Trump and Russia; Spasiba, Harasho!

[Svartalf]

that's the problem with trump, he thinks that speaking the plain truth is motive to fire you

[Scot Dutchy]

Trump does not think. His primitive brain cell recognises friend or foe.

[Tero]

Trump lawyers prepping for potential Mueller interview
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/03/ ... ers-463817
It is standard practice for attorneys to anticipate prosecutors’ likely questions and craft draft responses for their clients. If an interview between Mueller and Trump is scheduled, Trump and his lawyers may even war-game the session in advance, much as candidates stage mock debates to prepare themselves for opponents.

Some of the bargaining between Trump’s lawyers and Mueller has spilled into the media. A Wall Street Journal story published last Friday said Trump’s lawyers were considering offering the special counsel a sit-down interview — but only with conditions, such as a deadline for Mueller to wrap up portions of the probe specifically involving Trump.

Solomon Wisenberg, a former deputy on Kenneth Starr's independent counsel investigation into President Bill Clinton, said that idea would be a non-starter for Mueller.

[Brian Peacock]

Nah. A bonafide stable genius wouldn't need to train for that kind of interview, and a raconteur of Trump's stature already has the skills needed to wing it, easy. Why would he pay people who are dummer than him to tell him what's the clever thing to say?

[Tero]

Mueller: I hear they gave pee-pee tapes of you
Trump: fake bews!

Like that?

[Tero]

The Opening Argument in the Trial of Donald J. Trump

May it please the court. Ladies and gentlemen: This is a simple case about a plot hatched during the 2016 presidential election. The story begins with close business contacts between the Defendant, Donald John Trump, and Russian oligarchs, including some who obtained and distributed illegally hacked emails belonging to the Democratic Party in order to help Trump win. It continues with Trump and his associates—after receiving stolen goods—promising a major favor to the Russians in return for their criminal activity. And it ends with the Defendant Trump trying to cover up his crimes. Actually, the true end of the story is in your hands—when justice and accountability are restored.
The Defendant Trump and members of his staff promised—publicly and privately—that after being sworn in, the new president would drop U.S. government sanctions against the Russian government and Russian oligarchs who are close to Russian President Vladimir Putin. The stolen emails and a variety of other illegal Russian efforts to hurt the Clinton campaign were the currency the Russians used to barter for sanctions relief.

What was the motive for the crime?

For Trump, it was to use any edge he could to win the election, even if it was clearly illegal, and to stay on good enough terms with Russian oligarchs to allow himself and his family and associates loan relief and other business deals with them if he lost.

That quid pro quo is the criminal conspiracy at the heart of this case. As you will learn, a criminal conspiracy means that the people involved had a mutual agreement, spoken or unspoken, to commit acts that were illegal. They didn’t have to sit in some dark room plotting or tell each other to commit crimes. An informal understanding to break the law constitutes a conspiracy.

For the Russians, the motive was to harm Hillary Clinton, who as secretary of state under President Obama had been critical of their behavior and pushed successfully for sanctions against the Russian government and oligarchs. They saw a chance to both win sanctions relief and fulfill a longstanding plan to disrupt American elections.

You will hear testimony that Trump and his campaign manager, Paul Manafort, a longtime pro-Russian lobbyist, had extensive financial ties to Russians through the Bank of Cyprus and other banks and a series of real estate investments and golf club developments that offered Russian oligarchs a way to launder their dirty money. Russians lent tens of millions of dollars to both Trump and Manafort, leaving both indebted to criminals who hoped to collect at least partly through new American policies toward oligarchs.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-openi ... itter_page

[Forty Two]

The Opening Argument in the Trial of Donald J. Trump

May it please the court. Ladies and gentlemen: This is a simple case about a plot hatched during the 2016 presidential election. The story begins with close business contacts between the Defendant, Donald John Trump, and Russian oligarchs, including some who obtained and distributed illegally hacked emails belonging to the Democratic Party in order to help Trump win.

This means the prosecution has taken on the burden of proving: (a) contacts between DJT and specific oligarchs which relates not to "business" but to a "plot hatched during the 2016 election." Add to that the prosecution has to prove that emails were illegally obtained and distributed.

Neither of those facts has been supported by a shred of evidence in published media. The prosecution better have witnesses, and evidence, that show that DJT and Russians hatched a plot, and that emails were illegally hacked from the Democratic Party -- not that the Democratic Party "claims" they were illegally hacked - but there will need to be computer forensics and a witness that will testify to how the hack occurred and when. Recall, that there was information published about the emails which referenced it being more likely the emails were "downloaded locally" than hacked from abroad.

It continues with Trump and his associates—after receiving stolen goods—promising a major favor to the Russians in return for their criminal activity.

Assuming the information was "stolen" (proof beyond a reasonable doubt), the prosecution now needs to prove via evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that DJT received the information before it was public. It was published by Wikileaks. The only allegation ever that DJT received the information before Wikileaks released it turned out to be a complete fraud.

