Just some fluffer stuff from July 11th thru July 16th 2017
Just some fluffer stuff from July 11th thru July 16th 2017
Imagine your boss or a client sends you an email informing you of a meeting. What do you do? Do you read the entire email so you’ll be prepared or do just guess and wing it? You’d probably read the email so you’re prepared. Jared Kushner, though, who is supposedly a very successful businessman, apparently just wings it — at least according to his defense in regards to the Russian meetings. The Secret Service Just Shut Down the rich asshole’s Lawyer And It’s Brilliant
some rich asshole and his lawyer’s excuses for the meeting his son (some rich asshole Jr.) had with Russians just went from bad to worse. Now they want to throw the secret service under the bus. But the ‘Men In Black’ are not having it.
On Sunday the rich asshole’s lawyer, Jay Sekulow told ABC’s ‘This Week’ that if meeting with the Russians was criminal than the Secret Service would have stepped up and stopped it.
If this was nefarious, why’d the Secret Service allow these people in? The president had Secret Service protection at that point. That raised a question with me.
What in the world? Really, nefarious? Who uses that word? I digress, It was so bad, the secret service actually responded! And those men are very private. In a statement made to Reuters on Sunday, Secret Service spokesman Mason Brayman said,
some rich asshole, Jr. was not a protectee of the USSS in June, 2016. Thus we would not have screened anyone he was meeting with at that time.
In other words, ‘keep our names out of your mouth’. According to their website, the secret service is authorized to protect immediate family members of the president, vice president, the president-elect, the vice president-elect, as well as other individuals in the presidential line of succession. And since in June the rich asshole wasn’t the President, the rich asshole wasn’t their problem.
Adjust your argument Sekulow, your desperation is showing. View video below,
no 45's lawyer lying
some rich asshole and his lawyer’s excuses for the meeting his son (some rich asshole Jr.) had with Russians just went from bad to worse. Now they want to throw the secret service under the bus. But the ‘Men In Black’ are not having it.
On Sunday the rich asshole’s lawyer, Jay Sekulow told ABC’s ‘This Week’ that if meeting with the Russians was criminal than the Secret Service would have stepped up and stopped it.
If this was nefarious, why’d the Secret Service allow these people in? The president had Secret Service protection at that point. That raised a question with me.
What in the world? Really, nefarious? Who uses that word? I digress, It was so bad, the secret service actually responded! And those men are very private. In a statement made to Reuters on Sunday, Secret Service spokesman Mason Brayman said,
some rich asshole, Jr. was not a protectee of the USSS in June, 2016. Thus we would not have screened anyone he was meeting with at that time.
In other words, ‘keep our names out of your mouth’. According to their website, the secret service is authorized to protect immediate family members of the president, vice president, the president-elect, the vice president-elect, as well as other individuals in the presidential line of succession. And since in June the rich asshole wasn’t the President, the rich asshole wasn’t their problem.
Adjust your argument Sekulow, your desperation is showing. View video below,
no 45's lawyer lyingExclusive: Video shows the rich asshole with associates tied to email controversy
Washington (CNN) Video obtained exclusively by CNN offers a new look inside the web of relationships now at the center of allegations of collusion between the rich asshole campaign associates and Russia.
Goldstone, who is also seen in the video talking with the rich asshole, claimed in the 2016 emails that damaging information against Hillary Clinton surfaced after a meeting between someone Goldstone described as "the Crown prosecutor of Russia" and Aras Agalarov, an Azerbaijani-Russian billionaire with ties to Russian President Vladimir Putin. Goldstone then offered to set up a call between the younger the rich asshole and Emin Agalarov, the billionaire's son and a pop star Goldstone represents, to discuss the information.
some rich asshole Jr. does not appear in the video obtained by CNN, but several other top the rich asshole associates do -- including the rich asshole's personal attorney, Michael Cohen, and his long-time aide and current director of Oval Office operations, Keith Schiller, who are both in the video.
