The Trump's incriminating collusion with Russia megathread.

Discussion of current events
User avatar
Sertorio
Posts: 1443
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2016 3:12 am

Re: The Trump's incriminating collusion with Russia megathread.

Post by Sertorio » Fri Aug 11, 2017 2:48 am

Milo wrote:
Wed Aug 02, 2017 1:02 pm
Trump jr admitted he broke the law. Looks to me like the others at the meeting did too but I am not aware of them admitting anything yet.

Here's the law and a relatively quick explanation:

The statute in question is 52 USC 30121, 36 USC 510 — the law governing foreign contributions to US campaigns. There are two key passages that apply here. This is the first:

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.

The crucial phrase here is “other thing of value,” legal experts tell me. It means that the law extends beyond just cash donations. Foreigners are also banned from providing other kinds of contributions that would be the functional equivalent of a campaign donation, just provided in the form of services rather than goods. Like, say, damaging information the Russian government collected about Hillary Clinton.

“To the extent you’re using the resources of a foreign country to run your campaign — that’s an illegal campaign contribution,” Nick Akerman, an assistant special prosecutor during the Watergate investigation who now specializes in data crime, says.

Here’s the second important passage of the statute: “No person shall knowingly solicit, accept, or receive from a foreign national any contribution or donation prohibited by [this law].”

The key word from Trump Jr., according to University of California Irvine election law expert Rick Hasen, is “solicit,” which has a very specific meaning in this context. To quote the relevant statute:

A solicitation is an oral or written communication that, construed as reasonably understood in the context in which it is made, contains a clear message asking, requesting, or recommending that another person make a contribution, donation, transfer of funds, or otherwise provide anything of value.

Trump Jr. was clearly soliciting information that he knew was coming from a foreign source. Given that political campaigns regularly pay thousands of dollars to opposition researchers to dig up dirt, it seems like damaging information on Clinton would constitute something “of value” to the Trump campaign.

The solicitation bit is why it doesn’t matter if Trump Jr. actually got useful information. The part that’s illegal, according to the experts I spoke to, is trying to acquire dirt on Clinton from a foreign source, not successfully acquiring it. And his statement more or less admits that he did, in fact, solicit this information.

“The most recent [developments] are especially significant because they include specific statements on the record conceding the Trump campaign’s expressed interest in what the Russians could provide,” Bob Bauer, White House counsel for Barack Obama from 2010 to 2011, writes at Just Security. “Those statements show intent — a clear-cut willingness to have Russian support — and they reveal specific actions undertaken to obtain it.”"

https://www.vox.com/world/2017/7/10/159 ... es-illegal
That's stretching interpretation a bit too far, don't you think? Are you sure the legislator had those things in mind when the law was drawn?...

User avatar
Milo
Posts: 1151
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 10:14 pm

Re: The Trump's incriminating collusion with Russia megathread.

Post by Milo » Fri Aug 11, 2017 7:56 pm

Sertorio wrote:
Fri Aug 11, 2017 2:48 am
Milo wrote:
Wed Aug 02, 2017 1:02 pm
Trump jr admitted he broke the law. Looks to me like the others at the meeting did too but I am not aware of them admitting anything yet.

Here's the law and a relatively quick explanation:

The statute in question is 52 USC 30121, 36 USC 510 — the law governing foreign contributions to US campaigns. There are two key passages that apply here. This is the first:

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.

The crucial phrase here is “other thing of value,” legal experts tell me. It means that the law extends beyond just cash donations. Foreigners are also banned from providing other kinds of contributions that would be the functional equivalent of a campaign donation, just provided in the form of services rather than goods. Like, say, damaging information the Russian government collected about Hillary Clinton.

“To the extent you’re using the resources of a foreign country to run your campaign — that’s an illegal campaign contribution,” Nick Akerman, an assistant special prosecutor during the Watergate investigation who now specializes in data crime, says.

Here’s the second important passage of the statute: “No person shall knowingly solicit, accept, or receive from a foreign national any contribution or donation prohibited by [this law].”

The key word from Trump Jr., according to University of California Irvine election law expert Rick Hasen, is “solicit,” which has a very specific meaning in this context. To quote the relevant statute:

A solicitation is an oral or written communication that, construed as reasonably understood in the context in which it is made, contains a clear message asking, requesting, or recommending that another person make a contribution, donation, transfer of funds, or otherwise provide anything of value.

