Official Special Investigation Into Trump Thread

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 . . . 17 NEXT
 

bastardofmelbourne:
On the one hand: props to Donald Trump Jr. for his dedication to transparency. Credit where it's due, he just volunteered this whole thing on Twitter unprompted.

No. Just no. No credit at all. It's a completely cynical, tactical move.

This Russia shit has been rolling for months, and he's known perfectly well he's got these emails sitting there all that time. If he ever gave a damn about transparency, we'd have seen them in Februrary or so. He's releasing them now because he knows the net is closing in and he is going to be forced to release them.

Releasing them voluntarily is all PR: firstly to give a facade of co-operation (after months and months of stonewalling), and secondly because a planned release of information increases the ability of Trump and team to manage - and therefore minimise - the damage.

Exley97:

What law are you referring to? I haven't seen any credible source argue that the mere act of soliciting opposition material or "dirt" on a political candidate, even if the information was produced from a foreign government, is illegal (if that's the case, then the Clinton camp could be implicated in the Steele dossier, which was reportedly sourced by Russian government agents). But I confess I'm just a journalist and not a legal scholar/lawyer, so I don't know.

Here you go, the Logan Act, enacted in 1799:

Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

Mr.Mattress:

Exley97:

What law are you referring to? I haven't seen any credible source argue that the mere act of soliciting opposition material or "dirt" on a political candidate, even if the information was produced from a foreign government, is illegal (if that's the case, then the Clinton camp could be implicated in the Steele dossier, which was reportedly sourced by Russian government agents). But I confess I'm just a journalist and not a legal scholar/lawyer, so I don't know.

Here you go, the Logan Act, enacted in 1799:

Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

Okay, the Logan Act...this has been enforced exactly once in 200 years and was enacted for something totally different that the Trump/Russian collusion question. And I've seen exactly one credible source cite the Logan Act in reference to the Russian collusion investigation (Norm Eisen, former ambassador to the Czech Republic under Obama).
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/07/10/donald-trump-jr-russia-meeting-legal-danger-240370

I'm not sure how prosecutors would apply such a law in political campaigns/opposition research in an era of Citizens United and revitalized free speech (compared to the 1800s), or how the current Supreme Court or really any modern Supreme Court would rule in favor of such legal action. This is a long way of saying I think it's a serious stretch, and if it wasn't, you'd have more legal experts claiming it's applicable to the matter. Instead, you have plenty of experts in recent months saying the Logan Act is dubious at best and unconstitutional according to 21st century law at worst. I'm willing to change my opinion, of course, if experts change course and start saying Logan actually IS applicable and viable in this case, but I haven't seen that yet.

In any event, I've seen a lot of chatter online from Trump critics about the Logan Act and my sincere hope is that people start to pull back from that before it becomes the political equivalent of GGers screaming about the RICO Act.

Exley97:
Okay, the Logan Act...this has been enforced exactly once in 200 years and was enacted for something totally different that the Trump/Russian collusion question. And I've seen exactly one credible source cite the Logan Act in reference to the Russian collusion investigation (Norm Eisen, former ambassador to the Czech Republic under Obama).
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/07/10/donald-trump-jr-russia-meeting-legal-danger-240370

So it appears you are correct; the Logan Act is not appropriate in this Case. So, I looked deeper and harder, and found this, '? 110.20 Prohibition on contributions, donations, expenditures, independent expenditures, and disbursements by foreign nationals (52 U.S.C. 30121, 36 U.S.C. 510)'.

(b)Contributions and donations by foreign nationals in connection with elections. A foreign national shall not, directly or indirectly, make a contribution or a donation of money or other thing of value, or expressly or impliedly promise to make a contribution or a donation, in connection with any Federal, State, or local election.

(g)Solicitation, acceptance, or receipt of contributions and donations from foreign nationals. No person shall knowingly solicit, accept, or receive from a foreign national any contribution or donation prohibited by paragraphs (b) through (d) of this section.

This is the law that Trump Jr. broke. The Russian promised Information against Clinton through the Russian Government (a Contribution to a Federal Election) and he took it. Even though he didn't actually get any information, attempting to breaking the law is still against the law.

