Indictment-O-Rama Megathread: Mueller indicts 13 Russians

[pbrower2a]

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.

There may be a difference in that collusion implies that those complicit may be beyond indictment because they are foreigners acting legally because their deeds are licit elsewhere. such as a Russan spymaster operating in Russia violates no laws. On the other hand an American acting in concert with a Russian crime syndicate in the distribution of illegal drugs would  be criminal conspirators because drug trafficking is also illegal in Russia.   

[America's Sweetheart ❤/𝕿𝖍𝖊 𝕭𝖔𝖔𝖙𝖞 𝖂𝖆𝖗𝖗𝖎𝖔𝖗]

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.

What?

[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.

What?

Scienter* knowledge that one was doing something wrong not just that they were doing something

[Sestak]

Holy sh**t, I came home to my parents home for an extended weekend and they have Fox News on 24/7 and I'm just watching Hannity right now and I completely understand why the most insane retard always wins the Republican Primary. Fox News is a straight up rage machine cranked up to 10.

Just force them to watch Trevor Noah today, Bill Maher tomorrow, and John Oliver on Friday. Oh, and give them access to some reasonable news source.

Solving the "Fox News Only" problem one small step at a time.

[GeorgiaModerate]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Dr Oz Lost Party!]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Oh damn

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well now Don Jr. is probably screwed (possibly Trump too although I’d still stick to charging Trump with obstruction of justice and his son with violating New York bribery statutes)  While I haven’t studied bribery statutes in law school yet, I’m pretty sure this would qualify and with unlike violating election law, I doubt he could ge away with an ignorance of fact defense there.

[KingSweden]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Who’s gonna do it?

[GeorgiaModerate]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Who’s gonna do it?

Keep Elmo on the sidelines.  WaPo and others are reporting that the email was sent on Sept. 14 (not Sept. 4), which is a day after the files in question were publicly released.  So this isn't as significant as it first appeared to be.

[GeorgiaModerate]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[QAnonKelly]

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/12/08/us/politics/hope-hicks-russia-trump-fbi.html?_r=0&referer=https://www.google.com/

You in danger girl

[Frodo]

“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.

Conspiracy: An agreement between two or more persons to engage jointly in an unlawful or criminal act, or an act that is innocent in itself but becomes unlawful when done by the combination of actors.

Which is why Mueller following Trump's financial trail (including his tax records) is going to prove so important in this investigation, and determines whether or not Trump conspired with the Kremlin to alter the course of the 2016 election.  Trump obviously has something to hide.  And I wonder if Steve Bannon knows this, otherwise why counsel him to fight the investigation, alongside attempting to destroy the credibility of the Special Counsel?

[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.

Conspiracy: An agreement between two or more persons to engage jointly in an unlawful or criminal act, or an act that is innocent in itself but becomes unlawful when done by the combination of actors.

Which is why Mueller following Trump's financial trail (including his tax records) is going to prove so important in this investigation, and determines whether or not Trump conspired with the Kremlin to alter the course of the 2016 election.  Trump obviously has something to hide.  And I wonder if Steve Bannon knows this, otherwise why counsel him to fight the investigation, alongside attempting to destroy the credibility of the Special Counsel?

Correct

[Person Man]

“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.

Conspiracy: An agreement between two or more persons to engage jointly in an unlawful or criminal act, or an act that is innocent in itself but becomes unlawful when done by the combination of actors.

Which is why Mueller following Trump's financial trail (including his tax records) is going to prove so important in this investigation, and determines whether or not Trump conspired with the Kremlin to alter the course of the 2016 election.  Trump obviously has something to hide.  And I wonder if Steve Bannon knows this, otherwise why counsel him to fight the investigation, alongside attempting to destroy the credibility of the Special Counsel?

Correct

It would still need to be a conspiracy to something.

[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.

Conspiracy: An agreement between two or more persons to engage jointly in an unlawful or criminal act, or an act that is innocent in itself but becomes unlawful when done by the combination of actors.

Which is why Mueller following Trump's financial trail (including his tax records) is going to prove so important in this investigation, and determines whether or not Trump conspired with the Kremlin to alter the course of the 2016 election.  Trump obviously has something to hide.  And I wonder if Steve Bannon knows this, otherwise why counsel him to fight the investigation, alongside attempting to destroy the credibility of the Special Counsel?

Correct

It would still need to be a conspiracy to something.

And you’d need the agreement and requisite mental state too.  I’m not saying Mueller doesn’t have evidence to support conspiracy charges, but what we know about right now isn’t enough by itself.

[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.)

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.

Conspiracy: An agreement between two or more persons to engage jointly in an unlawful or criminal act, or an act that is innocent in itself but becomes unlawful when done by the combination of actors.

Which is why Mueller following Trump's financial trail (including his tax records) is going to prove so important in this investigation, and determines whether or not Trump conspired with the Kremlin to alter the course of the 2016 election.  Trump obviously has something to hide.  And I wonder if Steve Bannon knows this, otherwise why counsel him to fight the investigation, alongside attempting to destroy the credibility of the Special Counsel?

Correct

It would still need to be a conspiracy to something.

To violate the Federal Election Campaign Act. Foreign nationals are prohibited from:
   

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If anyone in the Trump campaign coordinated with any Russian nationals (not just those working explicitly for the Kremlin) to for example, spend money on Facebook ads, or asked them to provide information on Hillary Clinton (with or without an explicit quid pro quo) then they broke the law. If Trump knew about it, or encouraged it, then he broke the law.

I'm not sure if Trumpers have so much trouble with this very basic point of law because they're so stupid it takes all their brainpower to just keep breathing, or because they've brainwashed themselves so thoroughly that Trump could be raping their children in front of them and they'd be okay with it.

[Pouring Rain and Blairing Music]

Haven't been following the news on this thread (mostly Reddit and Twitter). Is Nuclear Elmo the equivalent of one of Benjamin Wittes's cannon videos?

[GeorgiaModerate]

Haven't been following the news on this thread (mostly Reddit and Twitter). Is Nuclear Elmo the equivalent of one of Benjamin Wittes's cannon videos?

Pretty much, although Elmo is usually deployed only for news that would get one of Wittes's bigger booms.

[Badger]

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/12/08/us/politics/hope-hicks-russia-trump-fbi.html?_r=0&referer=https://www.google.com/

You in danger girl

Given the greater than 50/50 chance (IMHO) the strong rumors of her f$%king Trump, she has only herself to blame for trying to screw her way to a position of high power.

If the rumors are false, she's merely another turd in King $hit's orbit who'd better flip fast to avoid full prosecution.

[junior chįmp]

Well...this is just wild:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[GeorgiaModerate]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Matty]

Is it reasonable to expect this to slow down a bit during the holiday season? Mueller has to let his team spend some time with their families, correct?

[Catholics vs. Convicts]

Is it reasonable to expect this to slow down a bit during the holiday season? Mueller has to let his team spend some time with their families, correct?

OMG. I CAN'T WAIT for Fox News to go off on this. War on Christmas talk meets the Robert Mueller smear campaign. Ohhhhh this is going to be so hilarious.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Is it reasonable to expect this to slow down a bit during the holiday season? Mueller has to let his team spend some time with their families, correct?

Not much, I mean maybe it’ll be an early end of the day on Christmas at most, I assume.

[junior chįmp]

Big, if true:

Jailed Russian hacker: I hacked Democrats 'under the command' of Russian intelligence agents