Russia Collusion Scandal (aka A Leftist fantasy)

nsacpi said:
However, there remains a non-legal distinction to be made between accepting something from someone like Steele and accepting something from an entity under Putin's control. Imo this distinction is more important than some of the legal niceties involved.
Click to expand...

Let's parse the difference between something from Steele via an entity under Putin's control and something directly (but not really, technically) from an entity under Putin's control. If we're talking about a broad interpretation of that statute, I don't see much of a distinction - and I can't imagine a court would either.

Which is also why I don't think that statute has any applicability here.
 
Hawk said:
Well, I guess in order for me to answer that question, I would need for you to demonstrate how you think Papadopoulos' contacts with Russia were collusive in nature. I'd also quibble with whether or not Papadopoulos fits into my "Trump campaign proper" categorization, but that's neither here nor there I suppose.
Click to expand...

Well, I'm not sure how that bears on your statement about being more confident about it today than you were yesterday.

But, yeah, as has been alluded to several times, "collusion" is not a legally meaningful term. This began as, and to some degree remains, a counterintelligence investigation. It could be that nobody from the Trump campaign violated anything other than campaign-finance laws. It could be nothing at all. It could be an espionage case. That's not clear at this point. But the actions cited in the indictment would seem like "collusion" to an observer, yeah?

But to split hairs about "the campaign proper" seems pretty silly, especially considering that there are unnamed senior campaign advisors listed in the emails referenced in Papadopoulos indictment. So, it's not proof, but it also doesn't seem to lend any credence to feeling "more confident" today.
 
Runnin said:
Two things:

1)Trump was an idiot to hire Manafort.

2)Manafort was a bigger idiot to take the job. He had to know his financial shenanigans were going to come under scrutiny.
Click to expand...

With respect to 1) Manafort was recommended to Trump by mutual friend Thomas Barrack.

Here is a bit from the WSJ on the "loans" Manafort has received from Trump-connected people including Mr. Barrack.

Paul Manafort, the onetime campaign chairman for President Donald Trump who did lucrative consulting for Ukrainian tycoons, faced foreclosure on several real-estate investments but received a $16 million lifeline through another former Trump adviser, real estate and court records show.

Mr. Manafort was at risk of losing both his Brooklyn, N.Y., townhouse and his family’s investments in California properties being developed by his son-in-law, the records show.

But in November and January, Mr. Manafort and his wife received as much as $16 million in loans from the Federal Savings Bank, a small bank in Chicago run by Steve Calk. The loans equaled almost 24% of the bank’s reported $67 million of equity capital.

A foreclosure proceeding on the Brooklyn house was withdrawn in January. Mr. Manafort also planned to put more money into the California investments to salvage them, bankruptcy-court filings show.

In an interview, Mr. Calk said the loans to Mr. Manafort were “absolutely not” related to his role in the campaign. He said the loans were “grossly overcollateralized,” with multiple properties securing them.

The loans show how Mr. Manafort, who resigned under pressure from the Trump campaign in August over his activities in Ukraine, continued to tap connections from Mr. Trump’s circle.

Mr. Manafort, a political consultant and investor, declined to be interviewed. In a statement, he said he had borrowed at 7.25% interest on the Brooklyn property, a higher-than-market rate, in what he called a “straightforward” transaction.

Mr. Manafort said those loans were based on the estimated value of the Brooklyn house after a renovation, work that stalled last year amid the financial problems. He said he hoped to complete the construction within a year.

The statement said the loans “all reflect arm’s-length transactions.”

Around the time Mr. Manafort was dealing with Mr. Calk’s bank, he was telling associates of plans for potential private equity deals with Thomas J. Barrack Jr. , a wealthy real-estate investor who backed Mr. Trump, The Wall Street Journal has reported. Mr. Barrack, a Trump adviser who was his inaugural committee chairman, has said through a spokesman he has no business relationship with Mr. Manafort and none planned.

In 2004, Mr. Barrack—a longtime friend of Mr. Manafort who suggested he join the Trump campaign early last year—gave Mr. Manafort’s wife a $1.8 million private loan secured by real estate, according to mortgage records filed in Suffolk County, N.Y. The loan was settled two years later, the records show.
 
It could well be that these "loans" were part of a scheme to launder money and generate income without paying taxes. It could also be the case that the counter parties have a legal obligation (especially the ones who are bank officers) to perform some due diligence about the nature of the transactions and could be in some legal jeopardy if they failed to do so.
 
Hawk said:
A direct effort at collusion ... is not collusion.

Small technicality.
Click to expand...

I think proving collusion in the court of public opinion would be something. Then there's all the obstruction of justice stuff. Anyway, all this "fake new" only weakens Trump even further.

I don't see how they, meaning T and the GOP, can do anything on tax reform that helps them. If they push something through it's going to be so slipshod and haphazard that it will be a nightmare and if they don't get that done their base is going to screw them in the midterms.
 