Mr.Mattress:

Exley97:
Okay, the Logan Act...this has been enforced exactly once in 200 years and was enacted for something totally different that the Trump/Russian collusion question. And I've seen exactly one credible source cite the Logan Act in reference to the Russian collusion investigation (Norm Eisen, former ambassador to the Czech Republic under Obama).
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/07/10/donald-trump-jr-russia-meeting-legal-danger-240370

So it appears you are correct; the Logan Act is not appropriate in this Case. So, I looked deeper and harder, and found this, '? 110.20 Prohibition on contributions, donations, expenditures, independent expenditures, and disbursements by foreign nationals (52 U.S.C. 30121, 36 U.S.C. 510)'.

(b)Contributions and donations by foreign nationals in connection with elections. A foreign national shall not, directly or indirectly, make a contribution or a donation of money or other thing of value, or expressly or impliedly promise to make a contribution or a donation, in connection with any Federal, State, or local election.

(g)Solicitation, acceptance, or receipt of contributions and donations from foreign nationals. No person shall knowingly solicit, accept, or receive from a foreign national any contribution or donation prohibited by paragraphs (b) through (d) of this section.

This is the law that Trump Jr. broke.

Pretty sure that's in reference to "financial" contributors or anything of monetary value, rather than strategic value.
https://www.fec.gov/updates/foreign-nationals/

Has this law been cited in the press by legal or subject matter experts in relation the Trump/Russia?

My inclination is to forget the arcane legal question for a moment here and ask a different one: is any of this shit morally wrong?

Exley97:

Pretty sure that's in reference to "financial" contributors or anything of monetary value, rather than strategic value.
https://www.fec.gov/updates/foreign-nationals/

Has this law been cited in the press by legal or subject matter experts in relation the Trump/Russia?

Bush Jr's Ethics Adviser, Richard Painter, has cited this law, so yes, it has been cited by an expert in relation to Trump/Russia. I'll look to see if others have also cited this law, as well, but this was one of the first ones I found.

Mr.Mattress:

Exley97:

Pretty sure that's in reference to "financial" contributors or anything of monetary value, rather than strategic value.
https://www.fec.gov/updates/foreign-nationals/

Has this law been cited in the press by legal or subject matter experts in relation the Trump/Russia?

Bush Jr's Ethics Adviser, Richard Painter, has cited this law, so yes, it has been cited by an expert in relation to Trump/Russia. I'll look to see if others have also cited this law, as well, but this was one of the first ones I found.

What if the foreign country is Ukraine and not Russia?

Politico:
Ukrainian government officials tried to help Hillary Clinton and undermine Trump by publicly questioning his fitness for office. They also disseminated documents implicating a top Trump aide in corruption and suggested they were investigating the matter, only to back away after the election. And they helped Clinton's allies research damaging information on Trump and his advisers, a Politico investigation found.

Still applicable, you think? Or are we reaching the level of OH MY GOD WHO GIVES A SHIT?!

Seanchaidh:

What if the foreign country is Ukraine and not Russia?

Politico:
Ukrainian government officials tried to help Hillary Clinton and undermine Trump by publicly questioning his fitness for office. They also disseminated documents implicating a top Trump aide in corruption and suggested they were investigating the matter, only to back away after the election. And they helped Clinton's allies research damaging information on Trump and his advisers, a Politico investigation found.

Still applicable, you think? Or are we reaching the level of OH MY GOD WHO GIVES A SHIT?!

I would absolutely say so. And if she were President, and the Republicans knew of this, they'd be investigating her over 20 times, like they did with Benghazi and Emails. I also wouldn't be opposed to them investigating this right now.

All I'm saying is, Trump Jr. definitely committed a Crime, and admitted to committing a Crime. He needs to be arrested for doing so.

Seanchaidh:
My inclination is to forget the arcane legal question for a moment here and ask a different one: is any of this shit morally wrong?

Opposition research is questionable at best, but opposition research given by a foreign national government that had been denied as a possibility and that multiple high level people denied the existence of to influence the course of a national election?

