Trump's Wall of Denials on Russia is Crumbling

The Washington Post on Trump's changing Russia stories and on Donald Trump, jr.

The New York Times broke the story. More on Trump jr's two different stories on Russia meetings.

< Sunday Open Thread: It's a Girl! | Mosul Liberated, ISIS Continues to Fight >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    "More Russians in this story (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by KeysDan on Mon Jul 10, 2017 at 12:28:45 PM EST
    than in 'War and Peace'."  writes Charlie Pierce (July 10, 2017), discussing the meeting in Trump Tower convened by Donnie Jr., of Miss Veselnitskaya,  Paul Manafort (nothing to do with the campaign, but included the Chairman of the Campaign), and Jared (All Purpose) Kushner.

    I really love (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jul 10, 2017 at 05:24:08 PM EST
    Not only that the Jrs first version was it was about adoptions but that the person actually wanted to talk about adoptions and when they realised that they walked out.

    These people are the dumbest spys evah.


    I have to think (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Sherpa on Mon Jul 10, 2017 at 04:50:26 PM EST
    the news today is like crumbs from a kid's table compared to what Mueller has in his back pocket.

    I think that is so right (none / 0) (#15)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jul 10, 2017 at 05:26:13 PM EST
    If we know what we know the mind boggles considering what Mueller knows.

    Seriously?!? (none / 0) (#63)
    by Yman on Tue Jul 11, 2017 at 12:30:11 PM EST
    He didn't disclose this one, too???

    Explains why (among other reasons) they're going to such lengths to push the claim that they didn't really know anything about her.


    Down and down and down we go (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jul 10, 2017 at 08:58:28 PM EST
    Breaking new NYTimes story this evening

    WASHINGTON -- Before arranging a meeting with a Kremlin-connected Russian lawyer he believed would offer him compromising information about Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump Jr. was informed in an email that the material was part of a Russian government effort to aid his father's candidacy, according to three people with knowledge of the email.


    I think that it would help if people knew ... (5.00 / 5) (#40)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Jul 10, 2017 at 10:33:34 PM EST
    ... exactly who Natalia Veselnitskaya is, and how she fits in to the scheme of things.

    Before he was summarily fired by Trump, then-U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara filed a criminal case against Denis Katsyv and his corporations, alleging the biggest tax heist in modern Russian history and the astonishing amount of work that went into laundering the proceeds from that $230 million robbery.

    Mr. Katsyv's attorney was Natalia Veselnitskaya. Sergei Leonidovich Magnitsky was the Russian lawyer and auditor who blew the whistle on Katsyv & Co., for which he was arrested by Russian intelligence operatives in 2009 and subsequently killed -- hence, the Magnitsky Act of 2012.

    This sub-story involving Junior's meeting with Ms. Veselnitskaya is indeed a very big fckn deal. She is no minor player.



    Sorry. Here's the link: (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Jul 10, 2017 at 10:34:44 PM EST
    The New York Times has further profiled ... (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Jul 12, 2017 at 06:44:25 AM EST
    ... Natalia Veselnitskaya, describing her as "a trusted insider, one who could be counted on to argue and win important high-profile court cases that matter to the government" and "the go-to lawyer for the Moscow regional government":

    "For years, she has been a lawyer for the Katsyv family, whose patriarch, Pyotr D. Katsyv, was minister of transportation of the Moscow region for more than a decade, and whose son was caught up in the New York money laundering case."


    "The family's trust in Ms. Veselnitskaya was rewarded in May, when she helped Denis P. Katsyv, Petr's son, fight the money laundering claims in New York brought by the Manhattan federal prosecutor at the time, Preet Bharara. Mr. Bharara tangled with Ms. Veselnitskaya several times and protested at one point that she had been charging the government for a $995-a-night room at the Plaza Hotel. The case was settled two months after Mr. Bharara was dismissed by President Trump."



    Thanks Donald... (none / 0) (#43)
    by desertswine on Mon Jul 10, 2017 at 11:50:45 PM EST
    That was very illuminating.

    Yes, it is. (5.00 / 3) (#45)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Jul 11, 2017 at 01:43:51 AM EST
    From what we learned tonight, it appears that Natalia Veselnitskaya's primary purpose was to get the Trump campaign to commit to seeking relief for those Russian oligarchs who'd been sanctioned by the provisions of the Magnitsky Act of 2012, in exchange for the Russian government's assistance on Trump's behalf against Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election. And if that's actually the case here, Quid, please make the acquaintance of Pro Quo.