Trump Jr. was clearly soliciting information that he knew was coming from a foreign source. Given that political campaigns regularly pay thousands of dollars to opposition researchers to dig up dirt, it seems like damaging information on Clinton would constitute something “of value” to the Trump campaign.

The solicitation bit is why it doesn’t matter if Trump Jr. actually got useful information. The part that’s illegal, according to the experts I spoke to, is trying to acquire dirt on Clinton from a foreign source, not successfully acquiring it. And his statement more or less admits that he did, in fact, solicit this information.

“The most recent [developments] are especially significant because they include specific statements on the record conceding the Trump campaign’s expressed interest in what the Russians could provide,” Bob Bauer, White House counsel for Barack Obama from 2010 to 2011, writes at Just Security. “Those statements show intent — a clear-cut willingness to have Russian support — and they reveal specific actions undertaken to obtain it.”"

https://www.vox.com/world/2017/7/10/159 ... es-illegal
That's stretching interpretation a bit too far, don't you think? Are you sure the legislator had those things in mind when the law was drawn?...
I will defer to the two American law professors cited in the article, who say, "no, yes".

And, FWIW, as a lawyer who has at least half his practice in criminal law, I think the reasoning is sound.

User avatar
Doc
Posts: 1833
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 7:09 pm
Location: Cradle To Grave

Re: The Trump's incriminating collusion with Russia megathread.

Post by Doc » Wed Sep 27, 2017 9:49 pm

FBI Ramping Up Full Blown Investigation of Zuckerberg’s Facebook; Larger Scheme Aimed At Electing Hillary
Posted on September 27, 2017 by Investigative Bureau
FOLLOW US!
Follow on FacebookFollow on Twitter

FBI officials are pressing to broaden the scope of US Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s Facebook investigation, saying the Russian ad sales linked thus far to the social media giant are merely a “small piece” of company’s exposure.

While Mueller is looking at thousands of likely illegal Facebook ads sales to Russian entities before the 2016 presidential election, FBI sources believe Mark Zuckerberg’s executives — and perhaps even Zuckerberg himself — knew for almost two years that rogue Russian entities were purchasing ads yet did not stop them. And the company failed to report the illegal activity to federal authorities, federal law enforcement sources confirm..

Instead, Facebook turned its corporate cheek and kept cashing the foreign checks so to speak.

FBI sources believe other foreign entities — in the Ukraine, China and elsewhere — may have been running similar ad schemes through Facebook, sources said. Those purchases were likely not reported either. Nor were they halted by Facebook executives.

The majority of the ads at the center of this controversy appear to try and sway votes for Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. Reports thus far in mainstream-media-funded publications portray that such Russian ads were part of a scheme linked to help President Donald Trump win the election. The data, however, proves the opposite. The ads were largely pro Democrat.

Governed by a host of federal laws, it is illegal for foreign individuals or entities to make any political contributions connected to American elections.

FBI sources are pressing for a broader investigation into Facebook to pinpoint just how many ads were sold to foreign entities in Russia and countries beyond.

So far, in response to a recent warrant from Mueller, Facebook has returned data on approximately 3,000 ads linked to Russian concerns. Federal law enforcement sources said the FBI needs to ascertain the social media giant’s exposure and not allow Zuckerberg to dictate or disseminate the information.

“They have turned over Russian ad data but it has been like pulling teeth,” one source said. “The warrant did not cover say London-based companies or people purchasing the same ads. Could be Russians fronting from any place, including the United States. Facebook has only turned over a small piece.”

Federal sources said they believe Zuckerberg’s confirmation of 3,000 Russian-linked ads is grossly under reported and said Facebook will likely be forced to turn over details of a “significant number” of additional Russian ad sales.

Facebook’s CSO Alex Stamos wrote in a blog post that the majority of the ads of interest “appeared to focus on amplifying divisive social and political messages across the ideological spectrum … touching on topics from LGBT matters to race issues to immigration to gun rights.”

But Stamos was only addressing the ads sought by Mueller’s investigators. Separate FBI agents believe the scope of the warrant was limited, likely based on the direction of Mueller’s probe. Federal law enforcement sources said a broader probe could reveal a much large problem for Zuckerberg.

Sources said while Zuckerberg is putting on a public facade of turning over documents voluntarily to Congress and investigators, behind the scenes his legal team has been anything but accommodating.

One FBI source this is another reason federal agents are looking to expand the investigation outside the realm of Mueller.

“When you act like this on the other side, it almost always means there is much more to find,” a FBI insider said. “They are guarding more problems.”