Yes?

I'm actually excited to see if anything comes of this.

And not to derail, but the Dems did the same thing too:

http://dailycaller.com/2017/07/10/everybody-is-forgetting-that-clinton-allies-did-the-same-thing-as-don-jr/

Mr.Mattress:

Exley97:

Pretty sure that's in reference to "financial" contributors or anything of monetary value, rather than strategic value.
https://www.fec.gov/updates/foreign-nationals/

Has this law been cited in the press by legal or subject matter experts in relation the Trump/Russia?

Bush Jr's Ethics Adviser, Richard Painter, has cited this law, so yes, it has been cited by an expert in relation to Trump/Russia. I'll look to see if others have also cited this law, as well, but this was one of the first ones I found.

It looks like it was Jed Shugerman of Fordham Law School that cited it, not Painter. But yes, your point stands. And actually, others have cited this statute as well, most notably Ryan Goodman, editor in chief of Just Security (and former DoD lawyer). Goodman and the Just Security staff are as knowledgeable and reasoned as any natsec news team out there, and I trust their collective wisdom. He offered the following via Twitter:

https://twitter.com/TheTakeaway/status/884830704206565376

I'll confess that I'm still skeptical because outlawing the acceptance of "anything of value" from a foreign government seems too broad, but nevertheless, you appear to be on to something and it's a far, far cry from the Logan Act.

Seanchaidh:

What if the foreign country is Ukraine and not Russia?

Politico:
Ukrainian government officials tried to help Hillary Clinton and undermine Trump by publicly questioning his fitness for office. They also disseminated documents implicating a top Trump aide in corruption and suggested they were investigating the matter, only to back away after the election. And they helped Clinton's allies research damaging information on Trump and his advisers, a Politico investigation found.

Still applicable, you think? Or are we reaching the level of OH MY GOD WHO GIVES A SHIT?!

Ukrainian helping the Clinton administration is a real problem and should be investigated, but the difference is that Trump is president and his son actively sought out that information but I haven't seen anything that shown someone from the Clinton campaign team actively seeking and meeting with Ukrainian source. Also there hasn't been anyone from the Clinton team who took oaths and got security clearance while lying about meeting with foreign national, while it seems literally everyone in Trump team was apparently doing that and they all lied (and have keep lying about it over the last months as more and more info come out and constantly discredits them).

I love it how Trump's administration and their supporters went from "Russia collusion is fake news" to "Russia collusion isn't illegal". It's like his supporters don't have a mind of their own and they're just regurgitating whatever they hear from Trump and his state media. Those people are fuckin' brainwashed.

If it wasn't illegal, wouldn't that be the talking point from the very beginning?

And I hope that you realize that all the lying about it that came afterwards is also a crime, and that EVERYONE who lied about anything related to Russia can be implicated as an accessory after the fact. Russia committed various felonies against the US, and by lying about it, Trump administration helped cover those crimes. Basically, collusion isn't just about what happened before the election, it's also about covering for Russian crimes. Therefore they're accessories after the fact. Have fun with that.

Agema:

bastardofmelbourne:
On the one hand: props to Donald Trump Jr. for his dedication to transparency. Credit where it's due, he just volunteered this whole thing on Twitter unprompted.

No. Just no. No credit at all. It's a completely cynical, tactical move.

Yeah, I know. I'm just being nice.

Don't know why I feel compelled to be nice to billionaire jackasses, but I'm a nice guy.

Exley97:
Pretty sure that's in reference to "financial" contributors or anything of monetary value, rather than strategic value.
https://www.fec.gov/updates/foreign-nationals/

This is what the entire question revolves around: whether compromising information on an opposing candidate can be considered "an other thing of value" for the purposes of the law against foreign contributions to a presidential campaign.

It's not certain, there's a dearth of actual jurisprudence, and I'm far from qualified to speak on this, but a lot of legal experts are very interested in the actual scope of the law all of the sudden.

Seanchaidh:
My inclination is to forget the arcane legal question for a moment here and ask a different one: is any of this shit morally wrong?