If you're going to allege this, then you have to name the associates, and explain what was promised and what was the criminal activity in return. Who is going to testify to this? What evidence will be admitted to prove it?

And it ends with the Defendant Trump trying to cover up his crimes.

How? What was covered up?

Actually, the true end of the story is in your hands—when justice and accountability are restored.
The Defendant Trump and members of his staff promised—publicly and privately—that after being sworn in, the new president would drop U.S. government sanctions against the Russian government and Russian oligarchs who are close to Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Evidence? And, the President can roll back executive branch imposed sanctions when he wants to. Not sure what this has to do with anything. Congress can impose whatever legislative sanctions it wants, but if one President issues an executive order on sanctions, it doesn't become sacrosanct or immutable.

The stolen emails and a variety of other illegal Russian efforts to hurt the Clinton campaign were the currency the Russians used to barter for sanctions relief.

Good luck proving that. First, the emails haven't even been proven beyond reasonable doubt to have been stolen. The prosecution needs evidence. Second, a reference to "a variety of other illegal Russian efforts" requires proof. What law was violated, by whom and how? By posting Facebook ads for and against Trump? That's illegal?

What was the motive for the crime?

Motive only becomes relevant once you've proved that there was, in fact, a crime.

For Trump, it was to use any edge he could to win the election, even if it was clearly illegal, and to stay on good enough terms with Russian oligarchs to allow himself and his family and associates loan relief and other business deals with them if he lost.

You'll have a witness who can testify to this? There is evidence that Trump had a motive to commit crimes to become elected? I'd love to see the proof. What have you been reading that shows this, Tero?

That quid pro quo is the criminal conspiracy at the heart of this case. As you will learn, a criminal conspiracy means that the people involved had a mutual agreement, spoken or unspoken, to commit acts that were illegal. They didn’t have to sit in some dark room plotting or tell each other to commit crimes. An informal understanding to break the law constitutes a conspiracy.

There has to be proof beyond a reasonable doubt that there was such an agreement. Who will testify? What documents will be introduced as evidence?

For the Russians, the motive was to harm Hillary Clinton,

Not a crime. The Sedition Acts were repealed a long time ago, and they were found not to be constitutional even as to a sitting President. Wishing to harm the election chances of a candidate for President is not even immoral, much less a crime.

who as secretary of state under President Obama had been critical of their behavior and pushed successfully for sanctions against the Russian government and oligarchs. They saw a chance to both win sanctions relief and fulfill a longstanding plan to disrupt American elections.

Oh.... my .... god... the prosecution will prove that the Russians were acting to advance their own national interests, and to get policies enacted in the US that are favorable to them? This cannot be true. This is criminal. The only country that gets to advance its agenda its the US. Other countries are to sit on their hands, and do nothing or it's criminal.

You will hear testimony that Trump and his campaign manager, Paul Manafort, a longtime pro-Russian lobbyist, had extensive financial ties to Russians through the Bank of Cyprus and other banks and a series of real estate investments and golf club developments that offered Russian oligarchs a way to launder their dirty money.

Having financial ties to Russia is not a crime. I hope you have proof of that Trump offered Russians a way to launder dirty money. Let's see what evidence will be offered.

Russians lent tens of millions of dollars to both Trump and Manafort, leaving both indebted to criminals who hoped to collect at least partly through new American policies toward oligarchs.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-openi ... itter_page

It's not illegal to borrow money from Russian banks. You can prove beyond a reasonable doubt, if you think you can, that Trump is "indebted to criminals" and not a bank, but if you think there has been any published evidence of that to date, you haven't been paying much attention.

With that opening statement, the prosecution has given itself a gargantuan task. Prove a laundry list of allegations which have been made, but never substantiated thus far. Let's hope for the prosecutor's sake he has some evidence to offer, because if all he has is what's been published in the media so far, he will be disbarred and sued for libel and slander.

[Brian Peacock]

In that case why is there even a need investigation? There's no evidence in the media, and what evidence there is is #FAKENEWS anyway. If only the outcome of all investigations could be determined so easily, not to mention cheaply.

[Forty Two]

In that case why is there even a need investigation? There's no evidence in the media, and what evidence there is is #FAKENEWS anyway. If only the outcome of all investigations could be determined so easily, not to mention cheaply.

Good question.

There is no evidence in the media. If there was, you'd just have to take one point from that opening statement and point to the evidence. There isn't. Even on the most basic points - like "illegal stolen emails from the Democratic Party." There is no evidence that anyone illegally stole anything. The fact that the Democratic Party says they didn't want it public and think it must have been stolen is necessary, but not sufficient. It could have been a person with access to the info downloading a copy and providing it to Wikileaks. To prove the allegation beyond a reasonable doubt there has to be some evidence of illegal access to obtain the info. Is there? You tell me.

