Indictment-O-Rama Megathread: Mueller indicts 13 Russians

[Dr Oz Lost Party!]

Natalia Veselnitskaya, the Russian lawyer that met with Trump Jr., told Senate Committee  Jr. wanted dirt on the Clinton foundation.

We now have confirmation of attempted collusion.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/amp/donald-trump-jr-asked-russian-lawyer-info-clinton-foundation-n826711

[Sestak]

Can someone summarize this thing for me, and why anyone is paying attention to it:

All I've heard is that there was somebody fired from the investigation a while back because of texts that were critical of Trump, and whose expertise was counter-espionage.

Also, I'm seeing reports that the same guy changed the wording in Comey's Clinton testimony from "grossly negligent" to "extremely careless" or something.

[Dr Oz Lost Party!]

CNN is announcing new charges in the Russia probe coming up soon.

[junior chįmp]

CNN is announcing new charges in the Russia probe coming up soon.

Just in time for Christmas!

[Sestak]

CNN is announcing new charges in the Russia probe coming up soon.

Choo Choo!

All Aboard the Mueller express!

[Dr Oz Lost Party!]

BREAKING: Mueller filing superceding indictment on Rick Gates who plead not guilty to money laundering.

This isn't the additional charges regarding the Russia investigation though.

[Dr Oz Lost Party!]

Ted Lieu: Don Jr. asking Veselnitskaya about dirt on Clinton foundation IS collusion.

I don't know why I didn't see any nuclear elmo memes when I posted that.

Note: Jr claimed he talked to her about "adoption." What are the possibilities he actually lied to the FBI too?

[Sestak]

Ted Lieu: Don Jr. asking Veselnitskaya about dirt on Clinton foundation IS collusion.

I don't know why I didn't see any nuclear elmo memes when I posted that.

Note: Jr claimed he talked to her about "adoption." What are the possibilities he actually lied to the FBI too?

"Attemped" collusion. This is a signifacant difference, as some people have claimed that "attempted collusion" is not a strong enough charge.

And we knew about this for ages.

[Dr Oz Lost Party!]

Ted Lieu: Don Jr. asking Veselnitskaya about dirt on Clinton foundation IS collusion.

I don't know why I didn't see any nuclear elmo memes when I posted that.

Note: Jr claimed he talked to her about "adoption." What are the possibilities he actually lied to the FBI too?

"Attemped" collusion. This is a signifacant difference, as some people have claimed that "attempted collusion" is not a strong enough charge.

And we knew about this for ages.

The difference is we have the Russian lawyer admitting it to the senate. If I recall, she denied it too. So now it's something we here call "confirmed"

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

“Collusion” is not a crime or even a legal term

[Dr Oz Lost Party!]

“Collusion” is not a crime or even a legal term

Last time I checked, trying to get a foreign government to help you win an election isn't exactly legal.

[Obama-Biden Democrat]

CNN is announcing new charges in the Russia probe coming up soon.

It may not be new people being charged, it could be additional charges for Manafort, Flynn, or Gates.

[Bojack Horseman]

Another one bites the dust
And another one’s gone
Another one’s gone
Another one bites the dust
Hey, I’m gonna get you too
Another one bites the dust!

[emailking]

Regarding the Tweet a few days ago about why Trump fired Flynn,can they trace the tweet to the phone used, and the tower it pinged off? If Trump's lawyer was nowhere near the tower...nuclear elmo time.

They would have to subpoena both Twitter and the ISP or Phone company, but yes it should be possible to determine that. The claim is that Dan Scavino (the social media head) actually posted it, so the lawyer could be anywhere, but they could also check if he called him if they weren't in the same place.

[junior chįmp]

Flynn Said Russian Sanctions Would be Ripped Up, Whistle-Blower Says

Source: New York Times

WASHINGTON — Michael T. Flynn, President Trump’s former national security adviser, told a former business associate that economic sanctions against Russia would be “ripped up” as one of the Trump administration’s first acts, according to an account by a whistle-blower made public on Wednesday.

[KingSweden]

Flynn Said Russian Sanctions Would be Ripped Up, Whistle-Blower Says

Source: New York Times

WASHINGTON — Michael T. Flynn, President Trump’s former national security adviser, told a former business associate that economic sanctions against Russia would be “ripped up” as one of the Trump administration’s first acts, according to an account by a whistle-blower made public on Wednesday.

