending to accept anything, or maybe that he didn't really read the email and take note of the fact that he was meeting with a foreign national. Maybe they even have some records to back up those defenses, such as Don Jr's personal diary where he says "Dear Diary, I'm so tired and sick these days that I can't focus on my emails. I think I'm meeting tomorrow with a friend of Rob Goldstone's who is a US lawyer who might have received some oppo research from a friend in NY who worked for the Clinton campaign, but I'm not even sure because I was drunk on cough syrup when I accepted the meeting. I've asked Kushner to attend so I don't get confused about the details." Smart defense lawyers will look into issues like that and build defenses.

None of us know enough about the details to know for sure what the result will be. But Trump clearly danced closer to the line of illegality than any defense lawyer would want him to.
Anonymous
Post 07/12/2017 10:01     Subject: Kushner, Manafort and Don Jr. met with a Russian lawyer with Kremlin ties during the campaign
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:I have a question to all you brilliant DCUM legal minds out there. What's the legal standard/definition for collusion in this context? The more that comes out, the more certain it sounds like the Trump campaign had at least some knowledge of Russian involvement in the election during campaign season. However, this doesn't necessarily mean they acted on this knowledge. But would being complicit meet a collusion threshold test?

My pure speculation here. I have a feeling all these meetings that took place were about the Russians telling the Trump campaign what kind of information they had and what they were going to do with the information, while team Trump so sat there and nodded their heads.


"Collusion" is a general umbrella term for all the inappropriate coordination that TeamTrump had with Russian agents. It is not referring to a specific violation of a specific statute in this context. "Collusion" is also a legal term for a specific crime, but in a entirely different context, so it can get confusing. Several people (some ignorantly, some intentionally) are trying to muddy the waters between the two concepts to suggest Team Trump violated no laws here.

There are several laws that Team Trump may have violated - specific crimes with specific elements that prosecutors will determine whether they can prove. For example, some of the people on Team Trump may have conspired to violate election laws. Others may have offered or received bribes. Still others may have lied under oath. Others may have obstructed justice. Others may have willfully failed to report information accurately (a version of perjury, I suspect.) Addressing each of those potential crimes in detail is a complex undertaking because each has about 3-6 elements that must be assessed for each situation. There are a number of articles that discuss crimes generally, but you may need to dig a little deeper to find the ones that list out the specific elements for each likely crime and apply the facts we know to those elements. Doing that is interesting for practicing lawyers, but not usually of much interest for the general public, so mainstream media like CNN or Fox rarely go into that sort of detail. I have read a few of those articles that lay out the specific elements, and it seems several people on Team Trump are well on their way to checking off all the boxes that allow them to get charged. Some of those elements are a little subjective, so it's still debatable. But they're pretty close to the red line based just on public disclosures. There are certainly lots of other facts and communications that the investigators have that are not yet public.

Hth



Not pp, but thank you. This is a very helpful summary!
Anonymous
Post 07/12/2017 09:40     Subject: Re:Kushner, Manafort and Don Jr. met with a Russian lawyer with Kremlin ties during the campaign
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:What concerns me are the reports that the FBI either didn't know about this meeting or at least, didn't know about these emails. Kinda worried what else they/Mueller may be missing?

Is there a source for this assertion? I don't remember seeing anything in the articles to suggest this information was unknown to the FBI. Undisclosed to the public? Sure.


Exactly. If you hear about the FBI knowing about this information, we'll be receiving yet another 3am rambling tweet from our dear leader about leakers.
Anonymous
Post 07/12/2017 09:35     Subject: Re:Kushner, Manafort and Don Jr. met with a Russian lawyer with Kremlin ties during the campaign
Anonymous wrote:What concerns me are the reports that the FBI either didn't know about this meeting or at least, didn't know about these emails. Kinda worried what else they/Mueller may be missing?

Is there a source for this assertion? I don't remember seeing anything in the articles to suggest this information was unknown to the FBI. Undisclosed to the public? Sure.
Anonymous
Post 07/12/2017 09:34     Subject: Kushner, Manafort and Don Jr. met with a Russian lawyer with Kremlin ties during the campaign
Anonymous wrote:I have a question to all you brilliant DCUM legal minds out there. What's the legal standard/definition for collusion in this context? The more that comes out, the more certain it sounds like the Trump campaign had at least some knowledge of Russian involvement in the election during campaign season. However, this doesn't necessarily mean they acted on this knowledge. But would being complicit meet a collusion threshold test?

