Mueller investigation

[Elixir]

Russia and US are not at war. And even alleged meddling is hardly an act of war.
So, you need to declare war first and then only then start treating contacts with these bad Russian guys as treason.

You apparently missed the bit where their defense was it was an act of war.

B is showing remarkable courage, contradicting the plain assertion by The Boss.

 

[ZiprHead]

Russia and US are not at war. And even alleged meddling is hardly an act of war.
So, you need to declare war first and then only then start treating contacts with these bad Russian guys as treason.

You apparently missed the bit where their defense was it was an act of war.

B is showing remarkable courage, contradicting the plain assertion by The Boss.

I suggest Barbos start wearing rubber gloves before touching his door knobs for the immediate future.

 

[ZiprHead]

So it sounds like Bonespur's mole has been feeding him what going on in the investigation. He's desperately saying he knows what's in there and that Mueller's team's got nothing. No wonder he's sounding more and more unhinged.

 

[barbos]

Russia and US are not at war. And even alleged meddling is hardly an act of war.
So, you need to declare war first and then only then start treating contacts with these bad Russian guys as treason.

You apparently missed the bit where their defense was it was an act of war.

No, I did not. They are merely trolling democrats noting inconsistencies in their claims/actions.
If hacking and propaganda is act of war then US is so guilty that it's not even funny.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Is hacking per se a crime? ANY hacking? (except the U.S. government doing it to "spy" on another country)

If so, then maybe Trump is guilty, or his campaign, because he encouraged the Russians to hack into Hillary's e-mail. And urging anyone to commit a crime is itself a crime, isn't it?

Does it even matter that it was RUSSIANS who did the hacking? or what happened as a result of it?

As long as he encouraged them to do it, then he too is technically guilty, if any hacking is a crime.

 

[bilby]

Is hacking per se a crime? ANY hacking?

Yes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Fraud_and_Abuse_Act

The law prohibits accessing a computer without authorization, or in excess of authorization.

 

[Opoponax]

Is hacking per se a crime? ANY hacking? (except the U.S. government doing it to "spy" on another country)

If so, then maybe Trump is guilty, or his campaign, because he encouraged the Russians to hack into Hillary's e-mail. And urging anyone to commit a crime is itself a crime, isn't it?

Does it even matter that it was RUSSIANS who did the hacking? or what happened as a result of it?

As long as he encouraged them to do it, then he too is technically guilty, if any hacking is a crime.

You're talking about solicitation.Trump being a fucking idiot and asking the Russians to hack likely doesn't rise to the level of solicitation.

Under the solicitation statute, the Government must prove two essential elements. First, the Government must establish that the defendant had the intent that another person engage in conduct constituting a felony crime of violence in violation of Federal law. The intent must be shown to be serious by strongly corroborative circumstances. Second, the Government must prove that the defendant commanded, induced, or otherwise endeavored to persuade the other person to commit the felony. See United States v. Rahman, 34 F.3d 1331, 1337 (7th Cir. 1994); United States v. Razo-Leora, 961 F.2d 1140, 1147 n.6 (5th Cir. 1992); United States v. McNeill, 887 F.2d 448, 450 (3d Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1087 (1990); United States v. Holveck, 867 F. Supp. 969, 977 (D. Kan. 1994); United States v. Buckalew, 674 F. Supp. 940, 942 (D. Maine 1987), aff'd, 859 F.2d 1052 (1st Cir. 1988). The phrase "otherwise endeavors to persuade" covers any situation where a person seriously seeks to persuade another person to engage in criminal conduct. S. Rep. No. 97-307, 97th Cong., 1st Sess. 183-84 (1982). See United States v. McNeill, 887 F.2d at 450; United States v. Buckalew, 859 F.2d at 1054. The Criminal Division has prepared a form indictment for § 373 offenses.

I don't think his dipshittery meets the elements, unless it can be shown otherwise through information we don't have.

 

[barbos]

You're talking about solicitation.Trump being a fucking idiot and asking the Russians to hack likely doesn't rise to the level of solicitation.

It was a rhetorical solicitation and If I remember correctly he asked for help in finding missing emails, he did ask them to hack.

 

[Opoponax]

You're talking about solicitation.Trump being a fucking idiot and asking the Russians to hack likely doesn't rise to the level of solicitation.

It was a rhetorical solicitation and If I remember correctly he asked for help in finding missing emails, he did ask them to hack.

