Continuation All things Trump + Russia Part 2

[CapelDodger]

Originally Posted by acbytesla

The idea that there was to be an exchange should be enough to demonstrate that this would be considered something of value.

The law of contracts, another excellent can of worms to open and tip over.

[acbytesla]

Originally Posted by CapelDodger

Kushner and Manafort weren't just sucking-up to the boss's son, let's face it. Donald Jr's known as Fredo for good reason, long pre-dating this fiasco.

I blame the parents.

I hadn't heard that he was referred to as Fredo. OUCH. This was in the middle of the campaign. All these people at that time would be busy. Am I mistaken. But I seem to recall Trump Sr soliciting during the campaign for the Russians to hack Hillary. Or something similar.

[CapelDodger]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

Now, that doesn't necessarily mean no crime was committed. Why would the Russian meet with Trump representatives offering to release this dirt of Hillary Clinton? Forget fine print in the campaign finance law for a moment. Let's assume they had this dirt, and they want Trump to win. Why would they call a meeting? Just leak it. No need to get Paul Manafort in a room.

Quite. If you have explosive material you can release a bombshell.

Quote:

Clearly, the Russians wanted something.

Trying to extract useful work from the energy release. Successfully, for all we know.

Quote:

Whatever it was they wanted, if the Trump people offered it, that could be a crime. If there was some sort of quid pro quo, I don't know what statute would cover it, but it sounds like the kind of thing that somebody somewhere would have written a law against it.

If not yet, soon.

Quote:

Bob Mueller will be following this as far as he possibly can, I'm confident.

Mueller doesn't have to follow this, it follows itself. He's following the money-washing trail into the US property market over the last few decades, and how it pertains to Trump. For once, a spotlight Trump didn't want to attract but so has.

[CapelDodger]

Originally Posted by acbytesla

I hadn't heard that he was referred to as Fredo. OUCH. This was in the middle of the campaign. All these people at that time would be busy.

Kushner and Manafort, yes you'd think so, but Fredo not so much. Which may go some way to explaining the approach being made through him.

[Argumemnon]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

Googling the phrase "anything of value" brings this:

https://definitions.uslegal.com/a/anything-of-value/

It is clearly talking about material value. Money.

I have assumed that the statute everyone is talking about these days uses the same interpretation, but I haven't actually seen the statute.

Information has value.

Seriously, this isn't difficult to understand.

[Meadmaker]

Originally Posted by Argumemnon

Information has value.

Seriously, this isn't difficult to understand.

Seriously, then why doesn't every lawyer in the country agree?

Let me guess. The ones that don't are all politically motivated, denying what they learned in law school.

Back in the campaign days, Republicans absolutely insisted that it was plainly obvious to everyone who could read that Hillary Clinton had committed felonies and that "lock her up" was an appropriate response. They were sure of it. They knew it. It wasn't hard to understand.

And yet, those who made their living by evaluating whether or not felonies had been committed said that no felonies had been committed. Wel,, that's strange, isn't it? I mean, it was so easy to understand.....

When the majority of professionals start saying that this meeting is a crime, I'll buy into it. Right now, it looks like most professionals are either saying it wasn't, or withholding judgment. I'm going with the latter. It would not surprise me in the least to learn that crimes were committed either at that meeting or in connection with that meeting. However, the mere existence of the meeting doesn't seem like a crime to me, not even when the associated emails are included.

[Argumemnon]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

Seriously, then why doesn't every lawyer in the country agree?

Let me guess. The ones that don't are all politically motivated, denying what they learned in law school.

Back in the campaign days, Republicans absolutely insisted that it was plainly obvious to everyone who could read that Hillary Clinton had committed felonies and that "lock her up" was an appropriate response. They were sure of it. They knew it. It wasn't hard to understand.

And yet, those who made their living by evaluating whether or not felonies had been committed said that no felonies had been committed. Wel,, that's strange, isn't it? I mean, it was so easy to understand.....