My pure speculation here. I have a feeling all these meetings that took place were about the Russians telling the Trump campaign what kind of information they had and what they were going to do with the information, while team Trump so sat there and nodded their heads.


"Collusion" is a general umbrella term for all the inappropriate coordination that TeamTrump had with Russian agents. It is not referring to a specific violation of a specific statute in this context. "Collusion" is also a legal term for a specific crime, but in a entirely different context, so it can get confusing. Several people (some ignorantly, some intentionally) are trying to muddy the waters between the two concepts to suggest Team Trump violated no laws here.

There are several laws that Team Trump may have violated - specific crimes with specific elements that prosecutors will determine whether they can prove. For example, some of the people on Team Trump may have conspired to violate election laws. Others may have offered or received bribes. Still others may have lied under oath. Others may have obstructed justice. Others may have willfully failed to report information accurately (a version of perjury, I suspect.) Addressing each of those potential crimes in detail is a complex undertaking because each has about 3-6 elements that must be assessed for each situation. There are a number of articles that discuss crimes generally, but you may need to dig a little deeper to find the ones that list out the specific elements for each likely crime and apply the facts we know to those elements. Doing that is interesting for practicing lawyers, but not usually of much interest for the general public, so mainstream media like CNN or Fox rarely go into that sort of detail. I have read a few of those articles that lay out the specific elements, and it seems several people on Team Trump are well on their way to checking off all the boxes that allow them to get charged. Some of those elements are a little subjective, so it's still debatable. But they're pretty close to the red line based just on public disclosures. There are certainly lots of other facts and communications that the investigators have that are not yet public.

Hth

Anonymous
Post 07/12/2017 09:09     Subject: Kushner, Manafort and Don Jr. met with a Russian lawyer with Kremlin ties during the campaign
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:This is the first confirmed private meeting between a Russian national - a lawyer with ties to the Kremlin - and Trump’s inner circle during the campaign. Don Jr. specifically denied setting up meetings with Russians during the campaign.
https://apple.news/AjTvqWoUpRQiR7uaV5cfzTQ
Has Uday lawyered up yet?

Where exactly are the Kremlin ties?


Google it.
Anonymous
Post 07/12/2017 09:07     Subject: Kushner, Manafort and Don Jr. met with a Russian lawyer with Kremlin ties during the campaign
Anonymous wrote:So once the meeting was confirmed on June 7, 2016, Donald Trump promised an address with damaging information about Hillary:

https://twitter.com/yashar/status/884900796957171712

So why was this promise made if nothing was expected from the meeting on June 9th?



This is clear evidence of collusion. Subpoena all of Donnyboy's emails and texts as well as those of Jared and Paul, and the smoking gun will appear. Trump clearly knew about the meeting. Donnieboy lied last night when he claimed Pawpaw knew nothing about it.

I assume everything Trump denies is true. It's been demonstrated over and over again during the past year.
Anonymous
Post 07/12/2017 08:58     Subject: Kushner, Manafort and Don Jr. met with a Russian lawyer with Kremlin ties during the campaign
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Donald Jr. is going to look as "good" in Orange as daddy does. Kushner and Manifort too. That's the ballgame for these three. Federal crime committed and prove via Jr. Own tweets.

Also, is Don Jr. doiing an insanity defense thing? No sane person would tweet: Hey! Here's the written proof I committed a federal crime!

Also: Don, Jr.'s lawyer either needs to resign (because Donny did the exact opposite of what was advised. Which would have been Shut Up!). Or disbarred for gross incompetence. Dealers choice.

It's a beautiful day.


Daddy can pardon him. You don't think he will? Then you haven't been paying attention. Things aren't normal anymore.


Mueller's team is drawn from the Southern District, which is in, uh, NY, where the Trumps reside, all of them. The Southern District will move on the Trump family even if Trump pardons them. And Trump can't pardon himself.


Not quite. DOJ is federal, Trump can pardon all federal offenses. What he can't pardon are state offenses. Since this happened in NY, NY State could charge them. The question then becomes, did they break NY state law? Because NY can't charge them for breaking federal law.


The connections between Mueller's team and the Southern District are very close. These people talk to each other, obviously. When they're done with the Mueller investigation, they're going back to NY. The Southern District will prosecute the Trumps for breaking NY laws. There will be indictments in NY, count on it.


The Southern District of New York is not part of the NY State government. It is part of the federal Department of Justice.