"Whoa, look at this! Now I'm glad we're going to dinner," the rich asshole says after meeting the mother and sister. "What a beautiful mother you have! Well, you produce good looking stuff, right? Beautiful stuff."
"These are the most powerful people in all of Russia, the richest men in Russia," the rich asshole says during the public red carpet ceremony, which was included in the clips obtained by CNN.
some rich asshole Jr. has said that his relationship with Goldstone did not arise from the Miss Universe pageant.
Aras Agalarov told Russian radio station BFM that he doesn't know the rich asshole Jr. personally, though he acknowledges that they "did Miss Universe" together. But Agalarov told BFM that his son Emin Agalarov does know him. Agalarov told BFM he "doesn't really know" publicist Rob Goldstone either and he says the notion that Goldstone asked the rich asshole Jr. to contact him about some dirt on Hillary Clinton is a "tall tale".
Washington (CNN) Video obtained exclusively by CNN offers a new look inside the web of relationships now at the center of allegations of collusion between the rich asshole campaign associates and Russia.
The video shows the future President some rich asshole attending a dinner with an Azerbaijani-Russian family who became the rich asshole's business partners in Las Vegas in June 2013. It also shows their publicist, Rob Goldstone, who would later send some rich asshole Jr. the emails that have brought the eldest the rich asshole son to the center of the controversy over possible collusion between the rich asshole campaign associates and Russia.
Goldstone, who is also seen in the video talking with the rich asshole, claimed in the 2016 emails that damaging information against Hillary Clinton surfaced after a meeting between someone Goldstone described as "the Crown prosecutor of Russia" and Aras Agalarov, an Azerbaijani-Russian billionaire with ties to Russian President Vladimir Putin. Goldstone then offered to set up a call between the younger the rich asshole and Emin Agalarov, the billionaire's son and a pop star Goldstone represents, to discuss the information.
The video, obtained by CNN in the wake of the email disclosures, offers fresh insights into the warm relationship between the rich asshole and the Agalarovs, which has been widely reported because Aras Agalarov and Emin Agalarov inked a multi-million dollar deal with the rich asshole to bring the Miss Universe pageant to Moscow in 2013.
The video was shot on June 15, 2013 in Las Vegas on the eve of the Miss USA pageant where the rich asshole would officially announce the deal to bring the Miss Universe contest to Moscow. The footage, a series of clips from the eve of the Miss USA pageant, documents more than three minutes of interactions between the rich asshole, the Agalarovs and Goldstone.
some rich asshole Jr. does not appear in the video obtained by CNN, but several other top the rich asshole associates do -- including the rich asshole's personal attorney, Michael Cohen, and his long-time aide and current director of Oval Office operations, Keith Schiller, who are both in the video.
The clips show the rich asshole engaged in animated conversation with the Agalarov men and Goldstone.
During dinner, the rich asshole is seated across from Aras Agalarov and beside Emin Agalarov -- who in turn is seated next to Goldstone. At one point in the clip, the rich asshole and Goldstone engage in a brief conversation while the younger Agalarov leans into the table.
Another clip shows a conversation between the rich asshole and the Agalarovs before the dinner, where Emin Agalarov introduces the rich asshole to his mother and sister -- prompting the future US president to remark on their looks.
"Whoa, look at this! Now I'm glad we're going to dinner," the rich asshole says after meeting the mother and sister. "What a beautiful mother you have! Well, you produce good looking stuff, right? Beautiful stuff."
In one conversation captured on the video, the rich asshole discusses how he came to own the Miss USA and Miss Universe pageants, noting that the previous owners "didn't know what they were doing," prompting laughter from the Agalarovs.
"Miss Universe now is, in the whole world, because you know it's, like the Super Bowl is a watched, but outside the United States, nobody watches it, it's one of the largest, I think top three broadcasts in the world," the rich asshole says, prompting Emin Agalarov to suggest that only the Olympics earn more viewership.
The next day, the rich asshole lavishes praise on the Agalarovs at the Miss USA 2013 red carpet, calling them "the most powerful people in all of Russia."