    Not to mention the Russian money.. (none / 0) (#58)
    by desertswine on Tue Jul 11, 2017 at 11:51:40 AM EST
    laundering thru NY real estate "investments."

    Yep. (none / 0) (#85)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Jul 12, 2017 at 06:31:07 AM EST
    And also not to mention the cool $98 million that Russians have "invested" in Trump's Florida properties.

    Mobsters and oligarchs (none / 0) (#52)
    by Coral on Tue Jul 11, 2017 at 09:07:32 AM EST
    detailed in that story. Quite eye-opening.

    Agreed. And given what's further (5.00 / 2) (#70)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Jul 11, 2017 at 02:04:14 PM EST
    ... come to light this morning, I think the issue of collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government / oligarchy has now been established. It increasingly appears as though the Trump campaign may have struck the ultimate of Faustian bargains with the Putin regime.

    The resulting damage that's been inflicted upon our country is incalculable at this point. This unfolding cascade of revelations may eventually call into question the very legitimacy of the 2016 presidential election itself, which is something that hasn't happened since the prolonged Hayes-Tilden standoff of 1876-77. And then, we will be walking on untrodden political and legal grounds.

    Speaking for myself personally, I believe that what now needs to be determined is the actual extent of penetration achieved by the Russians into our country's various state elections systems and voter rolls in particular, the Republican Party hierarchy in general, and since January 20, perhaps the federal government itself.

    It's therefore very much worth our paying strict attention to this unfolding scandal. We could be bearing witness to what may become a wholly unprecedented, incredibly sad and very ugly chapter in U.S. history, one that could severely test this country's political institutions and rock its foundations to its core.



    It's becoming difficult to tell... (5.00 / 2) (#71)
    by desertswine on Tue Jul 11, 2017 at 02:27:37 PM EST
    where the Trump administration ends and the Russian mafia begins.  

    CNN's Gloria Borger gets my vote ... (none / 0) (#76)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Jul 11, 2017 at 07:58:31 PM EST
    ... for the most obtuse comment of the day, which I heard just a little while ago:

    "And Don Jr. clearly has not been involved in politics. But he is an American citizen. And you get this kind of an e-mail from Russia - even though you know the people who are tangentially involved, because don't forget you're dealing with a family who the patriarch was involved in the Miss Universe pageant with Donald Trump. So there is a relationship there. But you get this kind of an e-mail and you should shake your head and say, 'What are you talking about? And maybe we ought to get the FBI in on this.'"

    Yeah, sure, Gloria -- and President Nixon should have told White House Chief of Staff H.R. Halderman that it was wrong to involve the CIA in an attempt to derail the FBI's Watergate investigation, and that it was time to come clean with Congress and the American people. And if Elmer Fudd hadn't stopped at that tree to relieve himself, he would've caught that wascally wabbit, too.

    How long has our dear Gloria been doing this political analysis thing now? I swear, it's moments like these when I wonder if she's stoned and simply phoning it in, or if she really is as vapid an airhead as she seems.



    When you are not talking about someone named (none / 0) (#83)
    by ruffian on Wed Jul 12, 2017 at 05:44:20 AM EST
    Clinton, you give them every benefit of every doubt and only ascribe the purest of motives.

    Trumps (none / 0) (#30)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jul 10, 2017 at 09:10:15 PM EST
    lawyer is rolling Jr. under the bus and backing over him.

    But this seems huge to me (5.00 / 3) (#33)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jul 10, 2017 at 09:18:56 PM EST
    Not only did he know it was a Russian government action but explicitly knew they were trying to help his father get elected.

    This email clearly exists.  


    Yes, if all is true (none / 0) (#42)
    by KeysDan on Mon Jul 10, 2017 at 11:10:33 PM EST
    as reported (and apparently it is very well sourced), this is close to, if not, the smoking gun.  Don jr may be taking the fall; Jared needs priority protection.  Dad can always pardon the son...the boy was just over- protective and over -enthusiastic to defeat crooked Hillary. The deplorables will understand and maybe, even, the Judiciary Committee.  

    It seems (none / 0) (#49)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jul 11, 2017 at 08:17:39 AM EST
    huge to me too. It would be the first piece of evidence of collusion. It would seem this is just the tip of the iceberg on the collusion. At this point I'm wondering how many times did the Trump campaign meet with the Russians. In the hundreds?

    Lots of speculation (none / 0) (#32)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jul 10, 2017 at 09:15:07 PM EST
    About who these white house sources are.  Chris Hayes said the rumor is "Jareds people"

    This is getting very Byzantine.