They are so bad at being criminals

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

“Collusion” is not a crime or even a legal term

You're running behind. Even the deplorables are accepting collusion (or conspiring, if your prefer) with Russia. The new GOP defensive line is explaining why obstruction isn't illegal when the President does it. (Not much of a stretch for a party of apologists for pedophilia.)

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

“Collusion” is not a crime or even a legal term

You're running behind. Even the deplorables are accepting collusion (or conspiring, if your prefer) with Russia. The new GOP defensive line is explaining why obstruction isn't illegal when the President does it. (Not much of a stretch for a party of apologists for pedophilia.)

No, I’m not.  Trump may very well get indicted for obstruction of justice by Mueller, indeed it’s more likely than not at this point, and Mueller will almost certainly recommend impeachment at the very least.  And Trump obviously colluded with Russia.  However, facts are facts.  Collusion is a political term, you’ll never see anyone indicted for “collusion” b/c it’s not a crime.  As for conspiracy, that word doesn’t quite mean the same thing legally as it does in common usage.  It certainly shouldn’t be used interchangeably with collusion although if new information/testimony comes out, they may end up overlapping in this case.

[emailking]

No, I’m not.  Trump may very well get indicted for obstruction of justice by Mueller, indeed it’s more likely than not at this point, and Mueller will almost certainly recommend impeachment at the very least.  And Trump obviously colluded with Russia.  However, facts are facts.  Collusion is a political term, you’ll never see anyone indicted for “collusion” b/c it’s not a crime.  As for conspiracy, that word doesn’t quite mean the same thing legally as it does in common usage.  It certainly shouldn’t be used interchangeably with collusion although if new information/testimony comes out, they may end up overlapping in this case.

Collusion is not a criminal charge, but you effectively cannot collude without accepting in kind gifts, which is illegal for a campaign to accept from a foreign power.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

No, I’m not.  Trump may very well get indicted for obstruction of justice by Mueller, indeed it’s more likely than not at this point, and Mueller will almost certainly recommend impeachment at the very least.  And Trump obviously colluded with Russia.  However, facts are facts.  Collusion is a political term, you’ll never see anyone indicted for “collusion” b/c it’s not a crime.  As for conspiracy, that word doesn’t quite mean the same thing legally as it does in common usage.  It certainly shouldn’t be used interchangeably with collusion although if new information/testimony comes out, they may end up overlapping in this case.

Collusion is not a criminal charge, but you effectively cannot collude without accepting in kind gifts, which is illegal for a campaign to accept from a foreign power.

And I'm sure Don Jr. could mount a fairly strong ignorance of fact defense if you tried to charge him with violating the election laws you're talking about.  As for Trump, from what we've seen so far (and obviously Mueller knows a lot more than we do), I don't see enough evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Trump knew anyone campaign was engaging in the activities you're talking about.  Obstruction of Justice is the much stronger case, imo.  Btw, just to be clear, I'm just approaching this from a strictly legal PoV.

[Landslide Lyndon]

No, I’m not.  Trump may very well get indicted for obstruction of justice by Mueller, indeed it’s more likely than not at this point, and Mueller will almost certainly recommend impeachment at the very least.  And Trump obviously colluded with Russia.  However, facts are facts.  Collusion is a political term, you’ll never see anyone indicted for “collusion” b/c it’s not a crime.  As for conspiracy, that word doesn’t quite mean the same thing legally as it does in common usage.  It certainly shouldn’t be used interchangeably with collusion although if new information/testimony comes out, they may end up overlapping in this case.

Collusion is not a criminal charge, but you effectively cannot collude without accepting in kind gifts, which is illegal for a campaign to accept from a foreign power.

And I'm sure Don Jr. could mount a fairly strong ignorance of fact defense if you tried to charge him with violating the election laws you're talking about. 

Since when ignorance of the law is a valid defense strategy?

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

No, I’m not.  Trump may very well get indicted for obstruction of justice by Mueller, indeed it’s more likely than not at this point, and Mueller will almost certainly recommend impeachment at the very least.  And Trump obviously colluded with Russia.  However, facts are facts.  Collusion is a political term, you’ll never see anyone indicted for “collusion” b/c it’s not a crime.  As for conspiracy, that word doesn’t quite mean the same thing legally as it does in common usage.  It certainly shouldn’t be used interchangeably with collusion although if new information/testimony comes out, they may end up overlapping in this case.