"These are the most powerful people in all of Russia, the richest men in Russia," the rich asshole says during the public red carpet ceremony, which was included in the clips obtained by CNN.
In another clip from the Miss USA pageant that year, the rich asshole discusses the forthcoming Miss Universe pageant in Moscow. He lavishes praise on Russia and says he hopes the pageant will help improve the US-Russia relationship.
"It really is a great country. It's a very powerful country that we have a relationship with, but I would say not a great relationship, and I would say this can certainly help that relationship. I think it's very important," the rich asshole says in response to a question.
"I have great respect for Russia. And to have the Miss Universe pageant in Moscow, in the most important location, the most beautiful building, in your convention center, with such amazing partners, I mean it's going to be fantastic for detente, or whatever you want to say," the rich asshole continues. "I think it's a great thing for both countries, and honestly they really wanted it in Russia -- badly. ... Politically they wanted it."
some rich asshole Jr. has said that his relationship with Goldstone did not arise from the Miss Universe pageant.
The younger the rich asshole instead suggested in an interview Tuesday with Fox News' Sean Hannity, an ardent the rich asshole supporter, that he met Goldstone through a golf course tournament where Emin Agalarov performed.
"I met him through the golf course. I wasn't even at the Miss Universe pageant, but I met him through out there, so I had a casual relationship with him," the rich asshole Jr. told Hannity, describing Goldstone later in the interview as "an acquaintance."
the rich asshole Jr. maintained in the interview that he agreed to the meeting "as a courtesy" to Goldstone.
the rich asshole Jr. said he had only met Emin Agalarov "once or twice and maintained a casual relationship there, talked about some potential deals, and then to that -- the extent of it. They really didn't go anywhere."
Aras Agalarov told Russian radio station BFM that he doesn't know the rich asshole Jr. personally, though he acknowledges that they "did Miss Universe" together. But Agalarov told BFM that his son Emin Agalarov does know him. Agalarov told BFM he "doesn't really know" publicist Rob Goldstone either and he says the notion that Goldstone asked the rich asshole Jr. to contact him about some dirt on Hillary Clinton is a "tall tale".
Scott Balber, an attorney for the Agalarovs, also did not deny the closeness of the relationship between the Trumps and Agalarovs, instead raising a question about Goldstone's credibility.
"It's simply fiction that this was some effort to create a conduit for information from the Russian federal prosecutors to the rich asshole campaign," Balber said on CNN's "New Day." "It's just fantasy world because the reality is if there was something important that Mr. Agalarov wanted to communicate to the rich asshole campaign, I suspect he could have called some rich asshole directly as opposed to having his son's pop music publicist be the intermediary."
some rich asshole Is Right: Hillary Was Held To A Different Standard
A much higher one.
X
X
NEW YORK ― President some rich asshole tried to deflect attention away from his campaign’s repeated lies about its dealings with the Russian government and onto Hillary Clinton Wednesday morning, spouting off on Twitter that he is being held to a different standard than the former secretary of state.
the rich asshole is right. Clinton was held to a very different standard during the campaign and would likely be treated differently as president, too. Let us count the ways.
NEW YORK ― President some rich asshole tried to deflect attention away from his campaign’s repeated lies about its dealings with the Russian government and onto Hillary Clinton Wednesday morning, spouting off on Twitter that he is being held to a different standard than the former secretary of state.
the rich asshole is right. Clinton was held to a very different standard during the campaign and would likely be treated differently as president, too. Let us count the ways.
Demeanor
Clinton was repeatedly criticized for smiling too little and then smiling too much during presidential debates, despite demonstrating competence and logic around policy. Male pundits and politicians said her raised voice during speeches came off as “shrill.”
the rich asshole, meanwhile, aggressively interrupted Clinton during debates and launched childish insults at his opponents. He made bizarre facial expressions while other candidates spoke, criticized the face of a female candidate, referred to the size of his penis in a primary debate and served up word salads that revealed very few details about his policy positions. But in the end, she was the one who struggled to be “likeable” enough.
