Donald Trump Presidency-Day One

[broncofan]

But as you and others have said a number of times, many of these things are political wrongs that are just as serious when it comes to his fitness for office.

I suppose the point I'm making here is that criminal law makes it very difficult to punish failures to act, which is why conspiracy tends to require just slightly more than the mere agreement, which common sense might indicate is enough. But someone who holds an office has or should have all sorts of affirmative responsibilities.

[Stavros]

As we saw in the indictments, various Russians tried to set up organizations where they impersonated minorities in order to suppress their vote. Assuming this violates a number of fraud related statutes what is the least an American can do and be guilty of conspiracy? First, the American has to know what they're doing. Second, in some way agree, either explicitly or more likely by implication. And finally, in most jurisdictions an overt step in furtherance is required. Maybe helping to get a permit. Offering a tiny bit of i.t. advice. This small step makes them guilty not just of conspiracy to commit the crime, but through derivative liability also of the completed crime if their co-conspirator completes it.
In your exact example it really depends when they found about the crime, whichever statute it is. The way it avoids the difficulty of trying to charge them with the predicate crime is that it is a crime where the mens rea predominates and only a little bit of action is required for a lot of liability. But you do have to know in advance.

Apparently the President welcomed the indictments claiming they exonerated him of 'collusion' but then on reflection and noting that other views were that it did not exonerate him and his team, spent the weekend firing off tweets that blamed everyone else for everything from gun laws to Russian meddling.

What strikes me about this man is that wherever he goes, there is a lawyer behind him, I doubt he goes to the toilet without first getting advice from the lawyer. Not only were there lawyers all over this team, the Republican establishment knows election law as well as any academic expert, so arguments about 'political amateurs' blundering through an election campaign won't work. The simple truth is that at one level from the start the aim was to break with tradition, to take a militant stance on everything: ridicule and abuse your opponents in public debates, incite violence among crowds, tell lies, treat the press as if they were the enemies of democracy, publicly invite a foreign government to help your election campaign. It is even possible they knew they were breaking the law but took the view, so what? What are 'they' going to do about it? Elections are so rarely fiddled with in the US this is unprecedented territory for law enforcement, just as the grey area with Junior visiting India to sell the family brand to customers willing to part with millions of $$$. Then there is the money trail from Moscow to New York, the giant debt owed to Deutsche Bank and the possibility that the President is living on borrowed money because he has none of his own, which I think legally would have rendered him ineligible to run for public office. And so on.

From where I am and though the facts are not yet known, I think this is going to be a momentous year in American politics, it may even be a bigger story than Brexit, which I guess isn't much of a story in the US anyway.

[Budweiser]

[broncofan]

https://www.justsecurity.org/52610/c...investigation/

A very good article by Bob Bauer that just came up on my twitter feed. It says that if Mueller's indictments were only intended to demonstrate Russian crimes it would have included a charge of illegal campaign contributions from foreign sources. He believes the exclusion of this charge despite sufficient facts to uphold it gives us a clue to what Mueller plans next. He must be planning to charge Americans with conspiracy to defraud the United States, which was one of the charges included in the indictment. He then talks about the types of acts by Americans that can be used to bring them into this charge as co-conspirators.

To me this would indicate that maybe Mueller does not have evidence of more significant crimes to charge, but it's possible as Bauer says that he is moving in phases, and this is the simplest, most provable phase, where you have both election law crimes by Russians with American co-conspirators.

[buttslinger]

The HORROR of this is that the same morons who elected Trump will still be running around after he's gone.

[buttslinger]

I'm going to shed my buttslinger character and be stone cold serious here- does anybody know ONE Democrat who would support a Democratic President with this much Putin Evidence hanging over his head?

[Stavros]

A very good article by Bob Bauer that just came up on my twitter feed. It says that if Mueller's indictments were only intended to demonstrate Russian crimes it would have included a charge of illegal campaign contributions from foreign sources. He believes the exclusion of this charge despite sufficient facts to uphold it gives us a clue to what Mueller plans next. He must be planning to charge Americans with conspiracy to defraud the United States, which was one of the charges included in the indictment. He then talks about the types of acts by Americans that can be used to bring them into this charge as co-conspirators.
To me this would indicate that maybe Mueller does not have evidence of more significant crimes to charge, but it's possible as Bauer says that he is moving in phases, and this is the simplest, most provable phase, where you have both election law crimes by Russians with American co-conspirators.

I think this is the key passage in Bauer's article:

On the face of it, the law prohibits a U.S. campaign or person from “soliciting” something “of value” from a foreign national, and it bars rendering “substantial assistance” to illegal foreign national spending. It seems clear that the facts known to date implicate these rules. It is also true that there is little precedent and arguably an increased risk of a defense grounded in the “vagueness” of these prohibitions.

