Why No Evidence of Collusion With the Russians ?

[swansont]

Just ran across this: knowingly soliciting any campaign contribution from a foreign national is a crime. Contribution is cash or anything of value.

 

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/11/110.20

https://www.vox.com/world/2017/7/10/15950590/donald-trump-jr-new-york-times-illegal

 

So it's enough to have attended the meeting, even if nothing was eventually exchanged.

[CharonY]

That is quite interesting, thanks. So the solicitation part together with the fact that the lawyer was introduced as foreign official is sufficient to put it into the criminal area. It does make we wonder why the decided to publish the mails, though. Unless one assumes total ignorance of the laws as well as massive incompetence.

Edited July 12, 2017 by CharonY

[Ten oz]

First time I ever watched the old Chris Hansen show "to catch a predator" I felt it was entrapment. They were arresting people who hadn't committed a crime. Then after more thought it made sense to me. Grown adults who knowingly had solicited what they believed to be grade school kids for sex and then drove out to meet with them in hopes of engaging in molestation were in the act of attempting to commit a crime. Their failure to be success provided no cover.

[iNow]

It does make we wonder why the decided to publish the mails, though. Unless one assumes total ignorance of the laws as well as massive incompetence.

Hard to rule out massive ignorance and incompetence, but in most cases they do this because the information is going to come out anyway and by releasing it themselves they have a better chance of controlling the story.

 

It seems the NYT reached out, shared that they had these emails, were planning to publish, and asked for comment before a specific time later that day (like noon). Then, they heard nothing from Trump Jr. or his lawyers at all for the next several hours and about 1 or 2 minutes before the deadline expired (like 11:58am), they tweeted the emails themselves and the NYT pulled the trigger on the story.

[Ten oz]

Hard to rule out massive ignorance and incompetence, but in most cases they do this because the information is going to come out anyway and by releasing it themselves they have a better chance of controlling the story.

 

It seems the NYT reached out, shared that they had these emails, were planning to publish, and asked for comment before a specific time later that day (like noon). Then, they heard nothing from Trump Jr. or his lawyers at all for the next several hours and about 1 or 2 minutes before the deadline expired (like 11:58am), they tweeted the emails themselves and the NYT pulled the trigger on the story.

Only when absolutely caught in the clear light of day has this administration and its surrogates ever conceded an inch or even bothered to address questions. So I think you are spot on.

[swansont]

That is quite interesting, thanks. So the solicitation part together with the fact that the lawyer was introduced as foreign official is sufficient to put it into the criminal area. It does make we wonder why the decided to publish the mails, though. Unless one assumes total ignorance of the laws as well as massive incompetence.

 

 

As iNow said, probably to try and have some control over the story.

 

The fact that there was a "paper"trail in the first place, though? Probably ignorance and incompetence, and a large dose of not thinking he'd get caught, or not caring, because money has always shielded the family from repercussions in the past.

[CharonY]

Hard to rule out massive ignorance and incompetence, but in most cases they do this because the information is going to come out anyway and by releasing it themselves they have a better chance of controlling the story.

 

It seems the NYT reached out, shared that they had these emails, were planning to publish, and asked for comment before a specific time later that day (like noon). Then, they heard nothing from Trump Jr. or his lawyers at all for the next several hours and about 1 or 2 minutes before the deadline expired (like 11:58am), they tweeted the emails themselves and the NYT pulled the trigger on the story.

 

That makes a lot of sense. I missed the NYT part. But then so much is happening with this administration, it is like reality TV show where you need to watch every episode to be on top of all the drama.

[iNow]

it is like reality TV show where you need to watch every episode to be on top of all the drama.

Or, listen to a few podcasts hosted by people who watch the episodes and can provide an overview.

[CharonY]

That seems interesting:

 

 

 

In his first public interview about the meeting, Akhmetshin said he accompanied Veselnitskaya to Trump Tower where they met an interpreter who participated in the meeting. He said he had learned about the meeting only that day when Veselnitskaya asked him to attend. He said he showed up in jeans and a T-shirt.

During the meeting, Akhmetshin said Veselnitskaya brought with her a plastic folder with printed-out documents that detailed what she believed was the flow of illicit funds to the Democratic National Committee. Veselnitskaya presented the contents of the documents to the Trump associates and suggested that making the information public could help the Trump campaign, he said.

