Trump's America

[Griffon64]

I agree with Frelga. I've seen so many pollyanna remarks today "Oh, this changes everything!" No, it changes nothing. Trump Jr can be perfectly open and frank about breaking the law because breaking the law no longer matters in America as long as you are in power. The GOP openly places party before country. They will simply close ranks and ignore any illegal behavior in order to ensure that they retain power. And their supporters will rationalize, ignore, or distort as needed in order to do the same. Donald J Trump was not wrong when he said he could shoot someone in the street and his supporters will still support him.

To me this is beyond appalling. In South Africa something similar is playing out with Jacob Zuma and the Guptas. Up until Donald Trump's election I believed in America as a democracy and a free country. I believed that Americans respected the law and that something like the mess that is South African governance would never happen here. I no longer believe any of that. Corruption, power ( from the leaders ), and ignorance and blind party loyalty ( from the supporters ) looks like same no matter what part of the world you're in.

If you ever wanted proof that all humans are equal, this is the most stark, convincing proof you will ever get.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

We'll see. I'm no polyanna, but I also doubt that Robert Mueller will ignore this kind of clear evidence of illegal conduct (which I never thought would come to light). I am willing to wait to see the process play out before I completely give up hope in the U.S.

[Primula Baggins]

We've been here before, and the president in question was forced to resign in disgrace to avoid being impeached. It took a few years, but it happened.

[Frelga]

This is not a Nixon situation. To paraphrase Pratchett, the Nixon situation was a cameo, whereas this is a full-size triptych showing scenes from history, the creation of the world and with a matching chapel ceiling portraying the glorious firmament.

[Primula Baggins]

I remember it as being rather serious. This has more moving parts. But if Nixon had gotten away with his crimes, I'd argue that the damage to the country would have been similar.

[yovargas]

Donald Trump, Jr. posted emails proving conclusively that he, Jared Kushner, and Paul Manafort all broke the law. You almost never see such clearcut evidence of wrongdoing. And yet, I would not at all be surprised if they get away with it still.

Legal experts divided on whether Donald Trump Jr. broke the law

I am far from a legal expert but it doesn't seem to me like there is a truly clear-cut law broken here.

[River]

It's sort of like:

"Oh hi honey, you're late."

"I wasn't bonking your best friend."

"Uh..."

"She had a headache so we snuggled and watched an episode of Sex in the City."

"Here's your suitcase and there's the door."

"But I'm being transparent!"

"I'll be contacting you through my attorney as soon as I find one."

There have already been reports from Colorado, one of the few states with a positive response to the request, of voters withdrawing from the registration rolls to protect their information.

I hadn't heard that. It would be a silly thing to do, seeing as any douche with $50 and a few minutes can get all that information burned to a CD courtesy of the state.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Donald Trump, Jr. posted emails proving conclusively that he, Jared Kushner, and Paul Manafort all broke the law. You almost never see such clearcut evidence of wrongdoing. And yet, I would not at all be surprised if they get away with it still.

Legal experts divided on whether Donald Trump Jr. broke the law

I am far from a legal expert but it doesn't seem to me like there is a truly clear-cut law broken here.

You're looking too hard. I'm not talking about treason, or collusion, or conspiracy, or any of the other vague concepts discussed in that Daily News article (I would otherwise avoid reading anything in the Daily News or NY Post but since you posted it I felt duty-bound to read it). I'm talking only about the law making it illegal for a candidate or his or her campaign to solicit, accept or receive anything of value from a foreign national. Negative information about your opponent clearly is something of great value to a candidate, and Trump, Jr. explicitly admitted that was what he was looking for, not just from a foreign national, but from an adversarial foreign government. That's as clear-cut as it gets.

I find it amusing that apparently Trump, Jr. released the emails at Julian Assange's recommendation, but Assange criticized him for doing so himself rather than anonymously through WikiLeaks because this way it can be used as evidence against him.

[yovargas]

I'm talking only about the law making it illegal for a candidate or his or her campaign to solicit, accept or receive anything of value from a foreign national. Negative information about your opponent clearly is something of great value to a candidate, and Trump, Jr. explicitly admitted that was what he was looking for, not just from a foreign national, but from an adversarial foreign government. That's as clear-cut as it gets.

But to me, it doesn't look like he clearly did "solicit, accept or receive anything of value from a foreign national". He just said that if a foreign national did have anything of value, he would happily accept or receive it. That's a very fine line but not one that (again, to me) sounds clearly illegal. It is, to use River's analogy, the difference between "I cheated on my spouse by having an affair with that person" and "If that person wanted to have an affair with me, I would totally cheat on my spouse with them". Scum either way but the latter seems like it would be a legal grey area to me.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Once he attended the meeting with the intent of receiving the information, he has solicited the information.

[yovargas]

Even if he wasn't the one who asked for the meeting?

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Absolutely. If I contact you and say that I have a bunch of stolen property that I want to give you, and you say, "great, bring it on over" you are just as guilty of receiving stolen property as you would be if you contacted me and asked if I had any stolen property.

Moreover, if you read the email chain, it is actually Junior who first suggests contacting the person with the information, not knowing yet about the lawyer.

Also, the stories that the various people are telling don't line up. The Russian lawyer not only denies that she ever had or offered information about Clinton, she also claims that she was meeting with Junior as a private individual, not as a representative of the Trump campaign. Well if that were the case, why did the meeting include the then campaign manager, Paul Manafort, and Trump's closest advisor, his son-in-law (and Junior's brother-in-law), Jared Kushner?

[yovargas]

Absolutely. If I contact you and say that I have a bunch of stolen property that I want to give you, and you say, "great, bring it on over" you are just as guilty of receiving stolen property as you would be if you contacted me and asked if I had any stolen property.

I guess where I'm getting hung up is that this still doesn't show evidence that there was "stolen property" to get, just a willingness to get some if some showed up. Doesn't that make a difference?

[River]

I don't think it does. That's why sting operations work the way they do. The person willing to engage in criminal activity is busted by undercover cops just for trying.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Generally speaking, in order to be guilty of a crime, you have to have the requisite mens rea, basically the intent to commit the crime, and the requisite actus reus, basically the action necessary to commit the crime. That varies from crime to crime. For instance, in the example that I gave, if I contact yov and say I want to deliver to him some stolen property and he says great, and we arrange a meeting to do so, he has the sufficient mens rea to commit the crime of receiving stolen property. However, if the meeting does not actually result in him receiving stolen property, it may be that he only could be charged with attempted receiving stolen property, which is still a crime, but a lesser crime, because he would only have the requisite actus reus for attempted receiving stolen property, not actually receiving stolen property. But the crime of soliciting campaign contributions from a foreign national is a little different, because he would not actually have to receive something of value in order to solicit something of value. It should be sufficient that he thought that was what he was doing (and similar that Manafort and Kushner thought they were doing) when they met up with the Russian lawyer.

[yovargas]

Very interesting. Thanks, V-man!

[Frelga]

What if he thought he was receiving stolen property, but the property he received wasn't stolen? A general question, not about the Jr situation.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

That would be attempted receiving stolen property.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Meanwhile:

[yovargas]

O M G



Steven's face!

Capture.JPG (40.12 KiB) Viewed 8162 times