"The meeting only lasted for 20-30 minutes and nothing came from it..."

[kentuck]

Do you believe that?

What happened after this meeting? How long had it been in planning?

The RNC Convention was in Cleveland on July 18-21. Someone was able to remove part of the Republican platform that was against Russia's interest, in the Ukraine. This was of prime interest to Putin and Russia.

Also, the Wikileaks memos were released after the meeting at Trump Tower.

Further, Trump came out with declarations that were very close to Russian interest and against American interests, such as withdrawing from the Paris Accord on environment. He spoke out against Article 5 of the NATO agreement, which promised unity in case of outside attacks.

Also, even as we speak, there are efforts by the White House to remove sanctions from recent legislation.

And then, there were the emails that were leaked to harm the Clinton campaign...

Much has happened since the meeting with the "Russian lawyer". She was escorted to Trump Tower to meet with Donald Trump Jr and other White House operatives. Did they consummate some sort of deal? Or was it a "nothing burger"?

Were any actions or agreements consummated with that meeting? If so, would it be considered a "quid pro quo"? Why would they send a lawyer, instead of a diplomat or other representative? Why would they choose a "female lawyer"?

Do you believe that they sent this "lady lawyer" all the way from Moscow, along with the publicist, Goldstone, to meet with the top three people in the Trump campaign at that time, and it was nothing but a boring 20-minutes of a "nothing burger"?

You wanna buy a bridge?

[SHRED]

1. They lie so I don't believe a word they say

[Solly Mack]

2. I don't believe them about anything.

[Warren DeMontague]

3. This meeting we never had, with people we've never met, about stuff we never did?

20-30 minutes, tops!

[malaise]

4. You expected the truth from these

goons?

[KeepItReal]

5. If they all lied about even having the meeting, it follows they'd lie about it being successful.

Because why would the Russians bait and switch their chosen team?

[spanone]

6. i don't believe a word of it...and the story of kushner leaving right away?....nyet

NONE OF IT excuses the fact that he didn't report it.

[tazkcmo]

7. So who arrests these guys?

If I had an email string published about a meeting I had with Russians to violate federal law, I'd be expecting either the local police or the FBI.

[kentuck]

9. Nobody. The Justice Department is under the control of the coup.

The voters are the last line of defense. It is up to the people to mete out justice at the polls. It is they that will punish the conspirators or not?

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

8. It doesn't matter if nothing came out of the meeting.

It doesn't matter if it lasted only 20-30 minutes. The only significant thing is that Jr., Kushner and Manafort went to the meeting believing that a Russian lawyer who worked for the Russian government had dirt on Hillary that she was willing to give them. Jr. nearly wet himself with excitement over that prospect. Maybe she didn't hand them anything right then and there (or maybe she did), but what should we make of the fact that before the meeting occurred but after it was scheduled, Dolt 45 announced that he was going to make an important speech about Hillary (the speech took place but without any dirt); that emails were released by Wikileaks not too lang afterwards, or that Trump, during a speech, asked the Russians to release Hillary's "lost" emails?

Just a coincidence?

[kentuck]

15. Collusion, without any resulting actions, would not be a crime.

However, collusion with a resulting quid pro quo, would be a conspiracy and would be a crime. From a legal point of view, it would matter if something came from that meeting. It could have been the final step in their long-negotiated agreement? I keep wondering, why the "lady lawyer" was the chosen representative between the two parties? It is incredible to think that it was about nothing. This was an important event in the progression of this scandal, in my opinion.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

16. There is no statutory crime of collusion. There is, however, the crime of conspiracy.

18 U.S. Code § 371 - Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States

If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

The initial conspiracy would be the email traffic and the agreement to meet; the contemplated crime would be the use of the information to influence or interfere with the election (and/or taking something of value from a foreign person as a campaign contribution); and the overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy would be the actual meeting. Conspiracy is itself a separate crime from the crime that's the subject of the conspiracy.

Maybe you could throw in a conspiracy to receive stolen property, too, since any information the Russians had must have been acquired illegally through espionage or hacking.

[kentuck]

17. If they were successful with any part of their conspiracy....?

...would it then be considered espionage??

In my opinion, it would be.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

18. Probably not espionage.

The espionage statutes specifically address the transferring of national defense information to foreign governments. As far as we know Jr. et al. weren't giving the Russians information; they were trying to get information.

[kentuck]

19. We don't know what information has been passed to Russia?

We do know that Trump "slipped up" and told the Russians in the White House top secret information about an Israeli agent. We don't know what else was discussed in the meeting in Hamburg?? Yes, they were trying to get information from the Russians. But what were they willing to give in return for that information?

