heywood on 20/10/2020 at 11:18
I hear Little St. James might be for sale. But I'm not sure Deutsche Bank would lend him the money to buy it.
demagogue on 20/10/2020 at 12:06
To answer your question nickie, conspiracy is a tricky crime to prosecute in this case because they'd have to show evidence of intentionally participating in what's understood as a shared criminal enterprise, like a member of a mafia family or terrorist cell procuring equipment to commit a crime or whatever their role is. There is now some evidence of actual coordination between the Trump campaign and Russian intelligence, certainly information sharing. But taking that to a jury to pull a shared enterprise to commit crimes out of it would be a gamble, at least as far as I know.
But anyway, the slam dunk prosecution would be for obstruction of justice, the way Trump transparently pressured witnesses, fired the people investigating him, and asked his own staff to withhold evidence or pressure the investigations, etc. They might add conspiracy to the mix, but when people talk about the importance of prosecuting him, they mean the obstruction charges.
Incidentally, one of my friends posted an op/ed piece (from last year, (
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2019/02/04/democrats-impeach-trump-accountability-watergate-gerald-ford-richard-nixon-column/2762361002/) "Watergate's lesson? If Democrats want to heal America, Trump must be held accountable") about why it's important that the president be prosecuted and not be allowed to skip town or have the next administration give him a pass like Ford did for Nixon.
----
That's a good point about whether Putin has any motivation to take Trump, which is what it'd come down to. If Trump's cult following continues or even radicalizes after an election uproar, then for Putin to have total control over Trump's fate I think would give him incredible power to destabilize the US for years to come. Also, Putin's own star is starting to fade. (There were some articles about that coming out today too.)
So I think Putin actually might take him because that kind of control over US politics might play well domestically for him, at least at the start. I could also imagine, as soon as Putin doesn't have a use for Trump anymore, he would dispose of him as fast as happened with Assange, and he'd be sent back to the US or wherever the next day. One factor is what Trump himself thinks about that possibility. He can be really delusional when tyrants complement him, so I could imagine him not factoring that possibility in.
Another factor is that a public trial of Trump could also be very destabilizing to the US, and I could imagine Putin thinking a trial would play more in his favor than protecting Trump, after he's no longer president and can't do any favors for him anymore. In fact, I could imagine Putin
then allowing whatever kompromat he has to get leaked to add to the instability -- apparently the Russian hooker videos at the least, but I always suspected there's more, since if Americans didn't care about the "grab 'em by the p*ssy" comment, would they really care that Trump had some Russian hookers or instructed them to urinate on "Obama's bed"? Maybe ... because it's on video. But I thought it would have to be worse than that. Anyway we don't have all the information, just some credible tidbits that have gotten out.
----
Edit: By the way, can we just step back and consider how completely bonkers this entire situation is? I studied political science in college and then went to law school, and never until recently would it ever have occurred to me that one day I'd say, completely seriously, something like: "for [the Russian President] to have total control over [the US President]'s fate I think would give him incredible power to destabilize the US for years to come... So I think [he] actually might take [him] because that kind of control over US politics might play well domestically for him, at least at the start. I could also imagine, as soon as [the Russian President] doesn't have a use for [the US President] anymore, he would dispose of him..." That's where we are now.
Starker on 20/10/2020 at 12:52
The case Lord Dampnut is an unindicted co-conspirator in (Individual 1) does not have anything to do with Russia, but violating campaign finance law AKA the stuff Michael Cohen is in prison for and that the DOJ for some reason... khm... did not want to pursue further.
demagogue on 20/10/2020 at 13:18
Right, the campaign finance violations, among other things including the unreported payoff to the porn star.
That hasn't been reported on for so long, I'd almost forgotten about it, and I didn't research it like the others.
Yes I suppose that will be in the mix as well, since I thought it was apparent the only reason he wasn't indicted was because of sovereign immunity.
And IIRC embezzlement of campaign funds is in that mix too, happening even more this campaign than the 2016 one.
Edit: Speaking of prosecutions, and nevermind that (
https://www.mediamatters.org/fox-news/foxs-news-division-reportedly-passed-giulianis-hunter-biden-story-it-still-cant-stop) even Fox News didn't want to report on the Hunter Biden "email leak" fiasco, even the authors of the actual NY Post article on it requested that their names not appear and 50 former intelligence officials signed a (
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/10/19/hunter-biden-story-russian-disinfo-430276) letter that it was a transparent Russian disinformation campaign (and a lot of other crazy parts to that story involving the Ukraine, Russia, Giuliani, the FBI investigation, and the timeline for the whole thing), Trump is going all out with the Hunter gambit anyway -- (
https://www.nytimes.com/live/2020/10/20/us/trump-biden-election/in-an-extraordinary-move-trump-urges-barr-to-investigate-bidens-son) In an extraordinary move, Trump urges Barr to investigate Biden's son
Edit 2: Another (
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/19/nyregion/jean-carroll-trump-rape-lawsuit.html?smid=fb-share) tiny story on the side, Barr is arguing that the president should be immune for testimony related to rape charges while president (i.e., that a denial is an official presidential act not subject to a perjury claim), which is fascinating because he's arguing against his own argument that the president shouldn't be immune for that during the Clinton impeachment back in 1998.
nbohr1more on 20/10/2020 at 17:17
DNI John Rattcliffe claims that the Hunter Biden emails are not a Russian Disinfo campaign.
Fox News lawyers have reviewed the email metadata and claim that the messages are authentic.
We still need the raw releases to confirm.
SubJeff on 20/10/2020 at 18:31
You guys are too into the weeds.
Renzatic on 20/10/2020 at 20:10
It's gonna be entertaining watching this one play out, that's for sure.
Renzatic on 20/10/2020 at 20:27
Quote Posted by nbohr1more
DNI John Rattcliffe claims that the Hunter Biden emails are not a Russian Disinfo campaign.
To counter:
(
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/10/19/hunter-biden-story-russian-disinfo-430276)
Quote:
Fox News lawyers have reviewed the email metadata and claim that the messages are authentic.
Got a link for that? I've searched Fox News, and all their stories on it state that all the information they're presenting is alleged, supposed, and not verified, much like everything everyone is writing about this, pro or con. It's all speculation at this point. Nothing has been officially confirmed.
Tocky on 21/10/2020 at 04:36
Yeah. The Elaine dance.
This sheds some light on the nothing burger.
(
https://www.snopes.com/news/2020/10/15/hunter-biden-laptop-giuliani/) https://www.snopes.com/news/2020/10/15/hunter-biden-laptop-giuliani/
The part most pertinent- The “smoking gun” message is embedded in the story. It was allegedly sent by Burisma board adviser Vadym Pozharskyi in April 2015, and read, “Dear Hunter, thank you for inviting me to DC and giving an opportunity to meet your father and spent [sic] some time together. It's realty [sic] an honor and pleasure.”
The story didn't offer any other evidence that a meeting between Joe Biden and Pozharskyi ever took place, and the Biden campaign responded by stating that it did not. A Biden campaign spokesman told the New York Times, “We have reviewed Joe Biden's official schedules from the time and no meeting, as alleged by the New York Post, ever took place.”
Now that I think about it the spelling mistakes make it seem more like a Trump supporter forgery.