Time and again it seems the lawyers have been at work and argued that if it is not explicitly illegal then it can be done even if it doesn't 'look good' because Presidential candidates or even Presidents are not supposed to do such things. Thus, if it is not explicit in law that it is illegal for the President to use his (or her) office to make money, make money they will. And while it might seem obvious what 'something of value' from a foreign national might be, they may even have analysed this to conclude that it might be a risk, but might not lead to criminal proceedings. What seems obvious to the public might not be to a court of law.

Similarly Junior is at one and the same time promoting the family business in India and giving a 'foreign policy speech' while apparently selling meetings with the man at $38,000 a pop. I wonder if that includes a pot of Assam?

In anticipation of his visit, Indian newspapers have been running full-page ads to get the public interested in the latest Trump Tower project, with headlines that say “Trump is here — Are You Invited?”

Those ads also invite home buyers to drop about $38,000 to “join Mr Donald Trump Jr for a conversation and dinner”.

Mr Trump Jr will take a break from that promotional tour to give the foreign policy speech, and the whole affair has been criticised by ethics experts for potential conflicts of interest.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-a8218776.html

[sukumvit boy]

Apparently the President welcomed the indictments claiming they exonerated him of 'collusion' but then on reflection and noting that other views were that it did not exonerate him and his team, spent the weekend firing off tweets that blamed everyone else for everything from gun laws to Russian meddling.

What strikes me about this man is that wherever he goes, there is a lawyer behind him, I doubt he goes to the toilet without first getting advice from the lawyer. Not only were there lawyers all over this team, the Republican establishment knows election law as well as any academic expert, so arguments about 'political amateurs' blundering through an election campaign won't work. The simple truth is that at one level from the start the aim was to break with tradition, to take a militant stance on everything: ridicule and abuse your opponents in public debates, incite violence among crowds, tell lies, treat the press as if they were the enemies of democracy, publicly invite a foreign government to help your election campaign. It is even possible they knew they were breaking the law but took the view, so what? What are 'they' going to do about it? Elections are so rarely fiddled with in the US this is unprecedented territory for law enforcement, just as the grey area with Junior visiting India to sell the family brand to customers willing to part with millions of $$$. Then there is the money trail from Moscow to New York, the giant debt owed to Deutsche Bank and the possibility that the President is living on borrowed money because he has none of his own, which I think legally would have rendered him ineligible to run for public office. And so on.

From where I am and though the facts are not yet known, I think this is going to be a momentous year in American politics, it may even be a bigger story than Brexit, which I guess isn't much of a story in the US anyway.

No he doesn't ask his lawyers advise BEFORE going to the toilet , he calls his lawyers in AFTER the whole place is covered in shit.

[Stavros]

No he doesn't ask his lawyers advise BEFORE going to the toilet , he calls his lawyers in AFTER the whole place is covered in shit.

Sounds like another smear story....
..but has anyone noticed the trend where the people caught up in the investigations are not just lawyers but liars too, they even confess to being liars. Is this because they hold the law in contempt? I don't think I can recall so many people 'in the loop' on this who have admitted to lying and who seem to regard the law as a set of options rather than obligations. And is this not one of the ingredients that can lead, unchallenged, to a decline in the law and order regime that does so much to bind a democracy together?

[buttslinger]

..but has anyone noticed the trend where the people caught up in the investigations are not just lawyers but liars too, they even confess to being liars. Is this because they hold the law in contempt? And is this not one of the ingredients that can lead, unchallenged, to a decline in the law and order regime that does so much to bind a democracy together?

heck no, Stavros (is that your real name?) Lying means you're living, especially in a murder case, or a collusion with Russia case. Trump's lawyers probably make ten times what Mueller makes, because Mueller is armed only with the truth, Trump's team has the power. Even Jesus used to tell witnesses to his miracles not to tell anybody about this, but of course they all ran and told everyone they met. That's what got him crucified. In American Law, plead not guilty, and keep your mouth shut. If every American Congressman had a lie detector permanently implanted into his body, you'd find out quick Democracy depends on law and order as guidelines, rather than actual law and order. True Law and Order is the lie, that's why Police carry guns.
I'm thinking what John Book told Rachel Lapp after he dropped her off at the farm "there isn't going to be a trial"
Trump is duly elected to the office of President, and Commander-in-Chief, but it's just a temporary position. At least our Forefathers got that part right. Trump can fire Mueller, will the lying Republican Congress then fire Trump????????
Picasso said "art is the lie that tells the truth," if you tell a lie well enough, it's a work of art. I'd say on some level, almost everyone is living a lie, even the Evangelicals.
To make a long story short, when your boss asks you "is that your beer can?"
YES is always the wrong answer. Not because you have contempt for the Law, because you have contempt for your Boss.