Clinton was repeatedly criticized for smiling too little and then smiling too much during presidential debates, despite demonstrating competence and logic around policy. Male pundits and politicians said her raised voice during speeches came off as “shrill.”
the rich asshole, meanwhile, aggressively interrupted Clinton during debates and launched childish insults at his opponents. He made bizarre facial expressions while other candidates spoke, criticized the face of a female candidate, referred to the size of his penis in a primary debate and served up word salads that revealed very few details about his policy positions. But in the end, she was the one who struggled to be “likeable” enough.
Trust
Throughout the election, polls consistently showed that more voters viewed Clinton as “dishonest” than viewed the rich asshole that way, despite the fact that the rich asshole lied twice as much. Fact-checking website PolitiFact evaluated 203 of the rich asshole’s statements and 226 of Clinton’s and concluded in July 2016 that although fewer than a third of Clinton’s were “mostly false” or worse, a full 71 percent of the rich asshole’s statements were untrue. But up until election day, the public struggled to trust her while apparently accepting his lies and falsehoods as just part of his overall eccentricity.
Throughout the election, polls consistently showed that more voters viewed Clinton as “dishonest” than viewed the rich asshole that way, despite the fact that the rich asshole lied twice as much. Fact-checking website PolitiFact evaluated 203 of the rich asshole’s statements and 226 of Clinton’s and concluded in July 2016 that although fewer than a third of Clinton’s were “mostly false” or worse, a full 71 percent of the rich asshole’s statements were untrue. But up until election day, the public struggled to trust her while apparently accepting his lies and falsehoods as just part of his overall eccentricity.
Scandals and lies
Both candidates had scandals. Both were accused of crimes. But the voters and politicians who brayed for the imprisonment of Clinton, chanting “lock her up” because she used a private email server as secretary of state, were not chanting “lock him up” when more than a dozen women accused the rich asshole of sexual assault. the rich asshole even bragged on tape that he had groped women’s vaginas without consent, and then-Senator (now Attorney General) Jeff Sessions questioned whether the action the rich asshole had described was a crime.
the rich asshole then invited three women to a presidential debate who have accused former President Bill Clinton of sexual assault ― as if Clinton should be held as responsible for her husband’s actions as the rich asshole should be for his own.
While Clinton never managed to escape coverage of her email scandal, nothing the rich asshole did during the campaign, no matter how shocking, seemed to stick in voters’ minds. Clinton’s emails overshadowed the entire election, whereas the rich asshole had so many scandals that none was ever able to define him, according to an analysis by researchers at Gallup, Georgetown University, and the University of Michigan.
But Clinton’s “scandals,” by all measures, are not even in the same league as the scandals now plaguing the rich asshole administration. Federal investigations into her use of a private email server as secretary of state ― a mistake that arguably cost her the election ― have so far resulted in no criminal charges or revelations of corruption beyond her admission that she used her personal phone for state business. Republicans also spent years and millions of dollars investigating her role in the Benghazi attack ― at one point grilling her on the subject for 11 hours ― without turning up any new evidence of wrongdoing.
Both candidates had scandals. Both were accused of crimes. But the voters and politicians who brayed for the imprisonment of Clinton, chanting “lock her up” because she used a private email server as secretary of state, were not chanting “lock him up” when more than a dozen women accused the rich asshole of sexual assault. the rich asshole even bragged on tape that he had groped women’s vaginas without consent, and then-Senator (now Attorney General) Jeff Sessions questioned whether the action the rich asshole had described was a crime.
the rich asshole then invited three women to a presidential debate who have accused former President Bill Clinton of sexual assault ― as if Clinton should be held as responsible for her husband’s actions as the rich asshole should be for his own.
While Clinton never managed to escape coverage of her email scandal, nothing the rich asshole did during the campaign, no matter how shocking, seemed to stick in voters’ minds. Clinton’s emails overshadowed the entire election, whereas the rich asshole had so many scandals that none was ever able to define him, according to an analysis by researchers at Gallup, Georgetown University, and the University of Michigan.