    We may need more buses.


    Talk on Lawerence (none / 0) (#34)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jul 10, 2017 at 09:38:06 PM EST
    That perhaps it was a white house decision to hang this one on Jr to move it away from Jared.  This being Jareds THIRD undisclosed meeting.

    It would be irresponsible not to (none / 0) (#89)
    by KeysDan on Wed Jul 12, 2017 at 05:43:18 PM EST
    speculate on anything Trump, so here is mine:

    The Russians,of course,always knew about the meeting junior convened with Jared,Manafort, Natalia Vesellnitskaya, and a Russian "interpreter" (probably, a Russian agent).  And, therein, knew of the long period of Trump family/associates denials and lies.  

    And, the Russians had the email trail. It was released (via cut-outs) to the NYTimes as the horse-head in the bed. And jr. released his email trail, minutes beforehand after a weekend of serial lying.. Trump had better live up to his obligations, or more will come...Russians are not some Manhattan building tradesman who Trump can stiff with impunity.


    absolutely possible (none / 0) (#90)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jul 12, 2017 at 05:46:04 PM EST
    Donald Jr said today (i think) in an interview there "could be more meetings"

    i think that just about does it (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jul 11, 2017 at 10:57:17 AM EST
    Jr Releases EMail chain

    This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump," Goldstone, who represents the son of an Azerbaijani-Russian businessman close to Russian government, wrote in the email to Trump Jr.
    "If it's what you say I love it," Trump Jr. replied, according to the email he released.
    Trump Jr. tweeted out the emails after The New York Times first reported on the meeting between Trump Jr. and a Russian lawyer on Saturday. The Times subsequently reported that Trump Jr. had been informed that the information he was promised on Clinton was part of Russian government efforts to help his father's campaign.
    Trump Jr. tweeted that he was releasing the emails to be "totally transparent," but his release came moments before The New York Times published the emails.

    i was outside (none / 0) (#54)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jul 11, 2017 at 10:58:21 AM EST
    "pressure washing" until it got to hot and i come in and the subject is treason.

    I'm sticking with my earlier comment (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by Sherpa on Tue Jul 11, 2017 at 02:57:43 PM EST
    "the news today is like crumbs from a kid's table compared to what Mueller has in his back pocket."

    This is going to get very ugly.

    I think so too. (5.00 / 3) (#75)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jul 11, 2017 at 05:39:23 PM EST
    Especially since there are 2 investigations. People tend to forget that Schneiderman is conducting one in NY and there will be no pardons available for those crimes.

    When (5.00 / 3) (#92)
    by FlJoe on Thu Jul 13, 2017 at 05:23:03 AM EST
    all else fails. send out KAC to preform Subterranean White House Blues . The pump don't work because the vandals stole the handle, indeed.

    I Am Still Waiting For (3.00 / 2) (#2)
    by RickyJim on Mon Jul 10, 2017 at 01:13:12 PM EST
    a clear, unambiguous statement, or even reasonable conjecture, of what crime the Trump people (or Trump himself) committed.  It is amazing that after a year of such rumors, a reasonable accusation has yet to emerge.  If the serious thing is a coverup, I would like to know what was being covered up.

    I am confident the (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by oculus on Mon Jul 10, 2017 at 01:26:08 PM EST
    U.S./Russia Cyber Security committee will suss this out.  

    Lots of funny put downs (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jul 10, 2017 at 05:21:07 PM EST
    Of this from across the political spectrum but my favorite so far was,

    It's like the coyote asking the road runner to join him in banning dangerous ACME products.


    Probable (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by FlJoe on Mon Jul 10, 2017 at 01:32:29 PM EST
    crimes: include failure to register as foreign agents, failure to disclose contacts for security clearance.

    Possible crimes: lying to federal agents, perjury to congress and conspiracy in data theft, accepting stolen goods.


    "borders on treason, (none / 0) (#5)
    by KeysDan on Mon Jul 10, 2017 at 01:55:59 PM EST
    if it's not itself treason."  says Richard Painter, former White House lawyer in the George W. Bush Administration.  

    Don jr. has the right to remain silent, if not the common sense to do so.  I see another lawyering up, which is becoming a part of the Trump jobs addition program, with the wrinkle of substituting lawyers for coal miners.


    Daddy must have assured (none / 0) (#10)
    by oculus on Mon Jul 10, 2017 at 04:49:02 PM EST
    Jr. there's no need for Jr. to hire a lawyer.

