PSA on collusion

There are laws against coordinating with a foreign entity.

The most likely current charge is a campaign finance violation. There could also be issues with obstruction of justice, racketeering, conspiracy... too early to say with specificity.

quote:

---

The most likely current charge is a campaign finance violation. There could also be issues with obstruction of justice, racketeering, conspiracy... too early to say with specificity.

---

Which was exactly why Jr met with them. He was promised info on campaign finance violations.

quote:

---

'Collusion' with foreign entities during an election isn't illegal.

---

Depends on the law.

quote:

---

Unsavory? yes

---

Sometimes:


Sometimes not:

quote:

---

There could also be issues with obstruction of justice, racketeering, conspiracy

---

Your cart is way out in front of your horse.

quote:

---

There is no campaign finance violation. That is such a silly assertion.

---

It most certainly is not, and wishing it away won't make it so.

quote:

---

Hillary employed a Ukrainian agent to attempt to influence the election by spreading fake news about Trump.

---

This is a separate issue that has no bearing on the facts or the outcome of what will happen with Trump Jr and this admin.

quote:

---

It most certainly is not, and wishing it away won't make it so

---

ok counselor...here is the code. Make your case.

quote:

---

A) The term “contribution” includes— (i) any gift, subscription, loan, advance, or deposit of money or anything of value made by any person for the purpose of influencing any election for Federal office; or (ii) the payment by any person of compensation for the personal services of another person which are rendered to a political committee without charge for any purpose.

---

quote:

---

'Collusion' with foreign entities during an election isn't illegal.

---

...

Unless a Democrat does it.

So glad your boy is draining the swamp

Obstruction of justice - unless the FBI or prosecutors have met with Junior prior to all of this then obstruction is not even on the table.

RICO - you would have to go after EVERY politician in Washington. It is even more of a stretch than Obstruction which is Saran Wrap thin in this case. You might be able to try and effect that the intent whether explicit or implicit is all that matters, but in most RICO cases, any decent lawyer could rightly shoot holes through that provision. As to the coordination with a foreign entity, I'm not sure the Democrats or Republicans would want to open that Pandora's box....they might find out about a lot of Chinese money in the 1990's and Saudi money in 2008 and 2012 or the skirting of campaign finance reporting rules in 2008 by Obama....lots of people made numerous "small" contributions....happened for Bush in 2000 as well.



You are using Bob Bauer as a source to all of this. He was Obama's White House counsel. It's not like he's an impartial in all of this

quote:

---

ok counselor...here is the code. Make your case.

---

First off, if you're going to pull a gotcha at least make sure you quote the relevant portion of the statute. You quoted a definition, not criminal elements.

The relevant portion of the criminal statute is 52 U.S.C. 30121(a)(2); 11 C.F.R. § 110.20 (g), which makes it illegal to solicit a contribution from a foreign national to influence an election. Solicitation need not be express, it may be implied. When determining whether solicitation has occurred, all of the relevant circumstances are examined. Notably, solicitation does not have to be successful for it to be a crime.

Trump solicited in public numerous times information damaging to his opponent. It is reasonable to assume that a hostile gov't understood this to be a solicitation, and acting on it by promising such information, a person with ties to Russian gov't was able to procure a meeting with senior advisors and campaign officials. Whether information was exchanged is irrelevant, the crime is the solicitation itself. The meeting with the most in-group members of Trump's campaign is evidence against the explanation Trump has used in the past that he was merely joking about Russia finding more damaging info. If he was joking in public, then why in private was his campaign furthering that objective?

As I noted, this is just the tip of the iceberg. Not only is it highly likely that more information will be forthcoming, there are also numerous grounds for other charges that grow more substantial by the day (e.g., coordination).