If we're talking about Trump's idiotic, "Russia, if you're listening..." statement, then read the law I posted, and apply the known facts to the law. Without going into it, that statement by itself doesn't meet the elements because we don't have enough information.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Is hacking per se a crime? ANY hacking? (except the U.S. government doing it to "spy" on another country)

If so, then maybe Trump is guilty, or his campaign, because he encouraged the Russians to hack into Hillary's e-mail. And urging anyone to commit a crime is itself a crime, isn't it?

Does it even matter that it was RUSSIANS who did the hacking? or what happened as a result of it?

It does because it indicates that Trump has been intentionally acting in Russia's benefit, not the US's when suggesting the US should allow a secession referendum for Eastern Ukraine or allow the KGB to interview former US diplomats or castrating the US intelligence agencies in a very public press conference with Putin. Three words, Quid Pro Quo.

As long as he encouraged them to do it, then he too is technically guilty, if any hacking is a crime.

Of course, the statement made could be illegal, however if this was coordinated, it'd include conspiracy.

 

[Keith&Co.]

If we're talking about Trump's idiotic, "Russia, if you're listening..." statement, then read the law I posted, and apply the known facts to the law. Without going into it, that statement by itself doesn't meet the elements because we don't have enough information.

More likely, someone showed Trump the timetable, and since he can't keep his mouth shut if you weld a chastity belt over his face, he was actually bragging, not soliciting.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

If we're talking about Trump's idiotic, "Russia, if you're listening..." statement, then read the law I posted, and apply the known facts to the law. Without going into it, that statement by itself doesn't meet the elements because we don't have enough information.

More likely, someone showed Trump the timetable, and since he can't keep his mouth shut if you weld a chastity belt over his face, he was actually bragging, not soliciting.

The more likely explanation in my opinion.

 

[Keith&Co.]

If we're talking about Trump's idiotic, "Russia, if you're listening..." statement, then read the law I posted, and apply the known facts to the law. Without going into it, that statement by itself doesn't meet the elements because we don't have enough information.

More likely, someone showed Trump the timetable, and since he can't keep his mouth shut if you weld a chastity belt over his face, he was actually bragging, not soliciting.

The more likely explanation in my opinion.

Sadly, I can see Guliani offering it up as the defense...

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The more likely explanation in my opinion.

Sadly, I can see Guliani offering it up as the defense...

But then step away from it that following afternoon.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

You're talking about solicitation.Trump being a fucking idiot and asking the Russians to hack likely doesn't rise to the level of solicitation.

Under the solicitation statute, the Government must prove two essential elements. First, the Government must establish that the defendant had the intent that another person engage in conduct constituting a felony crime of violence in violation of Federal law. The intent must be shown to be serious by strongly corroborative circumstances. Second, the Government must prove that the defendant commanded, induced, or otherwise endeavored to persuade the other person to commit the felony. See United States v. Rahman, 34 F.3d 1331, 1337 (7th Cir. 1994); United States v. Razo-Leora, 961 F.2d 1140, 1147 n.6 (5th Cir. 1992); United States v. McNeill, 887 F.2d 448, 450 (3d Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1087 (1990); United States v. Holveck, 867 F. Supp. 969, 977 (D. Kan. 1994); United States v. Buckalew, 674 F. Supp. 940, 942 (D. Maine 1987), aff'd, 859 F.2d 1052 (1st Cir. 1988). The phrase "otherwise endeavors to persuade" covers any situation where a person seriously seeks to persuade another person to engage in criminal conduct. S. Rep. No. 97-307, 97th Cong., 1st Sess. 183-84 (1982). See United States v. McNeill, 887 F.2d at 450; United States v. Buckalew, 859 F.2d at 1054. The Criminal Division has prepared a form indictment for § 373 offenses.

Wrong solicitation category. That's for solicitation of committing a crime of violence:

081. OVERVIEW OF SOLICITATION

Section 373 of Title 18 defines and punishes the offense of solicitation to commit a Federal crime of violence. This section was enacted by Congress in 1984 as part of the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984. The provision reflects the judgment of Congress that "a person who makes a serious effort to induce another person to commit a crime of violence is a clearly dangerous person and that his act deserves criminal sanctions whether or not the crime of violence is actually committed." S. Rep. No. 98-225, 98th Cong., 2d Sess. 308 (1984), reprinted in 1984 U.S. Code Cong. & Adm. News 3182, 3487. The purpose of the statute "is to allow law enforcement officials to intervene at an early stage where there has been a clear demonstration of an individual's criminal intent and danger to society." Id.

