Russians interacted with at least 14 Trump associates

Sapidus

Well-Known Member
“Two days after Trump was elected president, a top Kremlin official caused a stir by asserting that Trump’s associates were in contact with the Russian government before the election.

“I don’t say that all of them, but a whole array of them supported contacts with Russian representatives,” Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov told the Interfax news agency on Nov. 10, 2016.

The claim was met with a hail of denials. Hope Hicks, then Trump’s top spokeswoman, responded, “It never happened. There was no communication between the campaign and any foreign entity during the campaign.”

After Trump took office, in February 2017, he reiterated the denial. “No. Nobody that I know of,” the president told reporters when asked whether anyone who advised his campaign had contact with Russia. “I have nothing to do with Russia. To the best of my knowledge, no person that I deal with does.”

It is now clear that wasn’t true.

Trump’s oldest children, Donald Trump Jr. and Ivanka Trump, interacted with Russians who were offering to help the candidate.

Ivanka’s husband, top campaign adviser Jared Kushner, as well as Trump’s campaign chairman Paul Manafort, his personal lawyer Michael Cohen and his longest-serving political adviser, Roger Stone, also had contact with Russian nationals.”


https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...60ce2a8148f_story.html?utm_term=.62c98960a13a
 

Hijinx

Well-Known Member
Oh Bullsh1t. Tired of this sh1t.
Don't you ever get tired of spreading manure that no one but you TDS crazy nit wits give a damn about/
You are sickening.
 

Sapidus

Well-Known Member
Hahahahaha

It’s telling that you continue to get mad at the people and sources that show you what a conman you voted for and continue to support rather then the conman himself. He did a real number on you
 

Grumpy

Well-Known Member
Hahahahaha

It’s telling that you continue to get mad at the people and sources that show you what a conman you voted for and continue to support rather then the conman himself. He did a real number on you

Please explain to me why you would have liked Hillary or Bernie as your Prez, and don't forget to address their alleged criminal acts. TIA
 

Sapidus

Well-Known Member
Please explain to me why you would have liked Hillary or Bernie as your Prez, and don't forget to address their alleged criminal acts. TIA

When did either of them commit tax fraud? Pay $25 million to settle another fraud case? Testify against Bulgari in exchange for immunity in another tax fraud case?

Payoff hookers? Foot the idea of gifting Putin a penthouse in a to be built Trump
tower Moscow? Obstruct justice by firing james Comey?

If either of them was guilty of even one crime you can be sure Republicans would have held their feet to the fire. They investigated Benghazi for years and didn’t press any charges. And how many time during that investigation did Hillary cry witch-hunt or collusion? Or perjury trap?
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
When did either of them commit tax fraud? Pay $25 million to settle another fraud case? Testify against Bulgari in exchange for immunity in another tax fraud case?

Payoff hookers? Foot the idea of gifting Putin a penthouse in a to be built Trump
tower Moscow? Obstruct justice by firing james Comey?

If either of them was guilty of even one crime you can be sure Republicans would have held their feet to the fire. They investigated Benghazi for years and didn’t press any charges. And how many time during that investigation did Hillary cry witch-hunt or collusion? Or perjury trap?

I notice you didn't once point to a single accomplishment either of them had, or reason for them to be president. You ONLY spouted unverifiable talking points against Trump, not a single thing in favor of Sanders or Clinton.

Do you realize your favored candidates have no reason to be president, by your own admission there?
 

Hijinx

Well-Known Member
I notice you didn't once point to a single accomplishment either of them had, or reason for them to be president. You ONLY spouted unverifiable talking points against Trump, not a single thing in favor of Sanders or Clinton.

Do you realize your favored candidates have no reason to be president, by your own admission there?

It's people like this ignorant dipstick who are destroying our country.
They are blind to anything the Clinton have done.
Blind to the division that Obama encouraged and have pushed this Russian BS ad infinitum, When there is nothing there.
I am ready to go Yellow Vest on their ass and only wish the war they want would start so we can get it on.
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
Pay $25 million to settle another fraud case?

Be Specific Where was Trump Guilty in that case



Testify against Bulgari in exchange for immunity in another tax fraud case?

:shrug: So What

Payoff hookers?

Be Specific What Hookers did Trump Pay off - also explain how who a Private Citizen boinks is relevant

Foot the idea of gifting Putin a penthouse in a to be built Trump tower Moscow?

Be Specific show the emails or recorded conversations where Trump was involved in the Cohen - Sater discussion


Obstruct justice by firing James Comey?