When the majority of professionals start saying that this meeting is a crime, I'll buy into it. Right now, it looks like most professionals are either saying it wasn't, or withholding judgment. I'm going with the latter. It would not surprise me in the least to learn that crimes were committed either at that meeting or in connection with that meeting. However, the mere existence of the meeting doesn't seem like a crime to me, not even when the associated emails are included.

How about you answer the point rather than go on a tirade? Do people routinely buy information or not? Especially about political opponents.

I'm starting to think that your continued "neutrality" hides something else.

[skyeagle409]

Trump's lawyer, Jay Sekulow, is making it very difficult for me to believe he is a real lawyer.

Quote:

Secret Service: Donald Trump Jr. didn't have agency's protection at time of meeting

The Secret Service is pushing back on President Donald Trump's attorney's remarks Sunday that there was nothing questionable going on at a meeting last summer between Trump's eldest son, Donald Trump Jr., a Russian lawyer and top members of Trump's campaign.

"Well, I wonder why the Secret Service, if this was nefarious, why the Secret Service allowed these people in," Jay Sekulow said on ABC's "This Week." "The President had Secret Service protection at that point, and that raised a question with me."

After Sekulow's comments aired, the Secret Service responded that it wouldn't have checked out the participants of the meeting because Trump's eldest son wasn't in their charge.

"Donald Trump Jr. was not a protectee of the USSS in June, 2016," the agency told CNN in a statement. "Thus we would not have screened anyone he was meeting with at that time."

http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/16/politi...ice/index.html

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

Seriously, then why doesn't every lawyer in the country agree?

It's their job to argue the letter of the law when beneficial, or, when commenting, to point out that this is a strategy that will be used.

Again, I doubt the statute was intended to be so ridiculously naïve. Don't belittle yourself by clutching to such naïveté.

[Meadmaker]

Originally Posted by Cl1mh4224rd

It's their job to argue the letter of the law when beneficial, or, when commenting, to point out that this is a strategy that will be used.

Again, I doubt the statute was intended to be so ridiculously naïve. Don't belittle yourself by defending such naïveté.

The statute in question dealt with campaign finance. It doesn't seem odd to me in the least that they would limit the scope of the statute to financial things.


And, in all seriousness, the lawyers are saying something different than the laymen. When that happens, and the subject is law, go with the lawyers. They're the expert at this sort of thing.

But fear not. They will find the dirt that's worth digging. The plot thickens:

http://www.philly.com/philly/columni...-20170717.html

[Meadmaker]

Originally Posted by Argumemnon

How about you answer the point rather than go on a tirade? Do people routinely buy information or not? Especially about political opponents.

Equivocation. Look it up.

"Anything of value" has a meaning in a legal context, regardless of what the phrase might mean in some other context.

[acbytesla]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

Equivocation. Look it up.

"Anything of value" has a meaning in a legal context, regardless of what the phrase might mean in some other context.

It does. I agree. But you never answered the question. Does negative information about competitors in business or political opponents have a financial value. Is it sellable?

[Meadmaker]

Originally Posted by acbytesla

It does. I agree. But you never answered the question. Does negative information about competitors in business or political opponents have a financial value. Is it sellable?

If there are any lawyers here or anyone passingly familiar with constitutional law, please correct me if I am wrong, but here goes.


No. It is not sellable.


There may be occasions on which money changes hands in exchange for that information. However, that is not a sale. There are all sorts of corruption laws that might be violated when that cash changes hands, but an actual legal sale does not occur.

By the way, if the dirt on Hillary Clinton was obtained illegally, which it almost certainly was, given it was the result of hacking, trying to obtain it probably broke a law or two, quite apart from campaign financing.

These little petty differences really do matter. They are the stuff of which laws are made.

[The Great Zaganza]

Trump Jr did and said everything the Russians wanted to hear:
- he didn't report the overtures to the FBI
- he invited key campaign personnel to the meeting
- they didn't report to the FBI
- he made it clear that he was interested in more dirt than was provided, and that he didn't want to do the research himself

For whoever wanted to influence the election, these are clear green lights that the Trump campaign would welcome their efforts and keep their secrets.