But Clinton’s “scandals,” by all measures, are not even in the same league as the scandals now plaguing the rich asshole administration. Federal investigations into her use of a private email server as secretary of state ― a mistake that arguably cost her the election ― have so far resulted in no criminal charges or revelations of corruption beyond her admission that she used her personal phone for state business. Republicans also spent years and millions of dollars investigating her role in the Benghazi attack ― at one point grilling her on the subject for 11 hours ― without turning up any new evidence of wrongdoing.
What now?
One can only imagine how Republicans might treat Clinton ― and how the public would perceive her ― if evidence turned up that her campaign tried to collude with a hostile foreign government to tip the election in her favor and then lied about it.
Meanwhile, more evidence implicates the rich asshole’s campaign of doing exactly that, and his supporters either refuse to believe it or simply don’t care. Multiple members of the rich asshole’s administration and campaign team have repeatedly been caught lying about their interactions with officials from Russia ― a longtime rival of the United States ― and his son has now revealed he was trying to collude with the Russian government to help him win. On top of that, the president allegedly tried to squash a Federal Bureau of Investigation probe of his former national security adviser, and then he fired the man in charge of that investigation ― which legal experts predict will lead to a felony charge of obstruction of justice.
the rich asshole’s lies are so frequent and egregious that The New York Times compiled a comprehensive list of them. And still, his supporters don’t care.
the rich asshole’s son changed his story several times before finally releasing an email chain showing that he agreed to meet with a Russian lawyer with the understanding that the Kremlin was trying to help the rich asshole’s campaign. But the president ― who coined the nickname “crooked Hillary” ― responded by tweeting that his son is a “high-quality person,” and a Republican senator said the scandal is not “relevant” to the rich asshole administration.
the rich asshole administration: There's no evidence of collusion. 12 legal experts: Yes, there is.
Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images
This is near-conclusive evidence of collusion and conspiracy
One can only imagine how Republicans might treat Clinton ― and how the public would perceive her ― if evidence turned up that her campaign tried to collude with a hostile foreign government to tip the election in her favor and then lied about it.
Meanwhile, more evidence implicates the rich asshole’s campaign of doing exactly that, and his supporters either refuse to believe it or simply don’t care. Multiple members of the rich asshole’s administration and campaign team have repeatedly been caught lying about their interactions with officials from Russia ― a longtime rival of the United States ― and his son has now revealed he was trying to collude with the Russian government to help him win. On top of that, the president allegedly tried to squash a Federal Bureau of Investigation probe of his former national security adviser, and then he fired the man in charge of that investigation ― which legal experts predict will lead to a felony charge of obstruction of justice.
the rich asshole’s lies are so frequent and egregious that The New York Times compiled a comprehensive list of them. And still, his supporters don’t care.
the rich asshole’s son changed his story several times before finally releasing an email chain showing that he agreed to meet with a Russian lawyer with the understanding that the Kremlin was trying to help the rich asshole’s campaign. But the president ― who coined the nickname “crooked Hillary” ― responded by tweeting that his son is a “high-quality person,” and a Republican senator said the scandal is not “relevant” to the rich asshole administration.
the rich asshole administration: There's no evidence of collusion. 12 legal experts: Yes, there is.
17 legal experts on what some rich asshole Jr.'s emails about the Russia meeting prove — and don't prove.
Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images
On Tuesday morning, some rich asshole Jr. posted an email chain from last June in which he agreed to a meeting with a “Russian government lawyer” named Natalia Veselnitskaya who supposedly had damaging information about Hillary Clinton. The emails confirm that not only did the rich asshole Jr. agree to the meeting knowing the alleged information was tied to the Russian government, but he also included Jared Kushner and former the rich asshole campaign manager Paul Manafort in the thread.
Does this constitute clear-cut evidence of collusion or conspiracy on the part of the rich asshole campaign? Did the rich asshole Jr. commit a prosecutable crime? And will Kushner and Manafort now face legal problems of their own since they were included in the emails and attended the meeting?