Be Specific - How was Firing Comey Obstruction, Point to the Charges and Conviction

https://www.lawfareblog.com/was-firing-james-comey-obstruction-justice

However, the statutory bar is exceedingly high. Multiple circuit courts have concluded that under §§ 1503 and 1505, “although the defendant need not succeed in his attempt to obstruct justice, his conduct must be such ‘that its natural and probable effect would be the interference with the due administration of justice.’” This requires specific intent to obstruct or impede an investigation. In the context of any criminal proceeding, where the burden of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt, the possible existence of other motives would likely make obstruction of justice difficult to prove.





https://www.justsecurity.org/52977/muellers-uphill-battle-obstruction-law-comey-firing/


If no grand jury investigation involving the Flynn or Russia investigation was pending when Trump fired Comey, Aguilar suggests that a conviction under § 1503 would be difficult to sustain. In early April, a grand jury sitting in the Eastern District of Virginia issued a series of subpoenas to associates of Trump’s former national security adviser, retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn. As of this writing, it is not known whether the president knew of the grand jury proceeding at this time, nor whether he discussed with Comey the workings of that proceeding. The president certainly wanted Comey to drop his investigation of Flynn, but it is not clear that the president’s interference was directed at the grand jury proceeding itself, which Aguilar seems to require. Like Aguilar, the president’s conduct seemingly was not directed at a covered proceeding at all, but rather was done with the “intent to influence some ancillary proceeding” or, in other words “an investigation independent of the court or grand jury’s authority” (here, the FBI investigation), which the Aguilar Court held was insufficient to sustain a conviction under § 1503.

[clip]

The second reading faces difficulties under Aguilar and Arthur Andersen, both of which suggest that the prospective proceeding must be foreseeable or contemplated, that the defendant’s conduct was intended to compromise that proceeding, and that the effects of the defendant’s conduct on the proceeding are not speculative. In Aguilar, merely making false statements to FBI agents even when a grand jury had already been empaneled did not constitute actionable obstruction under § 1503 because the effect on the prospective proceeding was speculative. By contrast, the Court noted, directly providing false statements to the grand jury would constitute obstruction because doing so “all but assured that the grand jury [would] consider the material in its deliberations.” If Aguilar’s essential teaching on the intent requirement extends to § 1512 prosecutions, the defendant must intend to affect the actual workings of the covered proceeding As of now, there is little evidence that the president knew of any grand jury proceeding and that the president intended the FBI under Comey to provide false information to, or otherwise tamper with, the grand jury – which the Aguilar Court held would be sufficient to sustain a conviction under § 1503. At worst, on our present understanding of the facts, the president intended to dissuade Comey, who was involved in a counterintelligence inquiry into Russian meddling in our elections, from continuing his investigation of Flynn, but there is no evidence he intended to interfere with any grand jury proceeding. Again, the president’s firing of Comey was a troubling act, and may become part of a showing of abuse of position making its way into a bill of impeachment, but (based on what we know) was not criminally culpable under the Court’s obstruction of justice jurisprudence.

It must be acknowledged that § 1512, like § 1503, contains sweeping language. The Court’s cases counsel that it is essential that statutes with such broad language be kept within their appropriate bounds, for, in “assessing the reach of federal criminal statute,” courts must be sensitive to the “concern that a fair warning should be given to the world in language that the common world will understand, of what the law intends to do if a certain line is passed” lest a broadly worded, ambiguous provision capture conduct that falls below the level of “culpability … we usually require in order to impose criminal liability.” In sum, whatever our feelings about the current president or his conduct in office, we must be cautious about expanding the scope of the obstruction statutes to avoid the risk they criminalize merely self-protective or inappropriate, but not criminal, conduct.
 
Last edited:

Sapidus

Well-Known Member
I notice you didn't once point to a single accomplishment either of them had, or reason for them to be president. You ONLY spouted unverifiable talking points against Trump, not a single thing in favor of Sanders or Clinton.

Do you realize your favored candidates have no reason to be president, by your own admission there?

It’s not my job to persuade you to vote for a candidate. It is however my duty to show you that Trump is a conman and a traitor who regularly breaks the law
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
It’s not my job to persuade you to vote for a candidate. It is however my duty to show you that Trump is a conman and a traitor who regularly breaks the law

You may or may not have a point, but that wasn't the question you were answering.

If you'd like to talk "regularly breaks the law", let's do that. What has Trump done that is likely to have caused exceptionally grave damage to national security, like knowingly allowing Top Secret information to be placed on an unsecured e-mail server that has Chinese spyware installed (not hacked into, according to our FBI)?
 

Sapidus

Well-Known Member
You may or may not have a point, but that wasn't the question you were answering.

If you'd like to talk "regularly breaks the law", let's do that. What has Trump done that is likely to have caused exceptionally grave damage to national security, like knowingly allowing Top Secret information to be placed on an unsecured e-mail server that has Chinese spyware installed (not hacked into, according to our FBI)?

You mean like using an u secured IPhone despite his advisors telling him not to?

We’ve already been over this
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
You mean like using an u secured IPhone despite his advisors telling him not to?

We’ve already been over this

Is there evidence that he has discussed Top Secret information on that iPhone? We have evidence that Clinton knowingly, intentionally provided Top Secret information using her illegal unsecured server with Chinese spyware installed (not hacked into, according to the FBI).

So, no, it's not like tweeting with an unsecured iPhone. Not even close.

So, you're ok with Hillary's actual illegal activity, as provided to us from the FBI, but you're worried about Trump having used his own money in what we will find is a perfectly legal way?
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
You mean like using an u secured IPhone despite his advisors telling him not to?


Be Specific To Whom was Trump calling on this unsecured iPhone



We’ve already been over this



and you were repeatedly asked for ANY Proof Trump was conducting GOV Business over an unsecured iPhone [making PHONE Calls] instead of using the Secure White House Phone
you provided NONE and instead changed the accusations
 
Top