    Jr has hired a lawyer (none / 0) (#12)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jul 10, 2017 at 05:19:08 PM EST
    And one of the more interesting parts of this is the white house came out immediately and said 'the president had no knowledge of this meeting'

    It's getting crowded under that bus.  When her turn comes Ivanka probably should not wear pink.  Earthtones.  Definitely.


    But.. but... (none / 0) (#17)
    by desertswine on Mon Jul 10, 2017 at 05:57:00 PM EST
    what about the orphans?

    Under the bus (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jul 10, 2017 at 05:59:49 PM EST
    It's of space available.  They are short.

    Turns out the female (none / 0) (#44)
    by oculus on Mon Jul 10, 2017 at 11:59:25 PM EST
    Russian attorney posted a photo of herself with Trump senior.

    She seems (none / 0) (#59)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jul 11, 2017 at 11:55:38 AM EST
    Quite a piece of work.  There is now an interview with her on MSNBC.   Bits of it have been played all day but it's probably online

    you know. (5.00 / 4) (#6)
    by Chuck0 on Mon Jul 10, 2017 at 02:16:19 PM EST
    Even if no actual crime was committed (not saying was or wasn't), do you really want a President with these optics? Do you want a US President that seemly doesn't care if a foreign government, a former (if not current) adversary meddle in our elections. Seriously? No crime. Who cares. Just all the surface appearances of impropriety and lack of ethics and integrity should give every American pause.

    They won't play their hand (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Lora on Mon Jul 10, 2017 at 02:51:26 PM EST
    Mueller et. al. won't make any statements until the investigation is concluded, I would think.

    And all the media should watch out for fake news and fake bait.


    A wide spread right wing talking point (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jul 10, 2017 at 05:28:53 PM EST
    Involves trying to make them "say something"

    I think we can be pretty confident that will have exactly zero impact on how Mueller conducts this.


    Collaborating with a foreign government (5.00 / 5) (#9)
    by Peter G on Mon Jul 10, 2017 at 03:25:18 PM EST
    to influence a U.S. election is an impeachable offense ("high crime or misdemeanor") under the Constitution, even if it is not a crime as defined in the U.S. criminal code. And there are also ordinary crimes being investigated, as pointed out in others' comments.

    You Didn't Answer My Question (1.00 / 1) (#19)
    by RickyJim on Mon Jul 10, 2017 at 06:03:40 PM EST
    Nobody has suggested a believable "collaboration" scenario.  If Russia was determined to help Trump win, how could he help the hackers?

    I didn't play your silly game (5.00 / 3) (#24)
    by Peter G on Mon Jul 10, 2017 at 07:48:33 PM EST
    But I did answer your question.

    They could help them know (none / 0) (#21)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jul 10, 2017 at 06:35:56 PM EST
    Which areas to hack and which to avoid.  And there is reporting they did exactly that.  If you do little googling (not going to do it for you) it's now known that areas with heavy democratic registration (around Dallas for one example) were hacked and republican areas next door were not.  There are many areas now reporting this

    That's one way. There are lots of others. I would suggest watching a little MSNBC.  

    That is if you actually want to know.


    Just to be VERY clear (none / 0) (#22)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jul 10, 2017 at 06:40:58 PM EST
    And there is reporting they did exactly that

    Means there is evidence this is how the hacking worked.  There is not yet public reporting proving any Americans provided this detailed in depth county by county information.  

    But most sane persons understand American help would be required for them to know this.

    I would say get comfortable.  Your questions will be answered.


    How could Trump help the hackers? (none / 0) (#26)
    by MKS on Mon Jul 10, 2017 at 07:54:10 PM EST
    Is that your question?  What is the quid pro quo?
    Really?  You can't put that together?

    First, by all accounts the hackers were the Russians.  They gave the hacked material to WikiLeaks.

    So, how could Trump help the hackers (the Russians)?  By doing what he is doing today--looking the other way on the Ukraine, weakening NATO, dismantling the EU, letting Russia have its way in Syria.



    So Your Criminal Accusation Against Trump Is (2.00 / 4) (#31)
    by RickyJim on Mon Jul 10, 2017 at 09:11:33 PM EST
    that during the election campaign he promised the Russians that he would do X, Y and Z in return for them putting hacked material, Trump knew would be detrimental to Clinton, on the Wickileaks website?

    In past discussion about other situations, posts with such evidence free (and I think improbable) accusations would be removed from TL.  But I guess times have changed.


    Heh, wait a minute (5.00 / 3) (#39)
    by MKS on Mon Jul 10, 2017 at 10:28:04 PM EST
    You asked for "conjecture" and "scenarios."  Those were your words.   And then you say responses to that question are out of bounds??????