If they agreed to give up something in return, it would be collusion to commit conspiracy. It could be argued that it was very much a national defense issue.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

20. "Collusion" is not a legal term, at least in criminal law. But conspiracy is a real thing.

I'd like to see the media just ditch the term "collusion" because it's meaningless. Conspiracy is the word that should be used because it IS a crime.

[kentuck]

21. The word "collusion" is in the U.S. Code in correlation with conspiracy.

18 U.S.C. § 201 - U.S. Code

http://codes.findlaw.com/us/title-18-crimes-and-criminal-procedure/18-usc-sect-201.html

<snip>

Whoever--

 directly or indirectly, corruptly gives, offers or promises anything of value to any public official or person who has been selected to be a public official, or offers or promises any public official or any person who has been selected to be a public official to give anything of value to any other person or entity, with intent--

 to influence any official act;  or

 to influence such public official or person who has been selected to be a public official to commit or aid in committing, or collude in, or allow, any fraud, or make opportunity for the commission of any fraud, on the United States;  or

 to induce such public official or such person who has been selected to be a public official to do or omit to do any act in violation of the lawful duty of such official or person;

 being a public official or person selected to be a public official, directly or indirectly, corruptly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally or for any other person or entity, in return for:

 being influenced in the performance of any official act;

 being influenced to commit or aid in committing, or to collude in, or allow, any fraud, or make opportunity for the commission of any fraud, on the United States;  or

 being induced to do or omit to do any act in violation of the official duty of such official or person;  

 directly or indirectly, corruptly gives, offers, or promises anything of value to any person, or offers or promises such person to give anything of value to any other person or entity, with intent to influence the testimony under oath or affirmation of such first-mentioned person as a witness upon a trial, hearing, or other proceeding, before any court, any committee of either House or both Houses of Congress, or any agency, commission, or officer authorized by the laws of the United States to hear evidence or take testimony, or with intent to influence such person to absent himself therefrom;

 directly or indirectly, corruptly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally or for any other person or entity in return for being influenced in testimony under oath or affirmation as a witness upon any such trial, hearing, or other proceeding, or in return for absenting himself therefrom;

shall be fined under this title or not more than three times the monetary equivalent of the thing of value, whichever is greater, or imprisoned for not more than fifteen years, or both, and may be disqualified from holding any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

23. But my point is that it's not a crime by itself. It can be an element or description

of some criminal actions but there's no separate crime of collusion. So when the media claim Jr. or the Trump campaign "colluded," it means nothing unless that "collusion" can be identified as an element of the crime of conspiracy.

[kentuck]

39. Correct.

[Volaris]

25. At what point does this rise to the level of a RICO case, if that's even possible?

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

26. This (Jr.'s meeting) wouldn't be a RICO situation, but it wouldn't surprise me at all

if Mueller's group found evidence that the Trump Organization is up to its neck in financial crimes that might justify prosecution under RICO. The "predicate acts" under RICO are:

Any violation of state statutes against gambling, murder, kidnapping, extortion, arson, robbery, bribery, dealing in obscene matter, or dealing in a controlled substance or listed chemical;

Any act of bribery, counterfeiting, theft, embezzlement, fraud, dealing in obscene matter, obstruction of justice, slavery, racketeering, gambling, money laundering, commission of murder-for-hire, and many other offenses covered under the Federal criminal code;

Embezzlement of union funds;

Bankruptcy fraud or securities fraud;

Drug trafficking;

Criminal copyright infringement;

Money laundering and related offenses;

Bringing in, aiding or assisting aliens in illegally entering the country (if the action was for financial gain);

Acts of terrorism.

A "pattern" of racketeering activity requires at least two acts of racketeering activity within ten years.

RICO was designed for the prosecution of people involved in organized crime; I don't know what else you'd call the Trump Organization.

[Volaris]

29. So if the campaign can be found to have

Accepted dirty money from Russian mob banks, does that qualify as laundering, AND

Would the firing of Comey (itself an act of obstruction of justice) qualify as a Predicate Act?

If so, that's 2 in way less than 10 years.

I agree this is a criminal enterprise.
That it also happens to be an organized political party, seems like it would be argumentatively irrelevant.

Just asking because I haven't been to law school yet.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

32. Could be. If he's got the evidence,

I hope Mueller throws the book at the whole disgusting bunch.

[forgotmylogin]

30. I've already read more than one story...

explaining how "Russian Adoptions" is euphemism for the whole spate of Russian sanctions that included it.

https://thinkprogress.org/team-trumps-disingenuous-russian-adoption-talking-point-debunked-f1b1e2fbf5cd

"Even if the meeting did end up being primarily about adoption, however, the talking point is disingenuous. In reality, the adoption program was halted by the Russian government in retaliation for the Magnitsky Act, in which Congress imposed sanctions on certain Russian figures over human rights issues.