“This could be a good issue to expose how the DNC is accepting bad money,” Akhmetshin recalled her saying.

Trump Jr. asked the attorney if she had all the evidence to back up her claims, including whether she could demonstrate the flow of the money. But Veselnitskaya said the Trump campaign would need to research it more. After that, Trump Jr. lost interest, according to Akhmetshin.

“They couldn’t wait for the meeting to end,” he said.

Akhmetshin said he does not know if Veselnitskaya’s documents were provided by the Russian government. He said he thinks she left the materials with the Trump associates. It was unclear if she handed the documents to anyone in the room or simply left them behind, he said.

 

The account seems to corroborate the notion that the Trump tried to get hands on the info and only lost interest when it did not seem to be that useful.

[Ten oz]

One problem with all the accounts we have so far come from people who are either known liars or suspected Russian Intelligence personnel. Starting a year ago and ending just this week Trump, his staff, family, and supporters called the notion that such meetings took place insulting and denied them vehemently. So while the accounts show nothing useful was exchanged we don't actually know for sure. Just as we don't know if this was the only such meeting. I see no reason to error onthe side that Trump Jr and the Russian Attorney as being 100% honest.

[iNow]

The problem we have so far is that the same people who wanted to string Hillary up from a tree for using a server in her house that MIGHT have been exposed to Russians are perfectly willing to look the other way when Donald DOES expose information to Russians and personally involve them in all things top secret.

Edited July 15, 2017 by iNow

[CharonY]

 

 

As iNow said, probably to try and have some control over the story.

 

The fact that there was a "paper"trail in the first place, though? Probably ignorance and incompetence, and a large dose of not thinking he'd get caught, or not caring, because money has always shielded the family from repercussions in the past.

 

Well, and it seems to me that the control over the story is fairly weak, too. Well, and there is that.

[Ten oz]

The problem we have so far is that the same people who wanted to string Hillary up from a tree for using a server in her house that MIGHT have been exposed to Russians are perfectly willing to look the other way when Donald DOES expose information to Russians and personally involve them in all things top secret.

Republicans are much better at crying wolf than Democrats are. Republicans created outrage over Clintons emails and Benghazi at levels as great ifn ot greater than Democrats seem to be able to regarding legit matters like obstruction of justice and collusion. We can completely forget about Democrats being able to make noise regarding Trump's conflicts of interest and nepotism. It seems that Democrats don't feel any mountian if worth dying one and Republicans feel every mountian absolutely is.

[iNow]

Well, and it seems to me that the control over the story is fairly weak, too.

Understand, but have you noticed daddy Trump claiming what a great guy his son is, how wonderful it is that he was transparent about all of this? I mean, gosh... how could the guy possibly be guilty? He voluntarily shared the emails on his own twitter account.

 

Except, he only did so AFTER the good reporting of the NYT discovered it and only AFTER they kindly gave him a chance to respond.

 

Releasing the emails minutes before the NYT deadline allows them to better control the story... or at least influence it in their favor... especially relative to this coming out directly in the NYT without comment from the Trump family.

 

They can falsely claim transparency and have some people buy it even though they'd never have released the emails if they weren't first caught red handed and exposed by our free press.

 

@ten oz - agreed

Edited July 15, 2017 by iNow

[StringJunky]

Understand, but have you noticed daddy Trump claiming what a great guy his son is, how wonderful it is that he was transparent about all of this? I mean, gosh... how could the guy possibly be guilty? He voluntarily shared the emails on his own twitter account.

 

Except, he only did so AFTER the good reporting of the NYT discovered it and only AFTER they kindly gave him a chance to respond.

 

Releasing the emails minutes before the NYT deadline allows them to better control the story... or at least influence it in their favor... especially relative to this coming out directly in the NYT without comment from the Trump family.

 

They can falsely claim transparency and have some people buy it even though they'd never have released the emails if they weren't first caught red handed and exposed by our free press.

 

@ten oz - agreed

When it all falls to pieces the truth will be left standing.

[Ten oz]

When it all falls to pieces the truth will be left standing.

.....but will enough people care?

[StringJunky]

.....but will enough people care?

