5 ms·

You're going to need to cite evidence. I read the Mueller report and found there no statements consistent with yours. Edit: I see you edited to remove your str

You're going to need to cite evidence. I read the Mueller report and found there no statements consistent with yours. Edit: I see you edited to remove your strong claim and dilute it with an interpretation that you have provided, which is legally meaningless.

tylerhou 5y ago
My "stronger claim" is my original claim, just rephrased, so don't pretend that I have moved any goalposts. These statements are in the Mueller report, as you can see for yourself. https://www.justice.gov/archives/sco/file/1373816/download https://www.justice.gov/archives/sco/file/1373816/download. > The meeting was proposed to Donald Trump Jr. in an email from Robert Goldstone, at the request of his then-client Emin Agalarov, the son of Russian real-estate developer Aras Agalarov. Goldstone relayed to Trump Jr. that the “Crown prosecutor of Russia . . . offered to provide the Trump Campaign with some official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia” as “part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump.” Trump Jr. immediately responded that “if it’s what you say I love it,” and arranged the meeting through a series of emails and telephone calls. (Page 110, under the heading "June 9, 2016 Meeting at Trump Tower.") They are also not legally meaningless, and they aren't even my interpretation, which you would know if you had actually bothered to read the Mueller report or look up the relevant sections. Mueller himself said the reason why he did not prosecute is because (to him) it did not have sufficient evidence to prosecute. But just because the Justice Department wouldn't be able to convict doesn't mean that it is legal to accept information on a political opponent from an agent of a foreign government. > On the facts here, the government would unlikely be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the June 9 meeting participants had general knowledge that their conduct was unlawful. The investigation has not developed evidence that the participants in the meeting were familiar with the foreign-contribution ban or the application of federal law to the relevant factual context. (Page 187 of the Mueller report.) > The Office would also encounter difficulty proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the value of the promised documents and information exceeds the $2,000 threshold for a criminal violation, as well as the $25,000 threshold for felony punishment. (Page 188, ibid.)
- the_optimist 5y ago
  You have this inverted. The bar isn't that legal behavior must be circumscribed by law, it is that illegal behavior is specified by law. Actions which are not prosecutable under the law are very specifically what you say they are not: legally meaningless. > "no evidence was ever found to substantiate Trump or his associates or campaign ever working with Russians to interfere with the election" Parse this again and again. What does this mean? Who would be "interfering?" In what? Is there a legal obligation to conceal factual information? Is there a legal obligation not to seek it? It's telling that they tried to proxy a value under campaign FINANCE violations, so desperate were they to find a crime.
  - tylerhou 5y ago
    > Actions which are not prosecutable under the law are very specifically what you say they are not: legally meaningless. Are you really trying to suggest that actions done by an individual are illegal only if the government can successfully prosecute that individual for their action? Clearly the legality of an action and the ability to prosecute an action are separate concepts. > It's telling that they tried to proxy a value under campaign FINANCE violations This very obviously falls under campaign finance regulations. Federal regulations prohibit campaigns from accepting "things of value" from foreign nationals, and opposition research on a political opponent is also clearly a thing of value, seeing as campaigns hire people to perform opposition research all the time. Dirt on a political opponent also obviously falls under something that would be revealed by opposition research. > Parse this again and again. What does this mean? Who would be "interfering?" The Russians would be interfering in our elections through ads/marketing that support Trump, and providing things of value to the Trump campaign. If the Trump campaign helps the Russians accomplish those goals (through accepting information or giving the Russians demographic data) that would be illegal. It's really quite simple to understand.
    - the_optimist 5y ago
      "Are you really trying to suggest..." No, I am directly stating this: Actions which are not illegal should not be prosecuted. This, and every other single aspect of Russia-mania were grotesque attempts to divine illegality. I know you'll disagree from your insistence, but we can agree to disagree. I believe that asking questions or counterfactuals to your statements leads to merciless dead-ends, just like the Mueller report, and I challenge observers to ask those very questions. In this very specific and unusual case, agents of the US government chose not to alert the campaign of suspected influence, but rather 'monitor' on the side and comb through their documentation for a crime, in full public political and media theatre. Would that it happened to you, you might object.