"The act is named for Sergei Magnitsky, a Russian tax attorney who alleged that corrupt officials in Putin’s government stole $230 million. After Magnitsky uncovered the fraud, he was arrested on the premise that he was perpetuating fraud himself. While in Russian prison, he was beaten and tortured. He died while incarcerated under suspicious circumstances.

"In 2012, Congress passed an act in his name that enables the U.S. to withhold visas and freeze the assets of officials thought to be involved in his death and human rights violations. The passage of the act enraged Putin, prompting him to pass similar sanctions in response and to halt the adoption program.

"Repealing the Magnitsky Act is one of Putin’s primary foreign policy goals in Washington. It would be impossible for Trump Jr. to talk about resuming the adoption program without touching on easing the sanctions, which is a top priority of Putin’s regime."

http://www.businessinsider.com/magnitsky-act-russian-adoptions-donald-trump-jr-meeting-2017-7

"When the Kremlin Says ‘Adoptions,’ It Means ‘Sanctions’"

[oxbow]

10. The meeting is not important by itself

Goldstone tells Jr. that Putin wants help his dad, and his response implies he already knows that. If anything, the email shows that this was in the works some time before they offered "oppo."

[flotsam]

11. Only 20-30 minutes?

Time this:

"We can make you President of the United States, But it's going to cost."

"Deal"!


Was that less than 20???

[Kingofalldems]

12. They along with Fox keeps repeating that over and over

which tells me this is going to nuclear soon. Plenty happened at that meeting.

[Mr. Ected]

13. Why is every single word and question in your OP not being said and asked by Republican Congressmen?

Why are so many Americans unable to form their lips around the words and questions you've just posed?

What is wrong with America? Has partisanship morphed into complete dysfunction?

No matter who wins or loses elections, an inability to hold your party responsible for its actions truly spells doom. This model is not sustainable.

[Ilsa]

14. A "nothingburger" meeting takes about 5-10 minutes.

20-30 minutes for a meeting means they had plenty to chat about, even with interpreters. But that's just my opinion.

[struggle4progress]

22. We put on our masks and walked into the bank with our guns drawn ---

but they didn't have much money, so we left

[DonViejo]

24. Sure. I can accept it lasted for that amount of time...

I saw a recording of Jr last night saying, Jared left the room after ten minutes, Manafort shortly after (one minute, two, five?); leaving Jr. alone in the room for five to ten minutes with the attorney. IMO, Jared heard the outline of the scheme, ok'd it and left the room. Then, the campaign manager, tied up some loose ends he saw; ok'd the deal and left the room. Jr. worked out the delivery schedule for the Russian information in the remaining five to ten minutes. Later, old man Trump publicly announced that schedule.

[TNNurse]

27. No one mentions "Intent"

Are they not guilty just by the fact of the intent to get info from a foreign person about a political opponent?

[Bernardo de La Paz]

28. Trump Changes Tune On Russian Lawyer Meeting: 'Maybe It Was Mentioned'

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10029323886

[onecaliberal]

33. No I don't believe them. The sheer fact the meeting happened and he was so willing

To work with a foreign government to rip off the election is the Fucking problem. Not the length of the meeting.

[keithbvadu2]

34. Attempted murder must not be a crime because no one was killed.

Attempted murder must not be a crime because no one was killed.

[Raine]

35. 20-30 minutes is long enough to discuss

plenty especially when there's only a handful of people involved.

[kentuck]

40. To say "20 or 30 minutes" implies that they did not know exactly....

...it could have been longer.

[SCantiGOP]

36. Just on MSNBC:

The "everybody does it" defense is going to be hard to sell to Robert Mueller.

well done

[ginnyinWI]

37. how about this analogy:

" I broke into the jewelry store at midnight, but as the cases were all locked I didn't have a chance to steal anything. I've committed no crime--you have to let me go!"

[bucolic_frolic]

38. It's as bad as believing

the hookers were there to pee

[frogmarch]

41. Manafort was fiddling on his iPhone during

the meeting, according to some reports.

What was he fiddling and who was he fiddling to? I can't help but wonder if he was communicating with PINO.

[kentuck]

42. Manafort was fiddling and Jared left almost immediately?

Sounds like a story that was prepared for this very moment?

[frogmarch]

44. Wow, yeah!

Something for sure was going on. I hope we find out what.

[brooklynite]

43. Here's a supporting perspective...

Don Jr. clearly EXPECTED dirt on the Clinton, and apparently told Don Sr., who teased an upcoming speech about Clinton a few hours after the offer was made. The speech never happened, suggesting the dirt wasn't there.