We'll see at the next election.

[Ten oz]

We'll see at the next election.

...so than no. If the truth proves (many feel it already has) that Trump's campaign broke the law and that Trump himself has obstructed justice shouldn't impeachment follow rather than waiting till 2020?

[CharonY]

Understand, but have you noticed daddy Trump claiming what a great guy his son is, how wonderful it is that he was transparent about all of this? I mean, gosh... how could the guy possibly be guilty? He voluntarily shared the emails on his own twitter account.

 

Except, he only did so AFTER the good reporting of the NYT discovered it and only AFTER they kindly gave him a chance to respond.

 

Releasing the emails minutes before the NYT deadline allows them to better control the story... or at least influence it in their favor... especially relative to this coming out directly in the NYT without comment from the Trump family.

 

They can falsely claim transparency and have some people buy it even though they'd never have released the emails if they weren't first caught red handed and exposed by our free press.

 

 

 

Though the way they control it is quite primitive, to put it politely. Seems a bit like a toddler found with the cookie jar claiming that he couldn't have stolen a cookie as he already has eaten it. I guess I got spoiled by House of Cards. I kind of expected at least some mastery in spin. But hey, maybe they really do not need it anymore.

[Ten oz]

 

Though the way they control it is quite primitive, to put it politely. Seems a bit like a toddler found with the cookie jar claiming that he couldn't have stolen a cookie as he already has eaten it. I guess I got spoiled by House of Cards. I kind of expected at least some mastery in spin. But hey, maybe they really do not need it anymore.

Yep! Meanwhile causal supporters argue that it was a gluten free sugar free cookie so doesn't really qualify anyway.

[John Cuthber]

I don't understand the basic premise of this thread.
There is plenty of evidence. Here's some of the most recently published stuff.

http://time.com/magazine/

[Ten oz]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Donald Trump's campaign paid $50,000 to the law office now representing Donald Trump Jr. a little more than a week before news surfaced of an unreported meeting with a Russian attorney that has prompted new accusations of collusion.

The payment to the Law Offices of Alan S. Futerfas, dated June 27, was disclosed in a filing with the Federal Election Commission on Saturday. It was described as covering "legal consulting" fees.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-son-idUSKBN1A00QZ

[swansont]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Donald Trump's campaign paid $50,000 to the law office now representing Donald Trump Jr. a little more than a week before news surfaced of an unreported meeting with a Russian attorney that has prompted new accusations of collusion.

The payment to the Law Offices of Alan S. Futerfas, dated June 27, was disclosed in a filing with the Federal Election Commission on Saturday. It was described as covering "legal consulting" fees.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-son-idUSKBN1A00QZ

 

 

I don't understand how that's legal, but it's not like they haven't done similar things with their charities. For which they're in trouble and being investigated. Which reminds me: it was pointed out somewhere that while the president can pardon people for federal crimes, it does not apply to states, so any successful prosecutions from investigations by e.g. NY state (for charity irregularities) cannot be negated by a president.

[Janus]

...so than no. If the truth proves (many feel it already has) that Trump's campaign broke the law and that Trump himself has obstructed justice shouldn't impeachment follow rather than waiting till 2020?

The problem is that impeachment is a political process and not a legal one. Right now we have a Republican led Congress, and the Republican congressman are going to weigh the impact of an impeachment on their re-election chances.

If they are from a heavily Republican district/state, there are going to be a large number of Trump supporters who's vote they would lose if they went for impeachment. Votes that could go for a challenger in the primaries. (So even if his state/district still elects a Republican to the office, it might not be him.)

If the state is more evenly split and could go either way in the general election, He still has to win the primary in order to have chance to run in the general. If the Republican voters lean pro-Trump, but the general populace run pro-impeachment, he is in a tough spot either way and has to decide which position would be the least damaging to his re-election chances.

Edited July 16, 2017 by Janus

[Airbrush]

I don't understand the basic premise of this thread.

There is plenty of evidence. Here's some of the most recently published stuff.

http://time.com/magazine/

 

I started this thread based on hearing "still no evidence for collusion" repeated so many times by Fox News and other Trump supporters. This is questioning the veracity of their claim.

Edited July 16, 2017 by Airbrush