On the appointment of Robert Mueller to helm the Trump-Russia probe, Harverd Law Professor Emeritus, Alan Dershowitz (says he voted for Hillary - registered Democrat) called it a "big mistake" as "we have learned nothing." "We've learned the lesson that the appointment of a special counsel was a big mistake," he said. "We've learned nothing, either because there is nothing or it's behind closed doors. There should have been an independent commission -- bipartisan, nonpartisan -- in order to learn how the Russians tried to manipulate this election and to prevent them from doing it in the future."

Dershowitz said both Republicans and Democrats are guilty of throwing around accusations of criminal behavior in response to any behavior they dislike. “There is no crime to create a dossier, unless somebody said to somebody else, ‘Do something criminal, hack the Democratic National Committee, do something illegal,’ but just gathering negative information, it’s not a crime. “[N]either side has committed crimes. There never should have been a special counsel appointed. There should have been an independent, bipartisan commission, like the Warren Commission that we’re hearing about so much about now, like the 9/11 Commission. Let them look into whether there was any collaboration between either side. All Americans have a right to know that. But this finger-pointing and lock them up has to stop. Because it endangers our Constitution, our civil liberties, and the rule of law.”

Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz on Monday said President Trump was within his rights as commander in chief when he fired former FBI director James Comey, and warned Democrats trying to take him down on obstruction of justice charges that they won't succeed.

"You cannot charge a president with obstruction of justice for exercising his constitutional power to fire Comey and his constitutional authority to tell the Justice Department who to investigate, who not to investigate. That's what Thomas Jefferson did, that's what Lincoln did, that's what Roosevelt did. We have precedents that clearly establish that." https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/alan ... onal-power

“Sen. Feinstein simply doesn’t know what she’s talking about when she says it’s obstruction of justice to do what a president is completely authorized to do under the Constitution,” saidMr. Dershowitz, Harvard Law School professor emeritus. “The president could have pardoned [Former White House National Security Adviser Michael] Flynn if he were really thinking about trying to end this investigation. He would have pardoned Flynn, and then Flynn wouldn’t be cooperating with the other side, and the president would have had the complete authority to do so.

“Flynn never would have been indicted, never would have turned as a witness against him, so I think the fact that the president hasn’t pardoned Flynn — even though he has the power to do so — is very good evidence there’s no obstruction of justice going on here,” Mr. Dershowitz said. “There’s never been a case in history where a president has been charged with obstruction of justice for merely exercising his constitutional authority,” the lawyer said. “That would cause a constitutional crisis in the United States.” https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/20 ... truction-/

[pErvinalia]

So why was there at least three(?) separate investigations? I suppose it was all Hillary's fault...

[Joe]

Blame the Dutch. They hacked the hackers.

[Scot Dutchy]

Oh blame us. The English do.

[Joe]

Oh blame us. The English do.

That was humor. The Netherlands wins the decade for intelligence operations.

As we say here in America, you did us a solid!

[Forty Two]

So why was there at least three(?) separate investigations? I suppose it was all Hillary's fault...

Generally, they were supposed to be investigating Russian actions. That's not the same thing as investigating Trump.

The special prosecutor was appointed to investigate "links/coordination between the Russian government and members of the Trump campaign." Plus, any matters that arise "directly" from that investigation, and any matters within 28 Code of Federal Regulation 600.4(a) (perjury, obstruction of justice, destruction of evidence, and intimidation of witnesses).

The House and Senate intelligence committees have numerous investigations on various issues. There is nothing at all wrong with investigating Russia's conduct during the 2016 or any election cycle.

The House and Senate are not criminal investigations, of course. Congressional investigations can investigate anything they want. They are by their nature political, with the political factions maneuvring and pushing their agendas. They can investigate "collusion" even if that collusion is not criminal, illegal or even unethical. The House committee found no collusion, of any kind, criminal or non-criminal.

The Senate is still going on because the anti-Trump forces have greater power in the Senate than in the House.

Note how the Guardian headlined the House committee finding no collusion. They made sure to put in the headline that a "Trump ally" was leading it. Well, do they do that when they talk of the Mueller investigation, and how gobs of Democrat allies are leading the investigation? No. They don't. Why? Because the Guardian, like most other media outlets, are anti-Trump, and they publish accordingly.

I think Dershowitz's suggestion - which he's maintained since before the Special Prosecutor was appointed - makes the most sense. Invesigate like crazy, but do it with a 9/11 style commission, that has a real cross section of interests, and a real attempt at neutrality.

If these investigations were really neutral fact-finding missions, we would not be inundated with constant streams of leaks that turn out to be false, and constant political pontification by Schiff and his crew, and constant similar pontifications by Nunes and his crew.

I don't absolve the pro-Trump Republicans of this. They are out to end the investigation regardless of the Truth, just like the Democrats want him hanged however they can.

Mark my words - if the Democrats take the House, Trump will be impeached. He may not lose, but he will go through what Clinton went through. An impeachment trial. Impeachment is political.

[Scot Dutchy]

I know.