    Very trollish......Not so honest, either.  


    No one here is leveling a criminal accusation (4.71 / 7) (#65)
    by Peter G on Tue Jul 11, 2017 at 12:47:50 PM EST
    That will be up to Mr. Mueller, who is quite properly taking his time and being careful. The rest of us are discussing interesting things that are appearing in the news, and trying to understand them. Evidence, if any, would be presented in court, or in a trial before the Senate.

    Well, you asked what (none / 0) (#35)
    by MKS on Mon Jul 10, 2017 at 10:16:39 PM EST
    underlying crime existed.  That is not in dispute.

    You asked about possible theories.   I gave you one.  I called it a theory.    

    And, the agreement need not be so specific as you state....an agreement could be simply we will help you because we think you will help us......

    And, you are aware of the Donald, Jr. stuff out during the last hour or two?  An email to Donny Jr. that the N. Y. Times said disclosed that the Russian government had dirt on Hillary and wanted to meet Donny  Jr. to discuss it.


    "Improbable" (none / 0) (#37)
    by MKS on Mon Jul 10, 2017 at 10:23:50 PM EST
    It is not improbable that Trump is pursuing a pro-Russian foreign policy that most Republicans reject.

    It is not improbable that the Russians hacked the DNC email and gave it to wikileaks to publish.

    Those are not only not improbable, but they are facts....

    Not much dot connecting left to do.


    "Believable" - heh (none / 0) (#47)
    by Yman on Tue Jul 11, 2017 at 07:27:29 AM EST
    It's funny how someone demanding "clear unambiguous" theories of criminality can use such subjective qualifiers.  There are plenty of believable theories out there, for those aren't choosing to put their fingers in their ears.

    How could who help the hackers? (none / 0) (#82)
    by ruffian on Wed Jul 12, 2017 at 05:38:42 AM EST
    The hackers did not need Trump's help. What Russia wants from Trump is relief from the sanctions. That has been crystal clear since before the convention. The email to Don clearly states that they wanted to further his father's presidential bid because the Russian government supports him, and they sent a lawyer that lobbies for sanction relief.

    What more exactly do you want?


    What is likely being covered up here ... (5.00 / 3) (#20)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Jul 10, 2017 at 06:24:32 PM EST
    ... is a pretty substantial Russian influence-peddling campaign in which the current President of the United States finds himself enmeshed in a rather tangled web. He's been financially dependent upon Russian investments to keep his various real estate businesses afloat, which renders him further beholden to the Putin-allied Russian oligarchy which supplies the cash. From Anne Applebaum's March 26, 2017 column in the Washington Post:

    "Russian private money has also played a role in Trump's career. Though Trump has said repeatedly that he has never invested in Russia, Russia has invested in him. Famously, Donald Trump Jr. declared in 2008 that Russian money made up a 'pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets.' More recently, a Reuters investigation showed that holders of Russian passports invested at least $98 million into seven Trump properties in Florida alone, a number that doesn't include any investors who hid their names behind anonymous shell companies.

    "Technically, none of this money had anything to do with the Russian state. But in practice, it likely won goodwill and influence for Russia. Over many years, and long before he became president, Trump repeatedly praised Russia and its president. In 2007, he declared that Putin is 'doing a great job.' In 2015, he described the Russian president as a 'man so highly respected within his own country and beyond.'

    "Just like Deripaska's payments to Manafort, the 'disproportionate' Russian investments in Trump's businesses, which Trump still owns, weren't bribes. They didn't involve the KGB, and they probably didn't include any secret payments either. The question now is whether our political system is capable of grappling with this particular form of modern Russian corruption at all. Congress cannot simply ask the question 'was this all legal,' because it probably was. Congress, or an independent investigator, needs to find a way to ask, 'was this moral,' because it surely wasn't, and 'does it constitute undue influence,' which it surely does." (Emphasis is mine.)



    The Watergate example (5.00 / 5) (#23)
    by MKS on Mon Jul 10, 2017 at 07:33:48 PM EST
    is a good one.

    The burglary at the Watergate was just a two-bit crime.  It was about breaking into Democratic Party files.

    Today, we have a hack of Democratic Party files.   Seems pretty similar to the Watergate burglary.

    Then, you have the cover up.  Nixon agreed with a one syllable response to have the CIA stop the FBI from its investigations.

    Here, we have Trump trying to get the heads of the CIA and DNI to stop Comey and the FBI.