Morally? Well, if we're to discard questions of law or ethics entirely, then a lot of what goes on in politics is morally wrong. Trying to solicit compromising information on your political opponent is something I would consider morally wrong, as would the use of such information in order to sabotage their campaign.

But that's because, morally speaking, the proper way to run a campaign is to tell the truth at all times, engage with and debate those issues that are relevant, avoid being influenced by wealthy private interests, and work in good faith to represent the best interests of the people who voted for you. But if I applied that standard consistently, there wouldn't be a single politician in the last hundred years who met those criteria.

I'm reminded of an old episode of the West Wing - my late mother was a fan - where the Bartlet campaign, i.e. the good guys, selectively leak information about an opposing primary candidate's wife's clinical depression in order to sabotage his campaign by implying that his wife is crazy. I remember being quite upset by that when I watched it. But the Bartlet administration in the West Wing was presented as an almost masturbatory left-wing utopia of idealistic, ethical, highly competent people motivated by a sense of civic duty. It was hard for me to reconcile that idealism with the brash cynicism of exploiting the mental health of a man's wife to discredit him. The showrunners seemed to take it for granted that the audience would be okay with such a thing.

Seanchaidh:
What if the foreign country is Ukraine and not Russia?

That'd be a big deal too, but Clinton didn't win the election.

On closer investigation: the assistance described in that article came from an American lawyer, Alexandra Chalupa, "a daughter of Ukrainian immigrants who maintains strong ties to the Ukrainian-American diaspora and the U.S. Embassy in Ukraine," who was doing consulting work for the DNC. Specifically, the assistance came from an American national, not a Ukrainian national or a representative of a foreign government.

The question then becomes who was assisting Chalupa, and how much of her actions were known by higher-ups in the DNC or the Clinton campaign. If Chalupa was receiving campaign assistance from the Ukrainian government, then she'd be guilty of the same crime Donald Trump Jr. is being accused of. The fallout from that may extend into the Clinton campaign, or it may not.

Anyway, look on the bright side. The more weight the Russia story puts on the Trump administration, the more hobbled the Republican Party's legislative agenda will become. And the less destruction they can accomplish in the coming years, the easier a time President Bernie Sanders 2.0 will have cleaning things up.

(In my head, President Sanders 2.0 is a cyborg reinstantiation of Bernie Sanders, combining progressive economic policies and debating skills with a nuclear-powered heart and a laser eye.)

Whitbane:
And not to derail, but the Dems did the same thing too:

http://dailycaller.com/2017/07/10/everybody-is-forgetting-that-clinton-allies-did-the-same-thing-as-don-jr/

Man, the Daily Caller can go fuck itself. Tucker Carlson can go fuck himself. Those two entities can go bend over backwards in a non-Euclidian fashion and fuck themselves and each other at the same time like an M.C. Escher orgy of self-fuckery.

You want to cite something about Chalupa and Ukraine, stick to sources that are not the journalistic equivalent of a weird Moebius daisy chain.

Exley97:

Lil devils x:

There is more to it than that though because Hillary Clinton is a protected US government official for the rest of her life. To collude with a foreign government in acts of espionage, regardless of their method to do so, To EVEN solicit information is in violation of the law. I am not sure they understand that they cannot collude with a foreign government against a US official AT ALL.

What law are you referring to? I haven't seen any credible source argue that the mere act of soliciting opposition material or "dirt" on a political candidate, even if the information was produced from a foreign government, is illegal (if that's the case, then the Clinton camp could be implicated in the Steele dossier, which was reportedly sourced by Russian government agents). But I confess I'm just a journalist and not a legal scholar/lawyer, so I don't know.