I reached out to 17 legal experts and asked them these questions directly. Twelve said that the case for collusion and conspiracy is near conclusive, though it’s not entirely clear what the legal consequences will be. Five experts believe the circumstantial evidence is damning but we don’t yet know enough to draw any conclusions.
You can read their full responses below.
This is near-conclusive evidence of collusion and conspiracy
Jed Shugerman, law professor, Fordham University
I think there are now legitimate charges that can be brought based upon conspiracy laws and campaign finance laws, but it would be a mistake to characterize any of this as a slam dunk for a couple of reasons. One, this is all unprecedented. What we're doing is reading statutes on the book and trying to find a link, but the way the legal system works is that you also have to look at case law, and anyone who says the statutes are 100 percent clear and the precedents are clear is not recognizing how unprecedented these events are. That these events are so unprecedented speaks to the gravity of what's happened here. We've never seen anything like this in the history of the republic.
Now, if you're asking what would make the case against the rich asshole Jr. a slam dunk, I think it's that all of this is part of the broader Russia cover-up. That there were all these meetings that campaign officials refused to disclose now appears perfectly intentional. We know what they were hiding, and it's awfully damning.
Bob Bauer, law professor, New York University
These email exchanges clarify in no uncertain terms the rich asshole campaign's understanding that the Russian government was looking to provide support, and the campaign's expressed willingness to seek and accept it. The potential violations presented by these facts are the unlawful solicitation and acceptance of items of value from a foreign national. Also clear from these exchanges is that the campaign as an organization has this legal exposure, not only the individuals, including some rich asshole Jr., who arranged and participated in it. All of these individuals were acting on behalf of the organization, as its agents.
Investigations are complex, and the inquiry certainly will not stop with the disclosure of these emails. They do indicate the seriousness of the issues that have been raised, now that we have more and more evidence that the president, when calling openly for Russian support in locating emails stolen from Secretary Clinton, was not — as he later claimed — joking.
“WE'VE NEVER SEEN ANYTHING LIKE THIS IN THE HISTORY OF THE REPUBLIC”
Diane Marie Amann, law professor, University of Georgia
At the least, the just-posted email string establishes: first, that some rich asshole Jr. arranged with a longtime colleague to meet someone he understood to be a “Russian government attorney who is flying over from Moscow,” following the colleague’s claim that “the Crown Prosecutor of Russia” had offered to provide anti-Clinton documents as “part of Russia and its government’s support for some rich asshole”; second, that the rich asshole Jr. said “I love” the offer; and third, that Jared Kushner and Paul Manafort knew of the “Meeting” before it occurred.
The reference to “Meeting” is notably terse. The emails appear to have been cut and pasted, with some having forwarding arrows at the left margin, others not, so that it is not clear whether the rich asshole Jr. forwarded the entire string to the other two. Nor do the emails tell what might have been said, or not said, in pre-meeting conversations among the rich asshole Jr., Kushner, and Manafort.
In short, the posted emails in and of themselves do not constitute “slam dunk evidence” against all three men. But they surely loom large as links in a chain of adverse circumstantial evidence.
Paul Butler, law professor, Georgetown University
This is definitely compelling evidence of collusion, but collusion itself is not a crime. Potential crimes include conspiracy, if hacking emails was part of the plan. But the more likely charge would be soliciting a foreign national for a campaign contribution. The fact that Manafort and Kushner knew they were going to a meeting with a Russian and getting "support" for the rich asshole's campaign gives them the same exposure that the rich asshole Jr. has. The defense would be the typical the rich asshole operative line — "we didn't know it was wrong" — but, especially for an experienced campaign old hand like Manafort, that defense is unpersuasive.
No public corruption case is ever a slam dunk, but this paper trail puts the rich asshole Jr., Manafort, and Kushner in a precarious position.
Miriam Baer, law professor, Brooklyn Law School
Today’s newly released emails make it easier for a fact finder to infer that Manafort and Kushner joined an illicit conspiracy (e.g., agreeing to accept “anything of value” from a foreign national — and in this case, someone who appeared to be acting as an intermediary for a foreign adversary), although a good defense attorney could still find some wiggle room. Presumably these are not the last emails we will see, and as we see more evidence, we may find additional members of the rich asshole team who were aware of and encouraged this meeting.