Soliciting a foreign nation to attack your country is treasonous, but rises to the level of treason if (a) we are already in a state of war with the foreign nation (we were); (b) Trump knew that the foreign nation was already engaged in an attack and was thus directing the focus of that attack (he did and he was).

 

[barbos]

You're talking about solicitation.Trump being a fucking idiot and asking the Russians to hack likely doesn't rise to the level of solicitation.

It was a rhetorical solicitation and If I remember correctly he asked for help in finding missing emails, he did NOT ask them to hack.

If we're talking about Trump's idiotic, "Russia, if you're listening..." statement, then read the law I posted, and apply the known facts to the law. Without going into it, that statement by itself doesn't meet the elements because we don't have enough information.

So we agree.
I fixed my post in the quote. Anyway, It all comes down to whether or not Trump mentally competent to conspire or do anything above 1st grade level. And the answer is obviously - he is not. People around him is another story.

 

[ZiprHead]

If we're talking about Trump's idiotic, "Russia, if you're listening..." statement, then read the law I posted, and apply the known facts to the law. Without going into it, that statement by itself doesn't meet the elements because we don't have enough information.

So we agree.
I fixed my post in the quote. Anyway, It all comes down to whether or not Trump mentally competent to conspire or do anything above 1st grade level. And the answer is obviously - he is not. People around him is another story.

I disagree. Bonespurs is mentally competent enough to do it. He's been cheating using any means available for decades. He's just never been in a situation where he could be held accountable for it before.

Which is why I wondered long ago why someone with so much baggage and proclivities would put himself in such a situation. That's where his mental competence comes into question.

 

[ZiprHead]

BTW, it has been inadvertently leaked that there are secret indictments of Julian Assange.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/julian-assange-has-been-charged-prosecutors-reveal-in-inadvertent-court-filing/2018/11/15/9902e6ba-98bd-48df-b447-3e2a4638f05a_story.html?utm_term=.227fdb08dcc9

 

[barbos]

If we're talking about Trump's idiotic, "Russia, if you're listening..." statement, then read the law I posted, and apply the known facts to the law. Without going into it, that statement by itself doesn't meet the elements because we don't have enough information.

So we agree.
I fixed my post in the quote. Anyway, It all comes down to whether or not Trump mentally competent to conspire or do anything above 1st grade level. And the answer is obviously - he is not. People around him is another story.

I disagree. Bonespurs is mentally competent enough to do it. He's been cheating using any means available for decades. He's just never been in a situation where he could be held accountable for it before.

Which is why I wondered long ago why someone with so much baggage and proclivities would put himself in such a situation. That's where his mental competence comes into question.

Trump can be manipulated into agreeing to do it without putting any effort himself. And I doubt he would fully understand implications of his "actions". People say Trump is not dumb, but I think he literally is. Not only his election was a fluke, his whole life is a fluke, he should be accidentally dead or in prison.

 

[Elixir]

I disagree. Bonespurs is mentally competent enough to do it. He's been cheating using any means available for decades. He's just never been in a situation where he could be held accountable for it before.

Which is why I wondered long ago why someone with so much baggage and proclivities would put himself in such a situation. That's where his mental competence comes into question.

Trump can be manipulated into agreeing to do it without putting any effort himself. And I doubt he would fully understand implications of his "actions". People say Trump is not dumb, but I think he literally is. Not only his election was a fluke, his whole life is a fluke, he should be accidentally dead or in prison.

Grab some popcorn and stay tuned. I suspect that Zipr is giving Trump too much credit for smarts. He is undeniably cunning on a visceral level, but is no fount of neural processing capability. Adding to his incompetence, he is pig-ignorant of almost everything except how to get money for himself and avoid paying anyone else with his own money.
Now he is getting educated to the (apparently very surprising) fact that he is no longer in control of the entire US government, and there is no way in hell he can keep a Democratic House from getting hands on his tax returns, or prevent subpoenas going out to Whitaker, Don Jr, Jared, Ivanka and whoever else he has gotten mixed up in his criminal enterprise. There will be some amazing shit flung at the walls in the coming weeks.