Trump associates may have coordinated with Russians, according to US officials

[Richard_Parker]

@Sage_Rat

There seems to be fair evidence (including public speeches from Trump himself) that the Trump campaign was actively promoting the idea that people should hack into Hillary Clinton’s computers and publicize her private correspondences. That is promotion of an illegal activity. Promoting that and then going to try and collect on it is, clearly, not kosher.

I think that gets the timeline wrong. Trump didn’t call for that hacking until months after it had already occurred. See here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2018/02/05/a-so-far-complete-timeline-of-the-investigation-into-trump-and-russia/?utm_term=.4ae76d342597

[Robot_Arm]

@Fotheringay-Phipps

My point was that at the time and since there has been considerable speculation that some actual info changed hands, then or later, possibly DNC emails, or possibly some other form of coordination of a much more serious nature.

What would be “much more serious” than receiving illegally-obtained information from a foreign government?

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

“Illegally obtained”?

[Snowboarder_Bo]

@Fotheringay-Phipps

The evidence here seems pretty consistent that everyone involved on the Trump side thought the meeting was a waste of time pretty early on, which seems inconsistent with the notion that this was (part of) a broader and more sinister collusion effort.

Let’s go to the quarry and throw stuff down there!

That’s a laughable conclusion you reached there.

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

Well now that you put it that way, that changes everything.

[elucidator]

That’s why he does it, we call it “dropping the SnowBo bomb”.

[Bijou_Drains]

Not surprising but Mueller said he cannot indict Trump

https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/16/politics/rudy-giuliani-robert-mueller-indictment/index.html

[Robot_Arm]

@Fotheringay-Phipps

“Illegally obtained”?

They were gotten by hacking into the DNC servers, weren’t they? I was under the impression that hacking was illegal.

[Fiveyearlurker]

@Bijou_Drains

Not surprising but Mueller said he cannot indict Trump

https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/16/politics/rudy-giuliani-robert-mueller-indictment/index.html

Probably more accurate to say that Giuliani says that Mueller says that he cannot indict Trump. Giuliani has done a lot of walking back of his incorrect statements lately, and I’m guessing this is no different.

[John_Mace]

@Fiveyearlurker

Probably more accurate to say that Giuliani says that Mueller says that he cannot indict Trump. Giuliani has done a lot of walking back of his incorrect statements lately, and I’m guessing this is no different.

CNN is reporting it as legit, and I doubt they would do that unless they had a reason. But there’s also this part, which goes beyond your summary:

“I’m not going to answer this in the context of any current matters, so you shouldn’t draw any inference about it,” Rosenstein said. “But the Department of Justice has in the past, when the issue arose, has opined that a sitting President cannot be indicted. There’s been a lot of speculation in the media about this, I just don’t have anything more to say about it.” Rosenstein oversees the special counsel probe.

I assume he means “on criminal charges”, not “civil charges”.

[Johnny_Ace]

Ah, the cascade of excuses again.

It’s a witch hunt.
There was no Russian meddling.
Even if there was Russian meddling, there was no collusion.
Even if there was collusion, it’s not illegal.
Even if it’s illegal, you can’t indict the President.

How do you sleep at night?

[Defensive_Indifference]

@Johnny_Ace

How do you sleep at night?

Bourbon and antidepressants for me.

[Richard_Parker]

@John_Mace

CNN is reporting it as legit, and I doubt they would do that unless they had a reason. But there’s also this part, which goes beyond your summary:

I assume he means “on criminal charges”, not “civil charges”.

It is entirely plausible that Giuliani heard Mueller say essentially what Rosenstein has said, and reported Giuliani’s (incorrect) take. I wouldn’t put a ton of weight on it.

[snfaulkner]

How do you sleep at night?

On top of a large pile of cash with lots of beautiful ladies[/Rwolfcastle]

[Fiveyearlurker]

@John_Mace

CNN is reporting it as legit, and I doubt they would do that unless they had a reason. But there’s also this part, which goes beyond your summary:

I assume he means “on criminal charges”, not “civil charges”.