Clinton is not just a " candidate" she is a former first lady of the United State with full protections applied to the former presidents of the United states, a former senator and former secretary of state. Espionage committed against her are no different than espionage committed against the department of defense or any other part of the US government due to her having the highest level security clearance in the nation and having direct knowledge of vital classified information. Colluding or participating in ANY act of espionage against her is not the same as doing so against any civilian candidate, as she is protected in or out of office as a " US Official" regardless of if active or not.
I was in particular thinking of Espionage as in US law they take into account the letter of the law AND the "spirit" of the law when determining whether or not it applies, as has been referenced numerous times by the Supreme Court throughout our History.
The spirit of the law is explained here:

With World War I raging in 1917, the administration of President woodrow wilson decided that there needed to be a law protecting the United States against "the insidious methods of internal hostile activities." While the United States had Espionage laws already on the books, it had not had a law against seditious expression since the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 expired. But Wilson and his cabinet had begun to express concern about what Attorney General thomas gregory referred to as "warfare by propaganda."

The part of the act dealing specifically with espionage contained standard clauses criminalizing "obtaining information respecting the national defense with intent or reason to believe that the information to be obtained is to be used to the injury of the United States" or obtaining such things as code books, signal books, sketches, photographs, photographic negatives, and blue prints with the intention of passing them on to the enemy. While more comprehensive, these passages were not much different than what had been in previous laws against spying and espionage.

Although I was specifically thinking espionage would apply, they go over more of these things here:
https://news.vice.com/story/these-are-the-laws-donald-trump-jr-might-have-broken

Whitbane:
I'm actually excited to see if anything comes of this.

And not to derail, but the Dems did the same thing too:

http://dailycaller.com/2017/07/10/everybody-is-forgetting-that-clinton-allies-did-the-same-thing-as-don-jr/

1)That is not the same thing, Ukraine is a US ally, not a Nation the US has a long Hostile history with. US was helping PROTECT Ukraine from Russia. Russia was actually committing cyber warfare and espionage against the US at the time.

2)Clinton is and will always be considered a "US official" due to her being a Former First Lady of the United States, Senator and secretary of state. She is granted the full protections of former presidents and will continue to do so for the rest of her life. Active or not, she will always be considered a US Official. She, just like other former presidents and first ladies can speak with foreign officials as they have always done as well as assist in negotiations. Any act against her is the same as any act against former presidents and considered an attack on the US government.

3)The issue with Paul Manafort was Paul Manafort actually assisted Russia in an invasion and takeover of part of a US allied nation.
Ukraine had just had Russia interfere with their election IN THE SAME MANNER in which Russia was currently interfering with US elections. Paul Manafort had assisted them to do so. Russia's interference with Ukrainian election had included fake news about the non pro Russian candidate, the same way they did with trump and Clinton. Russian online trolls doing the same things they did with Trump an Clinton. When the Ukrainian people called foul and were not accepting the results due to Russian interference , the Russian assisted Ukrainian president that Manafort helped get elected ran off to Crimea and literally gave that part of the Ukraine to Russia.

4) If Clinton had been conspiring with a hostile foreign government that had just assisted a hostile foreign nation with taking over a allied foreign nation that had just did the same things they were doing in the US in said nation, that would be an entirely different story. The thing is Russia had JUST DONE THIS EXACT SAME THING IN UKRAINE. even worse they went as far as to take part of the country and make it part of Russia in the process. That should be disturbing to anyone.

5)The so called "Ukrainian" that they were supposedly in contact with was actually an American.

Julian Assange has tweeted that he gave DJT emails from the Clinton Campaign for DJT to leak himself. This is essentially pushing the knife deeper into DJT's back, that's for sure.

Mr.Mattress:
Julian Assange has tweeted that he gave DJT emails from the Clinton Campaign for DJT to leak himself. This is essentially pushing the knife deeper into DJT's back, that's for sure.

Wait, so Assange had Trump Jr.'s emails this entire time and saw no benefit in releasing them earlier?

Man, that guy continues to impress me with how far he's fallen.

bastardofmelbourne:

Mr.Mattress:
Julian Assange has tweeted that he gave DJT emails from the Clinton Campaign for DJT to leak himself. This is essentially pushing the knife deeper into DJT's back, that's for sure.

Wait, so Assange had Trump Jr.'s emails this entire time and saw no benefit in releasing them earlier?

Man, that guy continues to impress me with how far he's fallen.