    Nixon fired Archibald Cox to stop the Watergate investigation.

    Trump fired Comey to stop the Russia investigation.

    Good lord, Ricky, Fox News is not a good source of information.    


    I Don't Watch TV News, (1.00 / 1) (#25)
    by RickyJim on Mon Jul 10, 2017 at 07:51:20 PM EST
    unless you regard PBS's Frontline as a news program.  I am just a little bit surprised that Jeralyn is tolerating or even encouraging evidence free criminal accusations, even if Trump is personally loathsome.  

    The hack of the DNC (none / 0) (#27)
    by MKS on Mon Jul 10, 2017 at 07:56:49 PM EST
    files was a crime, you would agree?  

    So, that is an underlying crime.  What is so hard to understand about that?  


    The Criminal Liability of Trump & Co (1.00 / 1) (#28)
    by RickyJim on Mon Jul 10, 2017 at 08:56:22 PM EST
    Well, an impeachable, (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by MKS on Mon Jul 10, 2017 at 10:19:48 PM EST
    offense need not be a crime.

    Obstruction of Justice is a crime.  It is what got Nixon an impeachment vote in the House Committee.  


    You might want to take a look (5.00 / 5) (#64)
    by Peter G on Tue Jul 11, 2017 at 12:43:44 PM EST
    at 52 USC 30121, particularly subsection (a)(2). Hint: Opposition research is a "thing of value." Criminal enforcement, in the case of "knowing and willful" violations, falls under subsection (d) of section 30109, if I am reading it right.

    The Criminal Solicitation (none / 0) (#66)
    by RickyJim on Tue Jul 11, 2017 at 01:12:33 PM EST
    would be if Trump Jr knew that this "opposition research" was obtained in a criminal manner.  However,
    3 June 2016
    Rob Goldstone to Trump Jr
    Emin [Agalarov, a Russian pop star represented by Goldstone] just called and asked me to contact you with something very interesting.

    The Crown prosecutor of Russia met with his father Aras [a Moscow-based developer who tried to partner with Trump in a hotel project] this morning and in their meeting offered to provide the Trump campaign with some official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary [Clinton] and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father.

     Since it had to do with Clinton's dealings with Russia and not DNC hacking, it is hard to see what criminal intent those meeting with the Russian lawyer had.

    You should definitely sign up (5.00 / 7) (#68)
    by Peter G on Tue Jul 11, 2017 at 01:45:43 PM EST
    to be one of Donald Jr's defense lawyers. Keep thinking like that.

    I heard that Donald Jr.'s attorney is ... (none / 0) (#77)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Jul 11, 2017 at 08:07:26 PM EST
    as well as of the Benjamin N. Cardozo (none / 0) (#78)
    by Peter G on Tue Jul 11, 2017 at 08:39:55 PM EST
    School of Law, Yeshiva University, NYC. Cardozo was an interesting guy, not that that's relevant. Cardozo Law was the original home of the Innocence Project, not that that's relevant, either.

    Palzgraf v Long Island RR Co. (none / 0) (#79)
    by oculus on Tue Jul 11, 2017 at 08:58:18 PM EST
    My favorite Cardozo is (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by Peter G on Tue Jul 11, 2017 at 09:48:02 PM EST
    An uncommonly good writer. (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by oculus on Tue Jul 11, 2017 at 11:52:34 PM EST
    ... necessarily rest upon whether or not any actions undertaken by his campaign with the Russians on his behalf rise to the level of criminal liability.

    Rather, Congress need only decide if those actions were immoral and / or unethical, in order to determine whether they satisfy the "high crimes and misdemeanors" threshold needed to seek his removal from office through the impeachment process.

    Impeachment is a political decision.


    "Reasonable conjecture" (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by Yman on Tue Jul 11, 2017 at 07:52:40 AM EST
    Your "wait" is over.

    Ten lawyers queried, including academics, former prosecutors, and defense attorneys familiar with federal election and hacking laws, cite more than a dozen federal statutes that prosecutors could use to charge someone who collaborated with Russian intelligence to influence the 2016 election.

    and ...

    "There is a whole plethora of areas of potential criminal liability," says Tor Ekeland, a defense attorney who has represented clients in high-profile hacking cases in federal and New York courts. "To say that there is none is just willful ignorance in the service of propaganda."