CNN is reporting as legit that Giuliani has claimed that Mueller said this. I don’t see anywhere in that article that they have confirmed that Mueller has actually said this.

[Fiveyearlurker]

Interesting article. The person who leaked the Cohen information did so because files are missing from the government database:

*Seven former government officials and other experts familiar with the Treasury Department’s FinCEN database expressed varying levels of concern about the missing reports. Some speculated that FinCEN may have restricted access to the reports due to the sensitivity of their content, which they said would be nearly unprecedented. One called the possibility “explosive.” A record-retention policy on FinCEN’s Web site notes that false documents or those “deemed highly sensitive” and “requiring strict limitations on access” may be transferred out of its master file. Nevertheless, a former prosecutor who spent years working with the FinCEN database said that she knew of no mechanism for restricting access to SARs. She speculated that FinCEN may have taken the extraordinary step of restricting access “because of the highly sensitive nature of a potential investigation. It may be that someone reached out to FinCEN to ask to limit disclosure of certain SARs related to an investigation, whether it was the special counsel or the Southern District of New York.” (The special counsel, Robert Mueller, is investigating Russian interference in the 2016 Presidential election. The Southern District is investigating Cohen, and the F.B.I. raided his office and hotel room last month.)

Whatever the explanation for the missing reports, the appearance that some, but not all, had been removed or restricted troubled the official who released the report last week. “Why just those two missing?” the official, who feared that the contents of those two reports might be permanently withheld, said. “That’s what alarms me the most.”*

[Fiveyearlurker]

@Fiveyearlurker

CNN is reporting as legit that Giuliani has claimed that Mueller said this. I don’t see anywhere in that article that they have confirmed that Mueller has actually said this.

Robert Costa of CNN reporting on twitter that Giuliani is walking back his statementand stating that Mueller did not state this, but a member of the special council called him a few days after they met and mentioned it. When asked which member, Giuliani said he’d get back to them.

My money is on George Glass.

[JohnT]

Giuliani is walking back so many statements that he may develop a new dance move.

[Aspenglow]

@Fiveyearlurker

Interesting article. The person who leaked the Cohen information did so because files are missing from the government database:

*Seven former government officials and other experts familiar with the Treasury Department’s FinCEN database expressed varying levels of concern about the missing reports. Some speculated that FinCEN may have restricted access to the reports due to the sensitivity of their content, which they said would be nearly unprecedented. One called the possibility “explosive.” A record-retention policy on FinCEN’s Web site notes that false documents or those “deemed highly sensitive” and “requiring strict limitations on access” may be transferred out of its master file. Nevertheless, a former prosecutor who spent years working with the FinCEN database said that she knew of no mechanism for restricting access to SARs. She speculated that FinCEN may have taken the extraordinary step of restricting access “because of the highly sensitive nature of a potential investigation. It may be that someone reached out to FinCEN to ask to limit disclosure of certain SARs related to an investigation, whether it was the special counsel or the Southern District of New York.” (The special counsel, Robert Mueller, is investigating Russian interference in the 2016 Presidential election. The Southern District is investigating Cohen, and the F.B.I. raided his office and hotel room last month.)

Whatever the explanation for the missing reports, the appearance that some, but not all, had been removed or restricted troubled the official who released the report last week. “Why just those two missing?” the official, who feared that the contents of those two reports might be permanently withheld, said. “That’s what alarms me the most.”*

You have a penchant for understatement, Fiveyearlurker. Interesting for sure.

If access was restricted at the request of law enforcement, I would expect a terse statement indicating that this is the situation. Far more sinister is the implication that the SARs were removed at the request of… others.

[John_Mace]

@Fiveyearlurker

CNN is reporting as legit that Giuliani has claimed that Mueller said this. I don’t see anywhere in that article that they have confirmed that Mueller has actually said this.

You’re ignoring the parts of the article that are not about Giuliani. I already quoted one, and here’s another:

The inability to indict a sitting president has been the position of the Office of Legal Counsel in the Justice Department since the Nixon administration and reaffirmed in the Clinton administration, but it has never been tested in court.