“"I fancied myself as some kind of god....It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.” -- George Soros

User avatar
cassowary
Posts: 1912
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 11:30 pm

Re: The Trump's incriminating collusion with Russia megathread.

Post by cassowary » Thu Sep 28, 2017 1:49 am

Milo wrote:
Fri Aug 11, 2017 7:56 pm
Sertorio wrote:
Fri Aug 11, 2017 2:48 am
Milo wrote:
Wed Aug 02, 2017 1:02 pm
Trump jr admitted he broke the law. Looks to me like the others at the meeting did too but I am not aware of them admitting anything yet.

Here's the law and a relatively quick explanation:

The statute in question is 52 USC 30121, 36 USC 510 — the law governing foreign contributions to US campaigns. There are two key passages that apply here. This is the first:

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.

The crucial phrase here is “other thing of value,” legal experts tell me. It means that the law extends beyond just cash donations. Foreigners are also banned from providing other kinds of contributions that would be the functional equivalent of a campaign donation, just provided in the form of services rather than goods. Like, say, damaging information the Russian government collected about Hillary Clinton.

“To the extent you’re using the resources of a foreign country to run your campaign — that’s an illegal campaign contribution,” Nick Akerman, an assistant special prosecutor during the Watergate investigation who now specializes in data crime, says.

Here’s the second important passage of the statute: “No person shall knowingly solicit, accept, or receive from a foreign national any contribution or donation prohibited by [this law].”

The key word from Trump Jr., according to University of California Irvine election law expert Rick Hasen, is “solicit,” which has a very specific meaning in this context. To quote the relevant statute:

A solicitation is an oral or written communication that, construed as reasonably understood in the context in which it is made, contains a clear message asking, requesting, or recommending that another person make a contribution, donation, transfer of funds, or otherwise provide anything of value.

Trump Jr. was clearly soliciting information that he knew was coming from a foreign source. Given that political campaigns regularly pay thousands of dollars to opposition researchers to dig up dirt, it seems like damaging information on Clinton would constitute something “of value” to the Trump campaign.

The solicitation bit is why it doesn’t matter if Trump Jr. actually got useful information. The part that’s illegal, according to the experts I spoke to, is trying to acquire dirt on Clinton from a foreign source, not successfully acquiring it. And his statement more or less admits that he did, in fact, solicit this information.

“The most recent [developments] are especially significant because they include specific statements on the record conceding the Trump campaign’s expressed interest in what the Russians could provide,” Bob Bauer, White House counsel for Barack Obama from 2010 to 2011, writes at Just Security. “Those statements show intent — a clear-cut willingness to have Russian support — and they reveal specific actions undertaken to obtain it.”"

https://www.vox.com/world/2017/7/10/159 ... es-illegal
That's stretching interpretation a bit too far, don't you think? Are you sure the legislator had those things in mind when the law was drawn?...
I will defer to the two American law professors cited in the article, who say, "no, yes".

And, FWIW, as a lawyer who has at least half his practice in criminal law, I think the reasoning is sound.






The lawyers must be Democrats. As you know 5 lawyers will give you 6 interpretations of the law. A Republicans lawyer will give you a different opinion. Key is what do you mean by "value"? Most people will interprete it as a donation.

User avatar
Milo
Posts: 1151
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 10:14 pm

Re: The Trump's incriminating collusion with Russia megathread.

Post by Milo » Thu Sep 28, 2017 2:55 pm

cassowary wrote:
Thu Sep 28, 2017 1:49 am
Milo wrote:
Fri Aug 11, 2017 7:56 pm
Sertorio wrote:
Fri Aug 11, 2017 2:48 am
Milo wrote:
Wed Aug 02, 2017 1:02 pm
Trump jr admitted he broke the law. Looks to me like the others at the meeting did too but I am not aware of them admitting anything yet.

Here's the law and a relatively quick explanation:

The statute in question is 52 USC 30121, 36 USC 510 — the law governing foreign contributions to US campaigns. There are two key passages that apply here. This is the first:

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.

The crucial phrase here is “other thing of value,” legal experts tell me. It means that the law extends beyond just cash donations. Foreigners are also banned from providing other kinds of contributions that would be the functional equivalent of a campaign donation, just provided in the form of services rather than goods. Like, say, damaging information the Russian government collected about Hillary Clinton.

“To the extent you’re using the resources of a foreign country to run your campaign — that’s an illegal campaign contribution,” Nick Akerman, an assistant special prosecutor during the Watergate investigation who now specializes in data crime, says.