I stand corrected, alas. Does that mean anything the Southern district digs up on money laundering etc against Trump Inc. could be pardoned by Trump? I guess I was confusing the NY AG--they are the ones who can get the Trumps on state charges, no? But if Trump commits Federal crimes in NY, who charges him and how can he evade thise charges?
Anonymous
Post 07/12/2017 08:54     Subject: Kushner, Manafort and Don Jr. met with a Russian lawyer with Kremlin ties during the campaign
I have a question to all you brilliant DCUM legal minds out there. What's the legal standard/definition for collusion in this context? The more that comes out, the more certain it sounds like the Trump campaign had at least some knowledge of Russian involvement in the election during campaign season. However, this doesn't necessarily mean they acted on this knowledge. But would being complicit meet a collusion threshold test?

My pure speculation here. I have a feeling all these meetings that took place were about the Russians telling the Trump campaign what kind of information they had and what they were going to do with the information, while team Trump so sat there and nodded their heads.
Anonymous
Post 07/12/2017 08:49     Subject: Re:Kushner, Manafort and Don Jr. met with a Russian lawyer with Kremlin ties during the campaign
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:What concerns me are the reports that the FBI either didn't know about this meeting or at least, didn't know about these emails. Kinda worried what else they/Mueller may be missing?


As the reporters were saying yesterday, nobody has just asked DJT Jr. They've asked sources, followed leads, but never asked Jr himself. I doubt that the FBI is far enough along to interview or subpoena him yet. So they haven't asked him either.


I am 100% sure that reporters have tried to contact Don Jr. through whomever is his gatekeeper, and that he has refused to comment. It's why he released the emails yesterday. Because the NYT contacted his Rep (or him, if he has a direct contact number, which he almost certainly does not) an asked for comment/ told him the NYT was going to release. Which the NTY did at almost exactly the same time.

Also, he was on Hannity last night, remember? Now, I don't count Hannity as a reporter. But Don Jr. Is out there trying to justify this mess.

Anonymous
Post 07/12/2017 08:47     Subject: Re:Kushner, Manafort and Don Jr. met with a Russian lawyer with Kremlin ties during the campaign
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:What concerns me are the reports that the FBI either didn't know about this meeting or at least, didn't know about these emails. Kinda worried what else they/Mueller may be missing?


As the reporters were saying yesterday, nobody has just asked DJT Jr. They've asked sources, followed leads, but never asked Jr himself. I doubt that the FBI is far enough along to interview or subpoena him yet. So they haven't asked him either.


Plenty of people asked Donald Trump Junior whether there was collusion with the Russians. He's on camera calling it "disgusting and so phony."

"A month after Trump Jr.'s email exchange and subsequent meeting with Veselnitskaya, he appeared on CNN. The Democratic National Committee (DNC) emails had just been leaked, an episode the intelligence community later blamed on the Russians. Robbie Mook, Hillary Clinton's campaign manager, had just been interviewed about the leak and suggested that experts were pointing toward Russians as the perpetrators of both the hacking and the leaking of the DNC emails. He also said that the experts thought the actions could be part of a plot to help Mr. Trump and hurt Hillary Clinton.

In response, Trump Jr. told CNN's Jake Tapper, "Well, it just goes to show you their exact moral compass. I mean they'll say anything to be able to win this. I mean, this is time and time again, lie after lie after lie." He went on to characterize Mook's comments as "disgusting" and "so phony." And he said of the Clinton campaign, "They will lie and do anything to win."

Projection much?
Anonymous
Post 07/12/2017 08:43     Subject: Kushner, Manafort and Don Jr. met with a Russian lawyer with Kremlin ties during the campaign
Anonymous wrote:Does anyone have a resource that lists all of the "nothingburger" coincidences of Trump Campaign/Russia contacts? A timeline or roster of people who did what when?


Look at pinned tweets by Adam Khan or Seth Abramson.

MotherJones.com also has some great primers and graphics.
Anonymous
Post 07/12/2017 08:42     Subject: Kushner, Manafort and Don Jr. met with a Russian lawyer with Kremlin ties during the campaign
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:I think all this talk about whether is it legal or not is a red herring. The question is: is it moral? Whether it is legal or not, do we really want a culture that says it is morally okay to solicit hostile powers for help?


I respectfully disagree. The legality is important because we are a nation built on rule of law. And the illegality is covered in the constitution. This is not a matter of violating some part of the tax code where lawyers can argue definitions. Interference by foreign powers was very much at the forefront of our founding fathers' minds.

The morality aspect is important because these are the people representing us. All of us whether or not we voted for them.

Rs don't care about morality anymore. It's all lip service.

--signed a former R