Snowflake trumpistas need buzzwords like"nothingburger" as a security blanket to hide under. But just because you say there are no monsters under the bed doesn't make it so.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

....

But fear not. They will find the dirt that's worth digging. The plot thickens:

http://www.philly.com/philly/columni...-20170717.html

So does this mean you are figuring it out now?

To the interestingly timed settled case with the fired AG, add the rest of the the Magnitsky Act and the Russia investigation

Quote:

Bill Browder, CEO of Hermitage Capital Management, sits down with Fareed Zakaria to discuss how the Magnitsky Act, a US law that punishes Russians who are seen as human rights abusers, may relate to the Russia investigation.

Not sure if there is a transcript but Zakaria's interview of Browder is well worth the time.

More Zakaria's unraveling of the case: why is Trump such a bro to Putin?

Quote:

CNN's Fareed Zakaria takes a closer look at President Donald Trump's rhetoric on Russia and President Vladimir Putin.

It's all about the financial ties.

WA Po got into the financial story as well.
Inside Trump’s financial ties to Russia and his unusual flattery of Vladimir Putin

Quote:

And Trump seemed energized by his interactions with Russia’s financial elite at the pageant and a glitzy after-party in a Moscow nightclub.

“Almost all of the oligarchs were in the room,” Trump bragged to Real Estate Weekly upon returning home....

“Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets,” Trump’s son, Donald Jr., told a real estate conference in 2008, according to an account posted on the website of eTurboNews, a trade publication. “We see a lot of money pouring in from Russia.”

Add all this to the timeline put together in this thread and you probably should quit repeating the "we don't know" mantra whether information on Clinton was traded and Trump Sr was out of the loop.

The default position is not to believe yet one more lie from these intransigents. To continue insisting that position in light of past lies, financial ties, suspicious timing of hacked email releases, Trump bragging he'd have Clinton dirt in a week, Carter Page revealing the Podesta email hack before it was public, and how many dozen denials now of meetings with Russians from Sessions and Pence to Donnie Jr, Manafort, Flynn, Kushner, is sadly akin to Lucy pulling the football away from Charlie Brown one more time.

[The Great Zaganza]

Actually, according to Trump himself, yes, such Information has monetary value: when he called upon Russia to hack Clinton to find the missing emails, he explicitly said that the press would pay them well for their efforts.
Plenty of networks pay for such dirt all the time.

[Argumemnon]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

Equivocation. Look it up.

What? How was that equivocation? You are arguing against the idea that "thing of value" may be information. I'm pointing out that information is routinely purchased, making it a thing of value by definition. You're ignoring this.

Quote:

No. It is not sellable.

Wow, those idiots who have been buying dirt on their opponents with large sums of money for thousands of years really got had!

[Meadmaker]

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

Actually, according to Trump himself, yes, such Information has monetary value: when he called upon Russia to hack Clinton to find the missing emails, he explicitly said that the press would pay them well for their efforts.
Plenty of networks pay for such dirt all the time.

When they do so, do they pay sales tax?

That's a serious question.

Don't get me wrong. I am absolutely certain that Trump is corrupt from his head to his toe. I would be very surprised if he has not committed some sort of crime in the course of all this. I just don't know which one.

When I see a bunch of lawyers going on TV saying "this one", I'll believe it. That isn't happening yet.

[Argumemnon]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

When they do so, do they pay sales tax?

That's a serious question.

Oh, so now it IS sellable?

[C_Felix]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

Seriously, then why doesn't every lawyer in the country agree?

Let me guess. The ones that don't are all politically motivated, denying what they learned in law school.

Back in the campaign days, Republicans absolutely insisted that it was plainly obvious to everyone who could read that Hillary Clinton had committed felonies and that "lock her up" was an appropriate response. They were sure of it. They knew it. It wasn't hard to understand.

