Your interpretation of these emails appears to be that Sater and Cohen believe that Americans will be so impressed by the Trump Moscow deal that this will propel him to the presidency. It’s hard to take this seriously even taking it away from all of the other context including all of the other hidden contacts and all of the other hidden financing and also, oh yeah, the actual meeting attended by Trump staff where they were explicitly told that the meeting was part of the Russian efforts to elect Trump.
The general purpose of the emoluments clause of the Constitution was to ensure that foreign governments do not have influence over the people in our government.
We know practically nothing of this investigation. Remember when Mueller took over and everybody said ‘while it’s good to have an independent counsel, things are going to be a lot quieter now and we probably won’t know much about what’s going on while he’s conducting his investigation.’ That’s where we’re at.
Understood, but I would think that’s a question of constitutional law since the election, not a matter of potential criminal conduct during his campaign or corruption as a private businessman. I’m not saying he didn’t do anything illegal – he probably has. I’m sure Mueller is getting closer and closer to the bottom of Trump’s financial litter box, but I still haven’t seen anything published to date that is outright criminal. The closest thing we’ve seen is the possible violation of campaign finance laws, and that’s really a stretch.
Trump probably did obstruct justice, but he also has broad presidential prerogatives that create a bit of a legal buffer. Whether Dopers believe it or not, a president can at least attempt to make the argument with a straight face that firing an employee is within his domain. He doesn’t really need a reason. He can also suspend criminal investigations and some might argue even then that he doesn’t need a reason. Yes, it violates the spirit of the Constitution and the rule of law, but the Framers did give the person who occupies this office one hell of a lot of power whether we like it or not.
Given that the general public is not a court of law, I’m not terribly concerned by the lack of evidence. It is interesting to discuss the information which is public and consider what might confirm or refute the allegation. But ultimately, I’m happy with Mueller as an investigator. If he clears Trump, then I’ll be completely satisfied. If he comes out with several dozen illegal, unethical, and unconstitutional acts that Trump can legitimately be pinned to the wall on, based on the evidence that he has been granted access to, then I’ll be similarly satisfied.
I don’t care which way evidence nor reality goes. I know which result I find to be more probable, and hence worth having a Special Investigator look into, but if Trump proves clean, then so be it.
But certainly, I have no expectation that all of the evidence that one would need to prosecute Trump would be in the newspapers. Most of it should be private to Mueller, his team, and the Congressional investigators.
I was hoping that we won’t know much about what’s going on during the investigation, but that I would.
Trump is about as clean as a toxic waste dump. Worst case (or best for president Dilbert), I expect Mueller’s report to come out with fairly solid proof of money-laundering. Whether anything can be done about it while he’s in office is another question, one which will in all likelihood be answered in the negative by gutless Republicans in Congress.
And the Trumpite chorus of ‘nothing to see here’ will continue regardless. Of course, only they will believe it.
I can imagine a scenario where Congress isn’t needed. Suppose money laundering charges can he brought against members of his family by a state, perhaps New York. He can’t pardon state charges.
Could he be pressured into stepping down as part of a plea deal to protect his wife and children? I suppose it depends on how much he values family versus position and power.
Not quite. Firstly, it’s Sater. Cohen was the recipient of the email, not the sender, and while he expressed some interest in the project, there’s no indication he bought into the notion that it would elect Trump. Second, even the case of Sater, this is only what he claimed when trying to sell the project. Whether he himself actually believed it is another question.
I don’t know what all this hidden stuff you refer to is, but it makes no difference. In general, it’s a mistake to insist on interpreting everything involving Trump and people connected to him as some sort of unified grand strategy involving his various businesses, campaign, and personal connections. He had a lot going on, and many contacts.
Given that choice? Sorry, Jared. I’ll visit you in Club Fed, Ivanka.
And I should add that obstruction of justice is pretty much a lay-down (for those who know bridge terms). It’s not sexy, but it’s got teeth.
I would agree that Trump’s businesses have been used for money laundering. But I don’t know how much that is due to active involvement versus simply being an idiot whose management style causes so much chaos that it leads to shoddy record keeping and a sort of immunity in court, creating an ideal situation for money launderers to use him and his businesses as a vehicle for moving money.
Though, given that Trump did seem to take active measures to distance himself from Sater, it does seem like he was aware that it was necessary to do so if he wanted to be President.
Mueller subpoenas have been issued to Manafort’s spokesman and a former lawyer of his.
Doesn’t work that way. Just ask Ken Lay of Enron who, as far as I could tell from my readings, was largely clueless about Skilling’s and Fastow’s dealings but still signed off on them.
Sarbannes-Oxley made it even more difficult to a CEO to claim “Hey, I just sucked at my job. Sorrys!”
Anyone with a legal background care to tell me what this means? There is some twitter buzz that this is a big deal, but damned if I have any idea of the implications of it. I guess I would have assumed that Manafort’s lawyers can just claim attorney/client privilege for everything they know.
For purposes of impeachment, how it works in the courts doesn’t necessarily translate strongly to how it works in the Senate.
True, that.
Regardless, as a general rule, “the CEO didn’t know because the company is large and s/he is disorganized” doesn’t carry much water anymore.
I was also keying on your use of the word “court”, as well.
You seem to be conflating two separate things.
One is something that was done by a company and the extent to which a CEO bears responsibility for that.
The other is done by outsiders, using a company.
The second is what’s being alleged in the case of Trump, as I understand it. It’s not that any of Trump’s employees laundered any money. Rather that people who had money to launder bought properties from Trump and later sold them, their primary motive not being to invest in those properties themselves, but rather to launder money via the purchase, sale, and the manner they financed it.
If Trump knew he was abetting their laundering then I assume he has some culpability there. But if he didn’t then it’s a lot harder to hold him responsible for it than if it was his employees acting on his behalf.
Gotcha. Yeah, I missed that point.
Also true. Though the fact that Sater worked as a “Senior Advisor” for Trump Co. seems like it would make it hard to argue that it was not a Trump employee doing the dirty work. They would need to argue that Sater was, effectively, a mole in the company.