Collusion is not a criminal charge, but you effectively cannot collude without accepting in kind gifts, which is illegal for a campaign to accept from a foreign power.

And I'm sure Don Jr. could mount a fairly strong ignorance of fact defense if you tried to charge him with violating the election laws you're talking about.  

Since when ignorance of the law is a valid defense strategy?

It isn’t.  However, ignorance of the facts necessary to possess the requisite mental state is a perfectly valid defense.

[emailking]

No, I’m not.  Trump may very well get indicted for obstruction of justice by Mueller, indeed it’s more likely than not at this point, and Mueller will almost certainly recommend impeachment at the very least.  And Trump obviously colluded with Russia.  However, facts are facts.  Collusion is a political term, you’ll never see anyone indicted for “collusion” b/c it’s not a crime.  As for conspiracy, that word doesn’t quite mean the same thing legally as it does in common usage.  It certainly shouldn’t be used interchangeably with collusion although if new information/testimony comes out, they may end up overlapping in this case.

Collusion is not a criminal charge, but you effectively cannot collude without accepting in kind gifts, which is illegal for a campaign to accept from a foreign power.

And I'm sure Don Jr. could mount a fairly strong ignorance of fact defense if you tried to charge him with violating the election laws you're talking about.  As for Trump, from what we've seen so far (and obviously Mueller knows a lot more than we do), I don't see enough evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Trump knew anyone campaign was engaging in the activities you're talking about.  Obstruction of Justice is the much stronger case, imo.  Btw, just to be clear, I'm just approaching this from a strictly legal PoV.

Well then what you're arguing is that he didn't collude, not that if he did collude he can't be charged for it.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

No, I’m not.  Trump may very well get indicted for obstruction of justice by Mueller, indeed it’s more likely than not at this point, and Mueller will almost certainly recommend impeachment at the very least.  And Trump obviously colluded with Russia.  However, facts are facts.  Collusion is a political term, you’ll never see anyone indicted for “collusion” b/c it’s not a crime.  As for conspiracy, that word doesn’t quite mean the same thing legally as it does in common usage.  It certainly shouldn’t be used interchangeably with collusion although if new information/testimony comes out, they may end up overlapping in this case.

Collusion is not a criminal charge, but you effectively cannot collude without accepting in kind gifts, which is illegal for a campaign to accept from a foreign power.

And I'm sure Don Jr. could mount a fairly strong ignorance of fact defense if you tried to charge him with violating the election laws you're talking about.  As for Trump, from what we've seen so far (and obviously Mueller knows a lot more than we do), I don't see enough evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Trump knew anyone campaign was engaging in the activities you're talking about.  Obstruction of Justice is the much stronger case, imo.  Btw, just to be clear, I'm just approaching this from a strictly legal PoV.

Well then what you're arguing is that he didn't collude, not that if he did collude he can't be charged for it.

No, I'm not, but whatever.

[Person Man]

No, I’m not.  Trump may very well get indicted for obstruction of justice by Mueller, indeed it’s more likely than not at this point, and Mueller will almost certainly recommend impeachment at the very least.  And Trump obviously colluded with Russia.  However, facts are facts.  Collusion is a political term, you’ll never see anyone indicted for “collusion” b/c it’s not a crime.  As for conspiracy, that word doesn’t quite mean the same thing legally as it does in common usage.  It certainly shouldn’t be used interchangeably with collusion although if new information/testimony comes out, they may end up overlapping in this case.

Collusion is not a criminal charge, but you effectively cannot collude without accepting in kind gifts, which is illegal for a campaign to accept from a foreign power.

And I'm sure Don Jr. could mount a fairly strong ignorance of fact defense if you tried to charge him with violating the election laws you're talking about.  As for Trump, from what we've seen so far (and obviously Mueller knows a lot more than we do), I don't see enough evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Trump knew anyone campaign was engaging in the activities you're talking about.  Obstruction of Justice is the much stronger case, imo.  Btw, just to be clear, I'm just approaching this from a strictly legal PoV.

Well then what you're arguing is that he didn't collude, not that if he did collude he can't be charged for it.

No, I'm not, but whatever.

I thought lacking scientist was really on a defense if you didn't have a reason to know. I think DT2 should have known if even he didn't know he was committing a crime. And even if there is no specific intent, he still ratified it and I don't think specific intent matters there.