And yet, those who made their living by evaluating whether or not felonies had been committed said that no felonies had been committed. Wel,, that's strange, isn't it? I mean, it was so easy to understand.....

When the majority of professionals start saying that this meeting is a crime, I'll buy into it. Right now, it looks like most professionals are either saying it wasn't, or withholding judgment. I'm going with the latter. It would not surprise me in the least to learn that crimes were committed either at that meeting or in connection with that meeting. However, the mere existence of the meeting doesn't seem like a crime to me, not even when the associated emails are included.

I asked my friend Art if you polled him; his being a lawyer and all.
He said you didn't.

[Meadmaker]

Originally Posted by Argumemnon

Oh, so now it IS sellable?

Whoosh!

[C_Felix]

A few pages back - maybe in the mid 70's of part 1 - wasn't there the citing of election law with references to "things of value"?

A little Googling lead (led?) me to this:

https://transition.fec.gov/pages/bro.../foreign.shtml

And I'm reading it now.

Have errands to run...dog to the vet, son to the doctor...

[jimbob]

Originally Posted by C_Felix

A few pages back - maybe in the mid 70's of part 1 - wasn't there the citing of election law with references to "things of value"?

A little Googling lead (led?) me to this:

https://transition.fec.gov/pages/bro.../foreign.shtml

And I'm reading it now.

Have errands to run...dog to the vet, son to the doctor...

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...0#post11918980

[Argumemnon]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

Whoosh!

Do you have ANY sort of response to my questions and points? You brushed it off the first time around by calling it "equivocation", which makes no sense, and now you're wooshing me. Both times avoiding the actual point and discussion.

[phiwum]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

When they do so, do they pay sales tax?

That's a serious question.

Don't get me wrong. I am absolutely certain that Trump is corrupt from his head to his toe. I would be very surprised if he has not committed some sort of crime in the course of all this. I just don't know which one.

When I see a bunch of lawyers going on TV saying "this one", I'll believe it. That isn't happening yet.

I get paid for my labor. It is obviously[1] a thing of value.

My employer doesn't pay sales tax and that is irrelevant.

[1] Okay, I get paid to teach philosophy, so this point is debatable.

[Cabbage]

Originally Posted by jimbob

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...0#post11918980

Thank you!

[magellan]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

“Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets,” Trump’s son, Donald Jr., told a real estate conference in 2008, according to an account posted on the website of eTurboNews, a trade publication. “We see a lot of money pouring in from Russia.”

This one always stuck me as very odd.
First that was back in 2008, 4 years before Obama would laugh Romney out of the room with that "the 80ies called" line. Putin didn't become the new new Hitler(tm) before 2013.

Also rich russians buying real estate in foreign countries? Why I never heard of such a thing! What's next? The swiss somehow involved in banking?

[C_Felix]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

Equivocation. Look it up.

"Anything of value" has a meaning in a legal context, regardless of what the phrase might mean in some other context.

Originally Posted by Argumemnon

What? How was that equivocation? You are arguing against the idea that "thing of value" may be information. I'm pointing out that information is routinely purchased, making it a thing of value by definition. You're ignoring this.



Wow, those idiots who have been buying dirt on their opponents with large sums of money for thousands of years really got had!

In MUR 5409 (2004), the Federal Election Commission voted 5-1 to accept the general counsel’s finding that Grover Norquist’s Americans for Tax Reform (a corporation) provided a “thing of value” to the Bush-Cheney reelection campaign. It was a list of conservative activists in 37 states. Some of the information may have been publicly available when Norquist gave it to Ken Mehlman of the campaign. The General Counsel found that this was a prohibited corporate contribution and that Bush-Cheney violated the law by failing to report it. But it found the list had so little value that the General Counsel did not recommend pursuing the matter further.

Originally Posted by jimbob

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...0#post11918980

THANKS!

[d4m10n]

Another theory of legal culpability of the Trump family/campaign, wrt hacking their political opponents.

https://www.lawfareblog.com/it-crime...-and-abuse-act


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

[jimbob]

Ah, but because it was stolen information, it could not legally be sold, so therefore it was valueless?

