The press is full of innuendo that somehow a crime was committed during the 2017 Presidential campaign. That campaign insiders allegedly met with various people in Russia. There’s never any hard facts.
Special counsel Mueller is investigating and I haven’t seen what charges are being considered. Or even why the 2016 R. Campaign is being accused of any improprieties.
Can we get to the heart of the matter? What crimes may have been committed?
Please, set aside politics and focus on existing Federal campaign law.
It’s my understanding that campaigns use the services of many advisers in various capacities. Candidates want to get elected and seek out the best people available to work in or perhaps consult with the campaign.
James Carville is an example of a consultant that has worked in various campaigns around the world. AFAIK it’s not unusual and completely ethical and legal. He’s offering his expertise to campaigns that he chooses to support. I’d assume many other political consultants offer their services internationally.
Is there any law that specifically prohibits US campaigns from using foreign consultants?
Let special counsel Mueller do his job and present the findings.
The issue is not that members of the campaign may have foreign contacts. The key issue is failure to disclosure those contacts or meetings (ahem Jeff Sessions ahem) or being on the payroll of foreign companies/governments (ahem Michael Flynn ahem).Simplistically, you can lobby for the Russian government, but you have to disclose this is what you’re doing and what you get paid to do. Paul Manafort springs to mind as someone who was getting paid by foreign money, and only decided to disclose this what a month ago?
Mr Mueller has some tax and finance wizards on his team, and the power to look at Trump’s personal and corporate tax records. Follow the money. See if he turns up an arsenal of guns behind all the smoke that’s clouding the skies. If he doesn’t, then he doesn’t.
Remember, Tricky Dick Nixon went down for the cover up.
Trump has 3 potential issues.
He personally was involved with Russian collusion. That is high treason.
His campaign leaders colluded with Russia. Not sure where that falls in the crime area for Trump personally if he was not involved/cannot be proven he was personally involved
Was a cover up that Trump was privy to or a participant in? This took down Nixon…
It probably wouldn’t ever be treason (“high treason” isn’t a thing in the US), but it could be some kind of criminal conspiracy. Even then it would depend on what exactly was discussed.
That is a factually incorrect statement. The crime of “treason,” consists of either levying war against the government, or giving aid or comfort to the government’s enemies. An “enemy,” for the purposes of the law, is only against whom a legally declared state of war exists.
Haupt v. United States, 330 U.S. 631 (1947); Cramer v. United States, 325 U.S. 1 (1945).
Well it is looking more and more likely the potential that Loretta Lynch hindered an investigation and obstructed justice. Seems the Comey public testimony let that one out of the bag. I believe she will be testifying somewhere soon.
Then there is the unmasking of many individuals identities by the Obama Administration intelligence agencies at the request of Administration officials. That is clearly against the laws of the US.
Perhaps. But as I view the landscape at the moment those are the two with the highest potential which is as the OP asked for.
So far I not see anything on the Repub side. Oh I know every Dem and liberal in the land so wishes it was true but so far, and despite what they say, there is no there there at the moment. May change in the future but not at the moment.
Well, from doing Campaign Finance reports, I am required to report as “In-Kind Donations” anything provided to a campaign that is not paid for, but has a value. Like hosting a house party to meet the candidate, where the hosts provide coffee & desserts to attendees. If they spend more than $20 on that, I have to report the value as an in-kind contribution to the campaign.
So the Russians who sent all those fake social media communications were paid directly or indirectly by Putin, thus that would be an in-kind contribution to the Trump campaign – but he probably didn’t report that, so filed false Campaign Finance Reports.
First off, this is not primarily about CRIMES. It is ingenuous and dishonest to try to frame the entire situation as being either a criminal concern or not.
It is unfortunately not a CRIME to make an accusation for the sake of political opportunity, without having or presenting any evidence at all, but it is often despicable and dishonest. Trump and many of his supporters have done exactly that, repeating again and again that MILLIONS of illegal aliens voted in 2016.
Manipulating voters by trickery isn’t illegal, but it damages democracy, and it results in people with poor judgement coming to be in power.
Refusing to admit reality isn’t a crime, but it’s tremendously important to the health of the United States.
And Trump could be SAID to have broken the law many times, before and after winning the election, because he likes to “jokingly” encourage enemies to break into our databases and reveal secrets, and to “jokingly” encourage his supporters to commit violent acts against other Americans who are LEGALLY exercising their rights.
As someone else said above, investigations are in progress. If you want to claim that no crimes were committed because none have officially been announced yet, then you have to agree that Clinton did absolutely nothing wrong either, since no crimes were announced in any of the investigations that were conducted about her.
Clearly emails show that the DNC conspired to get Bernie Sanders out of the race for the Democratic nomination to make way for their candidate of choice, Hillary Clinton.
This may not be a crime, but it certainly is against the laws that govern the DNC.
Unless you’re Mueller, that’s pretty much irrelevant. We’re all welcome to make our half (or third or tenth) informed guesses but none of us are federal investigators currently looking into this event.
This is also why the Rosenbergs weren’t charged with treason, but espionage, because, while the Soviet Union was undoubtedly an “enemy” in terms of the common term, they weren’t an "enemy in that war wasn’t declared against them.
It would have been interesting if the Adam Gadahn case had gone to trial. Gadahn was an American citizen who was a member of Al Qaeda. He had been indicted for treason by federal prosecutors in California, but then was killed in a drone strike. If he had been put on trial, it would have been an interesting test case…can you commit treason by helping a non-state actor that the US is in conflict with?
Actually, it isn’t. “Unmasking” is a term of art within the intelligence community, and you would do well to understand what it means. There is an enormous difference between “unmasking” and “leaking.” “Leaking” is a crime.
Susan Rice was doing her job as National Security Advisor when she asked agencies submitting reports to unmask names of Americans in order to understand the context of the reports she was reading. Unmasking the names is not her decision to make. It is the decision of the agency that submits the report. Any unmasking that is done is always done by the agency, not an individual.
Had Susan Rice (or anyone else entitled to learn of unmasked individuals) then revealed that classified information to someone not authorized to see it, that would have been “leaking.” If you believe leaking is what someone within the Obama Administration did, then it’s on you to provide some evidence for that.
Your side likes to imbue words with nefarious meanings, such as implying that “unmasking” is an illegal, devious practice. You fall for it every time.
To clarify what Chronos said, Cheney/Libby leaked Valerie Plame’s name. That is actually illegal – which is why Libby was successfully prosecuted for it.
I do appreciate the effort to nail down what charges may be eventually come from the story. It’s encouraging that Mueller is focusing on the investigation and avoiding the media spotlight. I’ll support whatever conclusion he makes.
There was clearly some interference in our election by Russia. I see that as nothing new. The CIA has a long history of trying to manipulate foreign governments. Reagan love for the Contras in Nicaragua lead to a scandal.
I’d be surprised if any government hasn’t tried to manipulate events (in their favor) in other nations.
If either campaign was involved it will be uncovered in Mueller’s investigation.