tylerhou 5y ago

My "stronger claim" is my original claim, just rephrased, so don't pretend that I have moved any goalposts. These statements are in the Mueller report, as you can see for yourself. https://www.justice.gov/archives/sco/file/1373816/download https://www.justice.gov/archives/sco/file/1373816/download. > The meeting was proposed to Donald Trump Jr. in an email from Robert Goldstone, at the request of his then-client Emin Agalarov, the son of Russian real-estate developer Aras Agalarov. Goldstone relayed to Trump Jr. that the “Crown prosecutor of Russia . . . offered to provide the Trump Campaign with some official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia” as “part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump.” Trump Jr. immediately responded that “if it’s what you say I love it,” and arranged the meeting through a series of emails and telephone calls. (Page 110, under the heading "June 9, 2016 Meeting at Trump Tower.") They are also not legally meaningless, and they aren't even my interpretation, which you would know if you had actually bothered to read the Mueller report or look up the relevant sections. Mueller himself said the reason why he did not prosecute is because (to him) it did not have sufficient evidence to prosecute. But just because the Justice Department wouldn't be able to convict doesn't mean that it is legal to accept information on a political opponent from an agent of a foreign government. > On the facts here, the government would unlikely be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the June 9 meeting participants had general knowledge that their conduct was unlawful. The investigation has not developed evidence that the participants in the meeting were familiar with the foreign-contribution ban or the application of federal law to the relevant factual context. (Page 187 of the Mueller report.) > The Office would also encounter difficulty proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the value of the promised documents and information exceeds the $2,000 threshold for a criminal violation, as well as the $25,000 threshold for felony punishment. (Page 188, ibid.)

the_optimist 5y ago
You have this inverted. The bar isn't that legal behavior must be circumscribed by law, it is that illegal behavior is specified by law. Actions which are not prosecutable under the law are very specifically what you say they are not: legally meaningless. > "no evidence was ever found to substantiate Trump or his associates or campaign ever working with Russians to interfere with the election" Parse this again and again. What does this mean? Who would be "interfering?" In what? Is there a legal obligation to conceal factual information? Is there a legal obligation not to seek it? It's telling that they tried to proxy a value under campaign FINANCE violations, so desperate were they to find a crime.
- tylerhou 5y ago
  > Actions which are not prosecutable under the law are very specifically what you say they are not: legally meaningless. Are you really trying to suggest that actions done by an individual are illegal only if the government can successfully prosecute that individual for their action? Clearly the legality of an action and the ability to prosecute an action are separate concepts. > It's telling that they tried to proxy a value under campaign FINANCE violations This very obviously falls under campaign finance regulations. Federal regulations prohibit campaigns from accepting "things of value" from foreign nationals, and opposition research on a political opponent is also clearly a thing of value, seeing as campaigns hire people to perform opposition research all the time. Dirt on a political opponent also obviously falls under something that would be revealed by opposition research. > Parse this again and again. What does this mean? Who would be "interfering?" The Russians would be interfering in our elections through ads/marketing that support Trump, and providing things of value to the Trump campaign. If the Trump campaign helps the Russians accomplish those goals (through accepting information or giving the Russians demographic data) that would be illegal. It's really quite simple to understand.
  - the_optimist 5y ago
    "Are you really trying to suggest..." No, I am directly stating this: Actions which are not illegal should not be prosecuted. This, and every other single aspect of Russia-mania were grotesque attempts to divine illegality. I know you'll disagree from your insistence, but we can agree to disagree. I believe that asking questions or counterfactuals to your statements leads to merciless dead-ends, just like the Mueller report, and I challenge observers to ask those very questions. In this very specific and unusual case, agents of the US government chose not to alert the campaign of suspected influence, but rather 'monitor' on the side and comb through their documentation for a crime, in full public political and media theatre. Would that it happened to you, you might object.