Yeah isn't wikileak all about information being open and all that... I guess maybe he has a stick up his butt against Obama and so hate the dem or something.

I must confess, this is not how I imagined a potential smoking gun would be found.

BeetleManiac:
I must confess, this is not how I imagined a potential smoking gun would be found.

...by being openly announced on Twitter?

It is a little weird, yeah. But the hot topic of debate last week was a GIF fashioned from the President's brief appearance in the WWE. We live in weird times.

bastardofmelbourne:

Mr.Mattress:
Julian Assange has tweeted that he gave DJT emails from the Clinton Campaign for DJT to leak himself. This is essentially pushing the knife deeper into DJT's back, that's for sure.

Wait, so Assange had Trump Jr.'s emails this entire time and saw no benefit in releasing them earlier?

Man, that guy continues to impress me with how far he's fallen.

That's not what it says, actually. Assange just contacted DTJ to offer to release his e-mails anonymously. I assume that the idea was for DTJ to send those e-mails to Wikileaks to be released.

bastardofmelbourne:
On the one hand: props to Donald Trump Jr. for his dedication to transparency. Credit where it's due, he just volunteered this whole thing on Twitter unprompted.

Nah, he posted them after the NYT contacted him for comment and told him they were about to run the story.

It's a PR move, sprinkled with a pinch of "fuck you".

This response from one of the reporters chasing the story made me laugh though:

image

Lil devils x:

Exley97:

Lil devils x:

There is more to it than that though because Hillary Clinton is a protected US government official for the rest of her life. To collude with a foreign government in acts of espionage, regardless of their method to do so, To EVEN solicit information is in violation of the law. I am not sure they understand that they cannot collude with a foreign government against a US official AT ALL.

What law are you referring to? I haven't seen any credible source argue that the mere act of soliciting opposition material or "dirt" on a political candidate, even if the information was produced from a foreign government, is illegal (if that's the case, then the Clinton camp could be implicated in the Steele dossier, which was reportedly sourced by Russian government agents). But I confess I'm just a journalist and not a legal scholar/lawyer, so I don't know.

Clinton is not just a " candidate" she is a former first lady of the United State with full protections applied to the former presidents of the United states, a former senator and former secretary of state. Espionage committed against her are no different than espionage committed against the department of defense or any other part of the US government due to her having the highest level security clearance in the nation and having direct knowledge of vital classified information. Colluding or participating in ANY act of espionage against her is not the same as doing so against any civilian candidate, as she is protected in or out of office as a " US Official" regardless of if active or not.
I was in particular thinking of Espionage as in US law they take into account the letter of the law AND the "spirit" of the law when determining whether or not it applies, as has been referenced numerous times by the Supreme Court throughout our History.

I understand what Clinton is/was, but I'm still not sure how the Espionage Act applies here. I don't think she gets special consideration as a political candidate because of who she used to be, and I have yet to seen any sound legal arguments that make that case. Again, not saying they don't exist, just saying I haven't seen anything that amounts to arguing that Trump Jr. & company are guilty of espionage because Clinton was a former First Lady/State Dept. head. If the opposition info gathered on her didn't infer with her role as Secretary of State (and it didn't), then I'm not sure what the point is.

Lil devils x:

Although I was specifically thinking espionage would apply, they go over more of these things here:
https://news.vice.com/story/these-are-the-laws-donald-trump-jr-might-have-broken

Sure, but in the very article you cite, a legal expert from UC Davis who is literally writing a book on treason said treason and espionage likely do not apply because of the narrow definition of "enemy" states (he argues it would require being at war with Russia). So again, I'm not sure how espionage charges apply here.

Zhukov:
This response from one of the reporters chasing the story made me laugh though:

I share in his awe at the fact that this is a thing. What was Jr's internal logic? "You can't run a negative article on me because I incriminated myself! Checkmate, fake news."

Donald Trump Jr., right now:
image

BeetleManiac:

Zhukov:
This response from one of the reporters chasing the story made me laugh though:

I share in his awe at the fact that this is a thing. What was Jr's internal logic? "You can't run a negative article on me because I incriminated myself! Checkmate, fake news."