Here’s the second important passage of the statute: “No person shall knowingly solicit, accept, or receive from a foreign national any contribution or donation prohibited by [this law].”

The key word from Trump Jr., according to University of California Irvine election law expert Rick Hasen, is “solicit,” which has a very specific meaning in this context. To quote the relevant statute:

A solicitation is an oral or written communication that, construed as reasonably understood in the context in which it is made, contains a clear message asking, requesting, or recommending that another person make a contribution, donation, transfer of funds, or otherwise provide anything of value.

Trump Jr. was clearly soliciting information that he knew was coming from a foreign source. Given that political campaigns regularly pay thousands of dollars to opposition researchers to dig up dirt, it seems like damaging information on Clinton would constitute something “of value” to the Trump campaign.

The solicitation bit is why it doesn’t matter if Trump Jr. actually got useful information. The part that’s illegal, according to the experts I spoke to, is trying to acquire dirt on Clinton from a foreign source, not successfully acquiring it. And his statement more or less admits that he did, in fact, solicit this information.

“The most recent [developments] are especially significant because they include specific statements on the record conceding the Trump campaign’s expressed interest in what the Russians could provide,” Bob Bauer, White House counsel for Barack Obama from 2010 to 2011, writes at Just Security. “Those statements show intent — a clear-cut willingness to have Russian support — and they reveal specific actions undertaken to obtain it.”"

https://www.vox.com/world/2017/7/10/159 ... es-illegal
That's stretching interpretation a bit too far, don't you think? Are you sure the legislator had those things in mind when the law was drawn?...
I will defer to the two American law professors cited in the article, who say, "no, yes".

And, FWIW, as a lawyer who has at least half his practice in criminal law, I think the reasoning is sound.






The lawyers must be Democrats. As you know 5 lawyers will give you 6 interpretations of the law. A Republicans lawyer will give you a different opinion. Key is what do you mean by "value"? Most people will interprete it as a donation.
Courts interpret the law, lawyers advocate.

We will hear from the courts on this soon enough!

User avatar
cassowary
Posts: 1912
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 11:30 pm

Re: The Trump's incriminating collusion with Russia megathread.

Post by cassowary » Thu Sep 28, 2017 5:42 pm

Yes. Leave it to the courts. So far, no prosecutor has indicted Trump Jr on this legal angle that getting dirt from a foreign source is "value" which everyone thought meant a donation.

User avatar
Milo
Posts: 1151
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 10:14 pm

Re: The Trump's incriminating collusion with Russia megathread.

Post by Milo » Thu Nov 23, 2017 9:25 pm

Trump-Russia investigation: Michael Flynn's lawyers 'split from Trump'

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-42105048

Singin' like a canary?

User avatar
Milo
Posts: 1151
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 10:14 pm

Re: The Trump's incriminating collusion with Russia megathread.

Post by Milo » Fri Dec 01, 2017 5:46 pm

Flynn admits lying to FBI, says Trump transition team knew about contact with Russia

Former U.S. national security adviser Michael Flynn pleaded guilty Friday to making false statements to the FBI about his conversations with a Russian ambassador and said a senior member of President Donald Trump's transition team knew about the conversations.

Flynn admitted to lying to the FBI earlier about his conversations with then-ambassador Sergey Kislyak during the transition period before Trump's inauguration.

In addition, court documents revealed today show Flynn told prosecutors that a senior member of the Trump transition team knew about his contact with Russian officials in December 2016. The government didn't reveal the identity of the senior official.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/michael-fl ... -1.4428012

User avatar
SteveFoerster
Posts: 1334
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 7:17 pm
Location: Northern Virginia, USA and Dominica, West Indies
Contact:

Re: The Trump's incriminating collusion with Russia megathread.

Post by SteveFoerster » Sat Dec 02, 2017 7:48 pm

Meh. I'm no fan of Trump, but doesn't seem unreasonable to me that an incoming National Security Advisor might reach out to figures in the administrations of other significant powers.
Writer, technologist, educator, gadfly.
President of New World University: http://newworld.ac

User avatar
Milo
Posts: 1151
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 10:14 pm

Re: The Trump's incriminating collusion with Russia megathread.

Post by Milo » Sat Dec 02, 2017 9:10 pm

SteveFoerster wrote:
Sat Dec 02, 2017 7:48 pm
Meh. I'm no fan of Trump, but doesn't seem unreasonable to me that an incoming National Security Advisor might reach out to figures in the administrations of other significant powers.
Well it's illegal.

And this isn't over. They're saying Kushner is going down next.

Post Reply