Hawk said:
Let's parse the difference between something from Steele via an entity under Putin's control and something directly (but not really, technically) from an entity under Putin's control. If we're talking about a broad interpretation of that statute, I don't see much of a distinction - and I can't imagine a court would either.

Which is also why I don't think that statute has any applicability here.
Click to expand...

I think it is a distinction worth parsing. And I would have interest in knowing whether Steele was a witting or unwitting tool of the Russians or if he was not a tool at all of the Russians. And whether the parties paying Steele knew whether he was some sort of tool of the Russians. If they did, that's a whole different ballgame. But I have not seen anything to suggest that.
 
Julio3000 said:
Well, I'm not sure how that bears on your statement about being more confident about it today than you were yesterday.

But, yeah, as has been alluded to several times, "collusion" is not a legally meaningful term. This began as, and to some degree remains, a counterintelligence investigation. It could be that nobody from the Trump campaign violated anything other than campaign-finance laws. It could be nothing at all. It could be an espionage case. That's not clear at this point. But the actions cited in the indictment would seem like "collusion" to an observer, yeah?

But to split hairs about "the campaign proper" seems pretty silly, especially considering that there are unnamed senior campaign advisors listed in the emails referenced in Papadopoulos indictment. So, it's not proof, but it also doesn't seem to lend any credence to feeling "more confident" today.
Click to expand...

Papadopoulos is not a smoking gun. He even passes the gunshot residue test - at least during this initial evaluation.

The actions would seem like collusion? Again, how?

I can see where you could sell that to the most common of observers - but you aren't one of those. Maybe that's all this case needs to establish credibility in the eyes of the public at large. Perhaps that was the design here.

And, as inferred, if you really want to treat Papadopoulos as a core component of the Trump campaign that's your prerogative and I don't suspect much that I could say on that score would change your perspective.
 
Hawk said:
Papadopoulos is not a smoking gun. He even passes the gunshot residue test - at least at during this initial evaluation.

The actions would seem like collusion? Again, how?

I can see where you could sell that to the most common of observers - but you aren't one of those. Maybe that's all this case needs to establish credibility in the eyes of the public at large. Perhaps that was the design here.

And, as inferred, if you really want to treat Papadopoulos as a core component of the Trump campaign that's your prerogative and I don't suspect much that I could say on that score would change your perspective.
Click to expand...

I agree that Papadoupolos appears to be a peripheral figure in relation to the Trump campaign. The facts that remain to be revealed are how closely supervised he was by others who were in more central positions in the campaign. To draw a baseball analogy, he was some low-ranking scout who did something fishy. Can any of it be tied to the GM? Or the club President? I think Howard Baker asked the right question.
 
[tw]925057757849497601[/tw]

So, the "campaign supervisor" would amount to "the campaign proper," no?
 
Julio3000 said:
[tw]925057757849497601[/tw]

So, the "campaign supervisor" would amount to "the campaign proper," no?
Click to expand...

Well, first of all, I don't know what a "campaign supervisor" even is, and, more importantly, that's not an abstract completely bereft of useful context at all.
 
Hawk said:
Papadopoulos is not a smoking gun. He even passes the gunshot residue test - at least during this initial evaluation.

The actions would seem like collusion? Again, how?

I can see where you could sell that to the most common of observers - but you aren't one of those. Maybe that's all this case needs to establish credibility in the eyes of the public at large. Perhaps that was the design here.

And, as inferred, if you really want to treat Papadopoulos as a core component of the Trump campaign that's your prerogative and I don't suspect much that I could say on that score would change your perspective.
Click to expand...

I doubt that Donald Trump had any idea who he was. But it's clear that the information he brought went further up the food chain. If Manafort knew more, I figure we'll find out, because he's looking at some pretty significant time. If he doesn't know more, we'll know that, too, I guess.

Flynn is still hanging out there, too.
 
One obvious question that needs to be asked is why Papadopolous initially lied to the FBI? Given the consequences for being caught in such a lie, it is likely that there was some sort of motivation to do so.
 
"On or about April 26, 2016, defendant PAPADOPOULOS met the Professor for breakfast at a London hotel. During this meeting, the Professor told defendant PAPADOPOULOS that he had just returned from a trip to Moscow where he had met with high-level Russian government officials. The Professor told defendant PAPADOPOULOS that on that trip he (the Professor) learned that the Russians had obtained "dirt" on then-candidate Clinton. The Professor told defendant PAPADOPOULOS, as defendant PAPADOPOULOS later described to the FBI, that "They [the Russians] have dirt on her"; "the Russians had emails of Clinton"; "they have thousands of emails."

Did his supervisor at this point tell him that it would be improper or illegal to accept such information from the Russians? Or collude with them in any way to in disseminating those emails? Was the supervisor silent or neutral? Did he encourage him to find out more? Did he receive any more specific instruction on how to proceed?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top