My initial post in this discussion was simply to clarify that while it is true that “collusion” is not a crime, conspiracy is. I wasn’t trying to change any conversation. Past that, I responded directly to what you were posting and nothing else. I did read through the posts but didn’t feel that I was hijacking your discussion.
To your point, I disagree Trump is innocent if he became aware others were doing illegal things and simply failed to report it. If he benefited as the candidate of the fraudulent election, then I think he becomes a co-conspirator, even if he did not actively engage in the conspiracy (which I frankly doubt). It’s similar to the getaway driver in a robbery being fully culpable for all crimes committed during the robbery, even though he didn’t actively have his hands on the money or the guns.
It defies all reason to believe he was unaware. His comments made from the podium re “Russia, if you’re listening… Hillary’s 30,000 emails…” Also, his frantic, Herculean efforts to obstruct/stop the investigations are evidence of his consciousness of guilt. And these are just the things we know about.
True re the necessity of the “hostile” part, but it really is so much worse. Russia actively works against our interests in the world in ways that Great Britain does not. You’re kinda nit-picking now.
Missed this post. No, I’m not sure the “emphasis added” part happened, and no I’m not interested in any bridges. I’m not even sure he was fully aware of everything that went on by his staff-- is any candidate every fully aware of that? Oftentimes a candidate will deliberately distance himself from questionable activity precisely to preserve some deniable playability. Now, Trump’s ego may have gotten in the way of him doing that, but it’s far from clear that it did.
No worries re missing the post. People have lives and goodness knows I miss them all the time.
Back to the discussion: His behavior isn’t that of an innocent person. It doesn’t support why he’s worked so hard to thwart the investigations. He has regularly demonstrated zero compunction to throw anyone under the bus for any reason he perceives to be in his own self interest, no matter how loyal. That’s his character.
You may find it “far from clear” that he knew. I see lots of evidence that he was fully aware.
I’ve never heard of deniable playability. If it’s a way of saying plausible deniability, it’s kind of cute.
Hey, Pence has Trump’s back, and vows that there was no collusion with Russia, with no caveats. Well, he’s “not aware” of any collusion at at all with the Trump campaign at any time. Well at least “during the time that I was on the campaign” anyway. And he would know because he has all the information. Well, the information “what Michael Flynn had told” him. So, no caveats at all.
It’s probably the case that most politicians want to be President, so it wouldn’t be fair to criticize Pence for that. But, heavenly days, his maneuverings are certainly unlovely to behold.
Wasn’t so much a criticism as interesting to note how many caveats he threw into what could have been a very simple sentence: “There was no collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia”. Period. For some reason he was unable to make such a statement.
I’ll hedge a little and put emphasis on the word ‘necessarily’. In any case, this might be a Bricker question, but AFAIK, unless it is laid out in a statute, there’s not necessarily a law that says knowing about a crime is illegal in and of itself. To be sure there are laws that get to the heart of the intent to commit and/or conceal crimes, but those are statutes with which we are familiar. There are laws against conspiracy to commit a crime and there are laws that prohibit attempts to obstruct justice and provide false information to an investigator and providing false testimony in a courtroom – those are crimes.
That article is actually pretty exculpatory, headline notwithstanding.
The article makes pretty clear that this “aide” was a junior volunteer with no real influence in the campaign, and that his repeated efforts to set up meetings with Russians were consistently rebuffed by senior campaign people (including Manafort). That seems inconsistent with the notion that these same people were also colluding with the Russians.
This “aide” had no real foreign policy experience and was a fairly recent college graduate. He had no business being on that team from a FP perspective. Of the 5 foreign policy advisers Trump named to the WaPo, 2 of them were Russian intermediaries (this guy and Carter Page). These emails show that discussion that happened BEFORE that infamous Trump Tower meeting where the legality of meeting with Russians, and the Logan Act, were discussed. Makes it a lot harder for campaign folks at that meeting to try and plead ignorance.
This may not be a smoking gun of any kind but it’s certainly some new threads for Mueller to pull on and see what else he finds. Wanna bet there are other emails in this guy’s history that we don’t know about?
This is a very long Twitter thread by former prosecuting attorney Seth Abramson that does a good job of laying out all of what is known and the timeline of what went on. It all ties into Rosnoft and that Mayflower Hotel meeting. I encourage you to read it without blinders.
ETA: A good case made in the thread linked about that its very possible Carter Page met personally with Putin while he was in Russia (when he traveled there with the Trump campaign’s permission/go-ahead.)
There is no legal category called “meeting with Russians”. A meeting with Russians could be legally problematic or not, depending on which Russians and what the purpose of the meeting was, and other matters of that sort.
Lol. When you have a jr aide who is sending out “GOT AN INVITE FROM PUTIN, WHO WANTS IN?” emails which are responded with “THIS ISN’T LEGAL, GUYS!” from campaign heads, yeah, there is a problem and it’s not so silly.
It’s a big problem when you failed to register as a foreign agent until well after the fact. Goes to intent. They’ve got Manafort by the short-and-curlies at the very least.