Here's an important note on why this was so incriminating. Not only does it violate the #1 rule of defense attorneys, which is essentially "shut your mouth and keep it shut for the duration," but it clears any hurdles about those emails (and related documents) being entered into a court of law as evidence against Trump Jr. or others. If the New York Times had published those emails on its own, the defense team could have simply denied their authentcity and claimed that without any third-party verification (the NTY anonymous sources or someone else in the know), there's no way to establish that the emails are real. It's obviously possible and even likely that once the NYT story went live, Mueller's investigation team and even the DOJ could have issued subpoenas to Trump Jr. and others for the originals. And maybe they would have got them. Or maybe the emails get deleted and they never see the light of day and the only evidence we have are the copies possessed by the "fake news" NYT and their anonymous sources (not saying NYT is fake news, BTW, just saying that's what Trump and his legal team would argue).

But now all that is out the window. Trump Jr. verified the emails are real. There is no wiggle room. There is no out. Any doubt about the veracity of those emails is gone for good.

I have no idea what Trump Jr. and his legal team were thinking. Maybe the administration thought that if they pre-empted the NYT, they could make it look in the court of public opinion that Trump Jr. did nothing wrong because look, he's not hiding it (even though he DID hide it and lie about it previously). But the court of public opinion doesn't matter when it comes to criminal charges. And in any case, I think the Trump camp is overestimating the importance of playing to the base with Fox News apologists and the clowns at the Federalist. That's not going to save them if this makes it into a court of law.

Exley97:
I have no idea what Trump Jr. and his legal team were thinking.

Allegedly, Junior's lawyer told him not to release the emails, to be patient. But being his father's son, he went ahead and did it anyway. I recall that the top criminal justice lawyers in the US are refusing to work for the Trump camp because Donald of Orange has three critical faults. The first being that he has a well-established reputation for not heeding the advice of any experts he hires, so he would almost certainly go against his legal team's wishes the instant his fee-fees demanded it. Second, he also has a long history of not paying people what he promised, so not only would he not take their advice seriously he'd probably be an absolute bastard trying to weasel out of having to pay them for their service. And finally, he is almost certainly guilty.

BeetleManiac:

Exley97:
I have no idea what Trump Jr. and his legal team were thinking.

Allegedly, Junior's lawyer told him not to release the emails, to be patient. But being his father's son, he went ahead and did it anyway. I recall that the top criminal justice lawyers in the US are refusing to work for the Trump camp because Donald of Orange has three critical faults. The first being that he has a well-established reputation for not heeding the advice of any experts he hires, so he would almost certainly go against his legal team's wishes the instant his fee-fees demanded it. Second, he also has a long history of not paying people what he promised, so not only would he not take their advice seriously he'd probably be an absolute bastard trying to weasel out of having to pay them for their service. And finally, he is almost certainly guilty.

Yes, I've read similar stuff about defense attorneys not wanting to work for Trump and his people. But Trump, if anything, is media savvy and he's not totally ignorant of how this stuff works. If there's a chance, literally even the remotest chance, of denying the veracity of those emails so that they stay out of a court of law, then by all fucking means you keep your mouth shut and your Twitter account closed.

Exley97:
But Trump, if anything, is media savvy and he's not totally ignorant of how this stuff works.

True. On the other hand his children are uniformly stupid and out of touch. Daddy dearest himself may be media savvy, but he also has the impulse control of a raccoon. And this is a level of scrutiny that the family has never had to endure before.

* Plot twist* Trump actually knows these Russians who set up the Russian lawyer meeting with Jr. Has a Tower deal put on hold with them due to his presidential bid, and has video of him having dinner with them from 2013.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/12/politics/video-trump-relationships-russian-associates/index.html
https://www.yahoo.com/news/new-details-emerge-moscow-real-estate-deal-led-trump-kremlin-alliance-190126219.html

These are not some random Russians, they are Trump Sr. associates.