A final point: given Mr. Manafort’s previous history advising political campaigns (not to mention the fact that he graduated from law school and was a highly successful lobbyist), it is inconceivable that he didn’t recognize the potentially fraught nature of some rich asshole Jr.’s contacts with Rob Goldstone [who arranged the meeting], as well as the meeting itself.
“THE EMAILS ARE CLEAR EVIDENCE OF INTENT THAT THE CAMPAIGN WAS PREPARED TO ASK FOR SUPPORT FROM A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT”
Jessica Levinson, law professor, Loyola Law School
To the extent that President the rich asshole's then-campaign chair, Paul Manafort, and son-in-law, Jared Kushner, knew about the Russian government's desire to provide them with valuable information about Hillary Clinton that would help the campaign, this raises the prospect of conspiracy to commit an offense against the United States or to defraud the United States.
I do not believe we know enough to say that this is a slam-dunk case.
We do know that federal law prohibits the solicitation of campaign contributions (including things of value) from a foreign individual or entity. Given the revelations this morning, there is a strong case to show that some rich asshole Jr. did solicit information, which would be valuable to the campaign. And if Manafort and Kushner were part of this plan, as it now seems, that raises the serious specter of conspiracy.
Victoria Nourse, law professor, Georgetown University
The emails are clear evidence of intent that the campaign was prepared to ask for support from a foreign government. Campaign finance rules are complex, but this rule is not: Any seasoned campaign professional would have called 1-800-FBI at the point someone suggested this. At the very least, the emails are sufficient evidence for a prosecutor to take the case to a grand jury to determine whether they violated campaign finance laws — you can't "solicit" from a foreign government for money or "anything of value."
Under the criminal law, solicit means asking, so if you ask someone to murder someone else, that is a crime even if no one is murdered. Similarly here, if you ask someone to violate the campaign finance laws, even if they do not come forth with anything, that is a crime.
Samuel Gross, law professor, University of Michigan
This is beginning to look a lot like a criminal conspiracy. Nobody's guilty in this country until a jury is convinced by proof beyond a reasonable doubt — but you can be indicted on less evidence than this.
Brandon Garrett, law professor, University of Virginia
The portion of the email chain noting that this was a “Russian government attorney” suggests knowledge that they intended to get something from a foreign source and that it was in the nature of “official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary.”
The emails also provide evidence of intent to obtain something of value from a foreign individual or entity. And that thing of value does not just have to be a campaign donation to be illegal; it can be “anything of value.”
This is the type of smoking-gun evidence that prosecutors prize.
Joshua Dressler, law professor, Ohio State University
Today’s news means that the rich asshole, Manafort, and Kushner sink or swim together. That is, the law treats them as if they were a single entity — if a crime has occurred, they are ALL guilty, equally. The question is what crime did they conspire to commit?
“Conspiracy” is a crime, but conspiracy to do something LAWFUL, of course, is not a crime. There must be an agreement by two or more persons to commit a criminal act, along with some overt act committed by one of them in furtherance of the agreement. Going to the meeting clearly qualifies as an overt act. So the question becomes, what is that criminal offense that they conspired to commit? That is where I am not sufficiently familiar of the federal code to know what might fairly be charged. But they are equally guilty, if guilty. (Of course, this proves “collusion” — a slam dunk — but “conspiracy” is a term of legal art.)
It is theoretically possible that Manafort and Kushner would claim that although they KNEW of the rich asshole Jr./Russian intermediary plan (by means of that email), that they were opposed to proceeding. But if that is so, one would expect that they would not have joined the rich asshole Jr. at the meeting. If they can point to some emails they sent the rich asshole Jr. saying, “That is wrong” or “a bad idea,” or, “Hey, it’s a crime, don’t do it,” that could exculpate them. But without such evidence, their presence at the meeting is certainly something a prosecutor would use to say that they not only knew what was happening but were also in agreement with the rich asshole Jr. to proceed, and thus they become co-conspirators.