    Sure - "Potential" Criminal Liability (1.00 / 2) (#50)
    by RickyJim on Tue Jul 11, 2017 at 09:00:09 AM EST
    The way the posters on this thread are celebrating, one would think that the known evidence for impeaching/locking up Trump and Co, for whatever, is much more convincing than that against Clinton for the emails.  I think not.  Objectivity should trump partisanship.  

    heres a quote from a federal (5.00 / 3) (#55)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jul 11, 2017 at 11:10:52 AM EST
    prosecutor.  see if you can understand this.  i will try to type slowly-

    "...by the way, it doesnt matter because in the note from Rob Goldstone he SAYS she is a government official, a government lawyer.  Donald Trump Jr knowingly accepted that meeting thinking it was a government lawyer ....which constitutes solicitation and a violation of federal election law"

    did i type slow enough?


    Makes a Rather Flimsy Criminal Case (1.00 / 1) (#56)
    by RickyJim on Tue Jul 11, 2017 at 11:24:48 AM EST
    Since when is it criminal solicitation to meet with somebody without any preconditions?  It seems to me that the lawyer, if anybody, was the one doing the solicitation.  OK, lock her up.  But of course, she denies she was doing any such thing or knowing about any dirt on Clinton.  Maybe Goldstone should be locked up for attempting to corrupt T Jr's morals.  :-)

    Sweet baby Jesus (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jul 11, 2017 at 11:38:53 AM EST
    Here is an additional quote -

    "...one of the things Donald Trump Jr has said is 'we got no information from that meeting' as tho that was a legal defense.  According to federal law to solicit or ask for any substantial information or contribution, whether it's given or not, is in itself a violation of the law"

    With that I'm done with you.

    You are a ridiculous troll and should simply be ignored.  You are not interested in having your stupid "questions" answered.  You are trolling.


    "Seems to me" - heh (none / 0) (#62)
    by Yman on Tue Jul 11, 2017 at 12:23:25 PM EST
    So how does your legal background compare to the numerous legal experts/attorneys that have been cited for you?  

    Uhhhmmm ... Yeah, "potential" (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by Yman on Tue Jul 11, 2017 at 12:18:51 PM EST
    1.  It's what you asked for.

    2.  If it wasn't "potential", he'd already be behind bars.

    3.  Your claim about HC, apart from being a ham-handed attempt to distract from your failed argument, is laughable.  HCs emails were thoroughly investigated and the investigators unanimously determined no charges should be brought.  Trump and his campaign are still under investigation, and every day more incriminating information is released.

    But feel free to lecture others about "objectivity".



    Charges should NOT be brought (none / 0) (#61)
    by Yman on Tue Jul 11, 2017 at 12:19:30 PM EST
    You say that as if, we aren't, as a nation, (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by Anne on Tue Jul 11, 2017 at 01:30:22 PM EST
    still completely fked if the House impeaches and the Senate convicts, given that the next in line is a man - Mike Pence - who might just be much more effective at attaining his goals than Trump.  Hell, if Pence got pulled into this and got the heave-ho, next in line is Paul Ryan, for heaven's sake.  Who among most of us here would celebrate that?

    Clinton is a private citizen; if you think she broke some laws, well, get on that and let us know how it goes.

    In the meantime, the rest of us will listen and read and assess and think and observe and will continue to express our opinions about the mounting evidence that collusion may be the least of the things Trump and his campaign may be guilty of.


    And unless enough House Republicans (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by Anne on Tue Jul 11, 2017 at 01:49:23 PM EST
    push for impeachment, that's never going to happen; they aren't going to risk a year on an impeachment proceeding, and a bloodbath in the mid-terms - because if the lose their majority, it won't matter if Attila the Hun is president, because with a Dem majority, the GOP isn't going to get its way on all the garbage it wants to legislate.

    Celebrating?  Hardly.  


    Agreed, we have on our hands, (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by KeysDan on Tue Jul 11, 2017 at 02:43:58 PM EST
    a conundrum wrapped in a dilemma. House Republicans will parrot Paul Ryan's excuse of Trump being "new" to this...unuse to these pesky protocols, and, besides, you know how kids can be; the Senate Republicans will reflect Orin Hatch (R.UT) that Donnie jr.'s emails are "not relevant and all this stuff about Trump's sons and daughter is a bunch of bunk."  And, of course, "moderates," such as McCain, will be  "troubled." and be prepared to write a stern letter.

    To make matters more concerning, we are faced with the prospects in the line of succession should the Trump/Russian investigations by Congressional committees, and, Mueller's investigation, essentially, dictate that impeachment proceeds. And, tax cuts have been realized and, at least, one other Supreme Court justice has been appointed.