Exley97:

Lil devils x:

Exley97:

What law are you referring to? I haven't seen any credible source argue that the mere act of soliciting opposition material or "dirt" on a political candidate, even if the information was produced from a foreign government, is illegal (if that's the case, then the Clinton camp could be implicated in the Steele dossier, which was reportedly sourced by Russian government agents). But I confess I'm just a journalist and not a legal scholar/lawyer, so I don't know.

Clinton is not just a " candidate" she is a former first lady of the United State with full protections applied to the former presidents of the United states, a former senator and former secretary of state. Espionage committed against her are no different than espionage committed against the department of defense or any other part of the US government due to her having the highest level security clearance in the nation and having direct knowledge of vital classified information. Colluding or participating in ANY act of espionage against her is not the same as doing so against any civilian candidate, as she is protected in or out of office as a " US Official" regardless of if active or not.
I was in particular thinking of Espionage as in US law they take into account the letter of the law AND the "spirit" of the law when determining whether or not it applies, as has been referenced numerous times by the Supreme Court throughout our History.

I understand what Clinton is/was, but I'm still not sure how the Espionage Act applies here. I don't think she gets special consideration as a political candidate because of who she used to be, and I have yet to seen any sound legal arguments that make that case. Again, not saying they don't exist, just saying I haven't seen anything that amounts to arguing that Trump Jr. & company are guilty of espionage because Clinton was a former First Lady/State Dept. head. If the opposition info gathered on her didn't infer with her role as Secretary of State (and it didn't), then I'm not sure what the point is.

Lil devils x:

Although I was specifically thinking espionage would apply, they go over more of these things here:
https://news.vice.com/story/these-are-the-laws-donald-trump-jr-might-have-broken

Sure, but in the very article you cite, a legal expert from UC Davis who is literally writing a book on treason said treason and espionage likely do not apply because of the narrow definition of "enemy" states (he argues it would require being at war with Russia). So again, I'm not sure how espionage charges apply here.

Yes, there is no declaration of war, however, the US is constantly "at war" even with no new declaration. The US is at war in Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria. The US has not had a formal declaration of war, I think since ww2, however, that does not make the Vietnam war, Iraq war, Afghanistan war not wars. They have charged people with espionage since then as well without a formal declaration of war. Russia was under sanctions from the US at the time Trump was negotiating them to spy on US officials, so that should also be considered in how this is viewed. Hell, even with Israel being a very friendly nation with the US, they charged Leibowitz under the espionage act when the US was not at war as well. Now granted, that was not the same as colluding with a foreign government to Spy on US officials, they both concerned attempts to influence the US elections at the time.

IF someone hacks into, steals mail or, illegally intercepts phone calls from the pentagon, is that not considered espionage even when we are not at war? IF someone is spying on a former US president in order to gather intel, is that no espionage? I see spying on the pentagon, spying on current or former presidents as all being the same thing, as they are the commander of the military. Their wives are under those same protections, thus they should be treated the same.In Hillary's case even more so due to her being secretary of state and a US senator.

House Democrat Brad Sherman has introduced the first Article of Impeachment against Trump.
It accuses Trump of obstructing justice during the federal investigation of Russian election interference. Sherman's argument is that Trump's abrupt firing of Comey in May amounts to obstructing justice amid the probes of whether Trump's campaign has colluded with the Russian government to swing the election, citing Comey's allegations that Trump pressured him into dropping the FBI's investigation into Flynn, as well as Trump's ever-changing story on why he fired Comey. Unfortunately, this puts Sherman at odds with other House Democratic leaders, who are trying to keep talks of impeachment quiet, believing it may only serve to energize Trump's supporters. A spokesman for House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi re-iterated Pelosi's call for an independent commission to investigate the interference in the 2016 election. This is highly likely to fail, given the Republican's control over the House, and even Sherman's fellow Democrats aren't backing him, with only Al Green (D-TX) as his only co-sponsor. White House spokeswoman Sarah Huckabee Sanders said Sherman's resolution was "utterly and completely ridiculous, and a political game at its worst."

Can we just cancel the entire Trump administration, throw in Hillary, and go complain about her for a while? Seriouly, there'd be less shit on the ground and we'd groan alot less.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 . . . 17 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here