[Stacko]

Originally Posted by jimbob

Ah, but because it was stolen information, it could not legally be sold, so therefore it was valueless?

Stolen items still have value you just can't have a legally enforceable contract regarding them.

[jimbob]

Originally Posted by Stacko

Stolen items still have value you just can't have a legally enforceable contract regarding them.

I was being facetious

But the argument that information is not "of value" is ridiculous, and contradicted by case law.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by magellan

This one always stuck me as very odd.
First that was back in 2008, 4 years before Obama would laugh Romney out of the room with that "the 80ies called" line. Putin didn't become the new new Hitler(tm) before 2013.

Also rich russians buying real estate in foreign countries? Why I never heard of such a thing! What's next? The swiss somehow involved in banking?

Not sure what your point is.

[magellan]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Not sure what your point is.

It's two points actually.
We haven't been always been at war with eastasia back in 2008, so it's a bit unfair. Like posting pictures of kerry and assad dining or rumsfeld meeting hussein.

Second is that I would be very suprised if somebody who is in buisness in international real estate hadn't had significant contact with the russian elite.

[Minoosh]

Originally Posted by Argumemnon

And you couldn't be more desperate. You were literally dancing last Novembre and now your side is about to lose big time.

But is it losing if we end up with President Mike Pence? From the perspective of the Trump supporters here, Pence could easily be seen as an improvement.

Even I think that and I share none of Pence's agenda.

[CapelDodger]

Originally Posted by magellan

It's two points actually.
We haven't been always been at war with eastasia back in 2008, so it's a bit unfair.

It's entirely fair to quote what Donald Jr said quite openly in 2008.

Quote:

Second is that I would be very suprised if somebody who is in buisness in international real estate hadn't had significant contact with the russian elite.

And yet Donald Sr has claimed not to have had much in the way of business dealings with Russians. He clearly has.

Given that Russia has been subject to a kleptocracy since the 90's a lot of that money is being washed.

[logger]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

If there are any lawyers here or anyone passingly familiar with constitutional law, please correct me if I am wrong, but here goes.


No. It is not sellable.


There may be occasions on which money changes hands in exchange for that information. However, that is not a sale. There are all sorts of corruption laws that might be violated when that cash changes hands, but an actual legal sale does not occur.

By the way, if the dirt on Hillary Clinton was obtained illegally, which it almost certainly was, given it was the result of hacking, trying to obtain it probably broke a law or two, quite apart from campaign financing.

These little petty differences really do matter. They are the stuff of which laws are made.

Its amazing where this has gone. He never paid for the NON information, so the left wants to assign value to it. Even though there is no standard that can put a value on it. This once again shows the left is so invested in this they'll do anything to be able to construct their narrative. Sadly for them, courts don't work that way, maybe they ought to try Venezuela.

[logger]

Originally Posted by Minoosh

But is it losing if we end up with President Mike Pence? From the perspective of the Trump supporters here, Pence could easily be seen as an improvement.

Even I think that and I share none of Pence's agenda.

Its worse than that. Removing Trump for such a ridiculous narrative is only going to harden the right and our new found blue collar voters.

[WilliamSeger]

Originally Posted by magellan

This one always stuck me as very odd.
First that was back in 2008, 4 years before Obama would laugh Romney out of the room with that "the 80ies called" line. Putin didn't become the new new Hitler(tm) before 2013.

Also rich russians buying real estate in foreign countries? Why I never heard of such a thing! What's next? The swiss somehow involved in banking?

I think the point of that was, not that he simply had business dealings with Russians back then, but that Russians might still have some sort of financial hold over him today. That's something suspicious minds think of when they are trying to figure out why Trump refuses to criticize Putin and has persisted in doing things Putin must be loving. Hopefully, Mueller will sort it out.

[logger]

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward

Greater than 1 dollar.

Interesting, I'm sure a court will be intrigued by that. Lol