Jens David Ohlin, law professor, Cornell University
I think this changes the conversation completely. It’s now established that the campaign was aware of, and involved in, Russian attempts to meddle in the election. The only question now is whether President the rich asshole was personally involved or not. But the question of the campaign’s involvement now appears answered (in the affirmative). For some rich asshole Jr., Manafort, and Kushner, the relevant legal category is conspiracy.
“THIS IS THE TYPE OF SMOKING-GUN EVIDENCE THAT PROSECUTORS PRIZE”
Lisa Kern Griffin, law professor, Duke University
It’s premature to state any conclusions about the legal consequences of the Veselnitskaya meeting, but with the release of an email chain on which both Manafort and Kushner were copied, its significance certainly grows. It strained credulity from the beginning to claim that a national campaign chairman would take a “blind” meeting with a foreign national like this. Now it’s clear that the offer of damaging information from a Russian government source was made in advance and forwarded to all participants.
When alleged crimes arise from conversations, there are always fine lines to be drawn. But it is intent that governs which side of the legal line such a meeting falls on, not success. This is obviously not a cast of characters out of some John le Carré novel, and the meeting may have been a bumbling effort. But it reveals important information about what the campaign was willing to do and with what intent. It is also just a single point in a complicated timeline of events involving many members of the campaign and the administration.
We don’t know enough to draw any conclusions
Sol Wisenberg, former deputy independent counsel for the Whitewater/Lewinsky investigation
Conspiracy to do what? What is the crime? It may well be a very important piece of evidence as to state of mind on the question of whether certain the rich asshole folks aided and abetted or conspired with the Russians to hack DNC and HRC campaign computers. It is a federal crime to hack someone’s computers. Collusion/conspiracy must relate to some crime.
So is it a bombshell? Yes. Is it abnormal and improper? Yes. Is it a crime? What is the crime?
Steven Duke, law professor, Yale University
So the question is whether these men committed criminal violations when they agreed to meet a Russian lawyer who they thought might have derogatory information about Hillary Clinton. I don’t think so. Ambiguities in criminal statutes are supposed to be resolved against criminalization. That is especially so where the statute allegedly punishes the receipt of information. If receiving information that Hillary was being helped by the Russians is a crime, so too would be receiving information that the Russians were helping the rich asshole in the election. Anyone receiving either kind of information would arguably be a criminal, e.g., FBI and CIA agents and journalists. And this could even be true today since the statute is not limited to “items of value” sought or received prior to the election; it just has to be “in connection with” an election.
No competent prosecutor would bring a case against these three men based upon the known facts.
Julie O’Sullivan, law professor, Georgetown University
“Collusion” is not a legal concept. Based on the very little we now know, they would be looking at potential conspiracy charges. But to be guilty of conspiracy, they need to agree to a criminal venture — such an agreement is the essence of conspiracy. They have to know about the venture and hope to make it succeed. Just being in the room and listening to what is said is likely insufficient. There would have to be some proof that they knew something shady was going on, and that they agreed to participate.
“SO IS IT A BOMBSHELL? YES. IS IT ABNORMAL AND IMPROPER? YES. IS IT A CRIME? WHAT IS THE CRIME?”
Richard Briffault, law professor, Columbia University
It is unlawful for a foreign national to contribute anything of value in a federal election, and for an American to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution from a foreign national or to knowingly provide substantial assistance to a foreign national making a contribution or engaging in an independent expenditure. It’s not clear that just being in a meeting is enough to constitute "substantial assistance," but if they signaled encouragement of the Russian effort, as by indicating gratitude for the effort, or in any way indicated that certain kinds of efforts would be more helpful than others, that could support a case for "substantial assistance."
Today’s news makes things tricky. Going to a meeting with people who are known to be supporters could be seen as reinforcing that support and encouraging additional support, and that could be treated as illegally soliciting or accepting a foreign contribution.
Keith Whittington, politics professor, Princeton University
No comments:
Post a Comment