Winstonm, on 2017-July-12, 12:06, said:
Quote
From The Atlantic:
Trump Jr. invited his father’s campaign manager, Paul Manafort, and his brother-in-law, Jared Kushner, to the meeting, forwarding them an email with the subject, “Russia - Clinton - Private and Confidential.” Both Manafort and Kushner attended.
Perhaps Donald Trump knew that all this was going on, which would make his statement at the press conference last spring a particularly shameless lie, even by his standards. Only a fool would ever again trust a politician who they caught in a lie like that.
Then again, maybe Trump was oblivious to the meeting that took place in Trump Tower. But if it’s the latter, that means that Trump was so ignorant about what happened inside his own campaign that he didn’t even know about a meeting his own son scheduled for the purpose of colluding with the Russian government, even though both his campaign manager and his son-in-law were also in attendance. That would mean his closest advisers were actively keeping him in the dark.
Both possibilities, though, point to the same conclusion: The president cannot be believed. Either Trump’s denials about campaign collusion with Russia cannot be believed because he is a shameless liar; or Trump’s denials about campaign collusion with Russia cannot be believed because he was utterly clueless about at least one major effort to collude, and thus cannot credibly attest that there were not other efforts to which he wasn’t privy. (bold & italics mine)
I would think even marginal Trump supporters now have to agree that when it comes to Russian collusion, Donald Trump's denials are meaningless.
With politicians, it's rarely ever a question of do they lie. Deep down we all know politicians tell lies to keep their constituents happy and to protect themselves; it's usually a matter of which lie you catch them in that determines if you ever will believe them again.
Let's look at the facts here:
According to the Federal Election Commission,
Quote
"Contributions are the most common source of campaign support.
A contribution is anything of value given, loaned or advanced to influence a federal election. It is important to understand which receipts are considered contributions because:
Contributions count toward the threshold that determines whether an individual has qualified as a candidate under the Federal Election Campaign Act.
Contributions are subject to the Act’s prohibitions against contributions from certain sources.
Contributions are subject to the Act’s limits on the amount of contributions.
Like all receipts, contributions are also subject to the Act’s recordkeeping and reporting requirements. (bold and italics mine)
See
https://www.fec.gov/...ribution-types/ for additional information
I want you to note that contributions include a THING OF VALUE GIVEN, LOANED, OR ADVANCED!
So, let's look what happened. . .
- Rob Goldstone, an intermediary, sent an e-mail to Donald Trump, Jr and told him that a Russian government official might have some salacious, compromising information on Hillary Clinton.
- Donald Trump e-mails back and says he would love to hear it.
- Rob Goldstone and Donald Trump, Jr. coordinate a mutually convenient time to meet this Russian lawyer. They coordinate a time to meet her and eventually do.
- Donald Trump, Jr. finds out that the Russian lawyer has absolutely nothing of value (no intelligence) to offer as she switches the conversation to other matters.
- Since the Russian lawyer is denying that she is connected to the Kremlin, can our government provide explicit PROOF that this lawyer is in the employ of the Kremlin? Obviously we can't go to Putin to verify that considering the source and if the woman has a Russian passport, that does not mean that she works for the Russian government. It means she is a Russian citizen and is a foreign national who is prohibited from making a contibution to influence federal elections.
Here's the rub:
THE RUSSIAN LAYWER HASN'T GIVEN, LOANED, OR ADVANCED A THING OF VALUE TO INFLUENCE THE FEDERAL ELECTION. She didn't have $hit to offer. She hasn't made a contribution to influence a federal election, though she appears to be a part of a solicitation scheme coordinated by Rob Goldstone.
You could say indirectly that Donald Trump Jr. is guilty of solicitation since he didn't initially seek this damaging information out; the OFFER to meet the Russian lawyer came through Rob Goldstone, an intermediary (who should also be pulled in any solicitation charges under the Federal Election Commission). However, Donald Trump Jr. (and others) agreed to meet with her because she allegedly promised a thing of value she didn't have.
The Trump campaign did not CONSTRUCTIVELY ACCEPT OR RECEIVE intelligence or a thing of value which is prohibited by the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA).
A promise to deliver intelligence is not a thing of value or a reportable contribution under FECA.
The Federal Election Committee should investigate the matter for potential solicitation violations and affix a fine, but since the Trump campaign didn't constructively receive or accept A THING OF VALUE, I can't imagine an imprisonment coming out of this. There just isn't enough fire. The Trump campaign needed to have accepted or received A THING OF VALUE and then fail to report it to federal government.
And while my interest is piqued, I still do not understand who masterminded the hack of the Democratic National Convention server and then released the trove of e-mails on Wikileaks. There are some missing pieces that need to be made before we employ terms like treason or dark money espionage.