     Pence and mother would surely continue right wing government with heavier overlays of theocracy, and may succeed at it, if a sense of kumbaya ensues after the end of the "national nightmare."

     But, my thinking is that Pence, while dangerous, would not have the cult following. And, in the interest of the nation, it is best to order priorities so as to rid ourselves of the national security threat that is Trump.


    while i do not think (none / 0) (#74)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jul 11, 2017 at 04:06:59 PM EST
    you cynicism is unjustified, i also think there could be a tipping point.

    where that could be i cant say but eventually it, IMO, could happen.   even with this congress.  you can already feel the ground shifting and the reaction of particularly senate republcans changing.

    the house, yes, is a different matter.  on the other hand what happens if Pence looks damaged enough and Paulie starts measuring the oval office for libertarian drapes?


    I dont think there will ever be (none / 0) (#84)
    by ruffian on Wed Jul 12, 2017 at 05:51:25 AM EST
    impeachment, even if the Dems get Congress back. What I do think is that there will eventually be intense pressure from Congress, and also just the weight of the legal matters and related stress and consumption of time, to resign. I think that will happen, possibly before the 2018 election if Congress feels threatened enough.

    I detest Pence and all he stands for, but he is not a crime boss, and I would much rather see him in the WH.


    I must disagree... (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by kdog on Wed Jul 12, 2017 at 08:15:09 AM EST
    President Pence is a slick televangelist hustler type political criminal...coupled with underbosses like McConnell and Ryan, they will succeed in implementing more of the radical right-wing economically & socially criminal agenda, where a Trump two-bit amateur gangster presidency drowning in scandal cannot.

    I think the best we can hope for is these investigations drag on till midterms, and the prideful naked emperor refuses to resign. If Brand D has successfully rebranded itself by then to take back the House and/or Senate, then it won't matter so much which a$$hole is president because there will be little coming to their desk they'll want to sign.  

    John Oliver needs to buy more ads on Fox & Friends reminding Trump that winners never quit!


    i also think (none / 0) (#88)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jul 12, 2017 at 03:58:48 PM EST
    resignation is quite possible.  ive been saying that for a while.  but it would come as you say as a result of pressure from republicans.  as kdog says to try to salvage their agenda.

    however, i also think its possible Trump will dig in.  he is an obstinate one.  i think he might decide to bone the republicans if they try to bone him.

    i think the "agenda" is dead in the water for the forseeable future.


    I doubt he would resign (none / 0) (#91)
    by Yman on Wed Jul 12, 2017 at 07:22:44 PM EST
    ... no matter what pressure is brought to bear, short of (maybe) a likely threat of impeachment.  His ego is just too YOOGE.

    Donnie Jr. admitted he "probably met with other people from Russia" during the campaign.  Might as well, given he's had to backtrack so many times and the cat's out of the bag, now.  Interesting non-denial, though, when Hannity asked him if he told his father about the Russian intel offer.

    "It was just such a nothing," he said. "There was nothing to tell."


    There (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by FlJoe on Thu Jul 13, 2017 at 11:54:33 AM EST
    is always the problem of him losing the immense power of the pardon pen. Him and his cronies have a virtual immunity from prosecution at the4 federal level(with at least some complications with individual states moving forward).

    I imagine Pence will offer tRump him a pardon as a parachute, but his cronies might not get the blanket protection, as they are liable to be labled as not true conservatives(or even evil liberals) the instant they are gone.

    Kushner et al might counsel him to stay no matter what to save their own skins.


    I think you are correct. (none / 0) (#93)
    by Chuck0 on Thu Jul 13, 2017 at 11:21:27 AM EST
    Since he can't admit fault for anything. Can't ever admit he's ever done anything wrong or take responsibility for anything that has gone awry, he won't quit. Everything is someone else's fault.

    Some possibilities here (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Coral on Tue Jul 11, 2017 at 09:05:45 AM EST
    FL Joe (none / 0) (#7)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jul 10, 2017 at 02:42:56 PM EST
    named the crimes and in this case it would seem the crimes are primary not the coverup though after Trump fired Comey there became the obstruction of justice allegation.

    until today (none / 0) (#38)
    by linea on Mon Jul 10, 2017 at 10:26:26 PM EST
    i would have agreed with you.

    but if substansiated, the report by the new york times would seem to indicate a wide range of federal crimes related to conspiracy to manipulate an election.  

    arranging a meeting with a Kremlin-connected Russian lawyer he believed would offer him compromising information about Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump Jr. was informed in an email that the material was part of a Russian government effort to aid his father's candidacy,