Ken Lay.
I don’t know if you think that is countering something I have said or if you are agreeing with me.
As for “inartfully,” I think it’s possible he had no idea anyone was doing anything wrong with Russia because he is too arrogant, too stupid, and too self-absorbed. It’s entirely possible to be absolved of crimes because you didn’t know about them if you can put up the plausible defense that you didn’t know about them.
I think he is a crook in his business dealings and likely those dealings include the Russians. I think he may be a handy tool for the Russians otherwise, without necessarily being aware of it, just as he’s unaware of basically everything else on the planet. And I think he would be behaving the same now either way.
Incorrect.
There has just been TOO MUCH for him to not be aware. He knew. And then he did everything he could to distract, divert, cover up, and obstruct. He is guilty as fuck and there was just too much going on for him to NOT know.
All of these threads and I think some are still overestimating the level at which he is operating. Complete seat of the pants, knee-jerk, unthinking, instinctive reaction. That’s what he does. In general, he’s not contemplating things, thinking them through, planning, plotting, etc.
Does anyone think it would be difficult to hide something from Trump if you wanted to? Does anyone in this thread actually think that would be the slightest struggle, to hide something you didn’t want him to know?
Someone was up to some bad shit. For me, whether Trump himself was at the center of that or peripheral to it as people thought to use his power for their own ends is pretty immaterial. I’m happy for a trial to figure that out (won’t likely come to that, but I can dream).
Yes, Trump’s evil plan is working.
I do wonder if he did know that there was collusion going on, but was just unaware that it was illegal to do so. That certainly seems to be Jr.'s position, when he says he did nothing illegal, then tweets out the emails incriminating him.
They know nothing about politics or campaigning, they just know that it’s a dirty game, so they may have taken any advantage offered them, not realizing that they were committing crimes in the process.
This is no excuse, of course. Just because I don’t know that bank robbery is illegal doesn’t mean that I get off. If you are running for an office, it is your responsibility to know the laws pertaining to your activity.
Now that they realize how many laws that they broke, they are ineptly trying to cover them up, throw others under the bus, and make excuses for everything else.
I am disagreeing with you. The issue isn’t ignorance, it is intent. That’s the legal standard. Even if Trump didn’t have a complete grasp that what he was doing meant he was working on behalf of the Russians, it will not save him from suffering the consequences if it can be proved he acted with intent to conspire or obstruct.
And I’m sorry, but there is nothing complicated about Trump’s intent to subvert our election process if it can be proved that he was aware of the Trump Tower meeting and its true purpose – which is rather hard to deny, given some of the language in the email to Don Jr.: “This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump - helped along by Aras and Emin.” That is plain language, the intent of which is clear.
There is a basic tenet of the law, referred to as the Reasonable Person Standard, most frequently employed in civil cases having to do with standards for medical practice, e.g., but applicable in some criminal circumstances as well:
(Emphasis mine.) Wikipedia
IANAL and would not claim to understand every nuance of the Reasonable Person Standard, but it’s not impossible to consider that a such a standard could be applied to the basic knowledge required to carry out one’s duties as President. Let’s start with, “Do nothing that is contrary to the interests of the United States, even if it means putting the interests of the country above your own.”
I want the sweatshirt Whoopie Goldberg was wearing on The View yesterday. In the same script as the logo for Miller Beer, her shirt said, “It’s Mueller Time”.
Sadly, it sure is.
I find that pretty plausible.
I didn’t see the show so don’t know if this is exactly right, but you can have one: It’s Mueller Time
I do not disagree with you. If it can be proven he acted with intent to do X, then ignorance will not save him in a trial (if it comes to that, which it likely won’t). I have not claimed otherwise.
And I think he has obstructed the investigation, quite intentionally. I just do not assume that he obstructed it because he himself was originally guilty of an underlying crime involving collusion of some sort with Russia surrounding the 2016 presidential election.
Operative word there is “intentionally”.
The claim in this thread, and which I challenged, was that Trump could be criminally liable because “it was his responsibility to know, and failing to act on that responsibility can be a crime”. That’s not what Lay was charged with.
Naw, correct. But I’m gonna play my F-P card by declaring I am not interested in taking the time to properly discuss the Enron debacle with you.
But to answer your question, how about:
This site is sufficiently right-wing for you: What Happens When You Break a Law You Didn't Know About
That works for me. I’m not interested in discussing anything at all with you, mainly because you’re an idiot, as exemplified by this very post. More below.
This is an example of the type of confused “thinking” that would make any attempt to discuss anything with you a waste of time. In this case, you’re confusing two very different issues.
[ol]
[li]You personally break the law via your own actions, but are not aware that what you’re doing is a crime. (This is what your cites are about - at least your first and third; your second cite has no apparent connection at all.)[/li][li]You don’t personally break the law; people who work for you break the law and you should have been aware that they were doing this. (This is what’s being discussed here.)[/li][/ol]
True, both of these situations share the aspect of “not being aware” of something, which is apparently what confused you. But if you’re confused by something as simple as that - and this is far from the first time for you - there’s not much hope of any meaningful discussion.
Just to be clear, I’ll reiterate:
I have not claimed, nor would I, that ignorance of the law is a defense, generally.
That’s it. Awesome.
As I said already… far too much was going on, and far too much of it was constant. Even a brain dead muskrat would notice something - anything. And Trump with his big mouth had “a way” of saying things that would seem to indicate he did know (“I love WikiLeaks” for just one example). And then the whole “I fired Comey over the Russia thing”.
Damn right he knew.
I fully expect as a last resort he WILL try to claim ignorance (or the “too stupid to do it” defense - which is already being floated).