Public opinion and indictments....

[Siete]

both Manafort and Gates were indicted for money laundering.

where that goes and who else was involved at the time hasnt been determined yet.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Robert Mueller has issued his initial salvo from the "Russia" investigation and we are now hearing responses from Trump, the WH and others sympathetic to or currently/formerly allied, in one way or another, with Trump. Those retorts are really all about managing public opinion; however, public opinion, not matter whether it favors or doesn't favor Trump, Manafort, et al, does not equate to the opinion of the twelve people who will, if the matter goes to trial, decide on the merit of the charges and supporting evidence. Insofar as the trial has not happened, the evidence is not part of the public record, so we don't really know what Mueller has that militated for grand jury to hand down the indictments.

Who does know what the evidence is? Well, the people who are involved in the matter. Manafort, who is an attorney, knew he played "fast and loose" with his taxes. He knew what was in whatever the FBI seized when it raided his home. The authors and recipients of emails know what they wrote and read.

It's quite telling that Manafort's lawyer yesterday in his sidewalk remarks stated that Manafort didn't collude with Russians. What's telling about it?

1. He knows, as do all attorneys, that collusion is neither a crime nor is it something Manafort is accused of having done; thus saying Manafort didn't collude with Russians is pointless. Strawman, red herring, take your pick...The remark doesn't at all address the charge.
2. He didn't say that Manafort did not conspire in any of the ways stated in the indictments against him.

So while those individuals can try to shape public by using a variety of deflective tactics, the fact remains that in a courtroom, if it goes that far, such tactics aren't going to "fly." Whereas in the public sphere, the only people who will "object" and point out the irrelevance of the litany of deflections are also people and groups whom Trump and his cronies have vilified to the point that Trump's most diehard supporters won't believe them, in a courtroom, those very same objections will be sustained by a judge and will thus be ineligible to be considered by the jury weighing the case on its merits. It's nice that Trump, Gates, Manafort, et al may, due to an assortment of circumstances, be able to shape public opinion, but doing so will not keep them out of jail, though it won't put them in jail either.

And that's the thing about indictments and responding to them. One cannot deflect one's way to a not guilty verdict. In a courtroom, unlike when commenting from a sidewalk, in a tweet, from a dais in a briefing room or auditorium, etc., one can't "spin" one's way out of the charges, has to address the charges and evidence head-on.

Your point #1. If Collusion is not a crime (which I agree, it's not), then what is the point of the special council that was put in place because Trump fired Comey. In other words, how can there be obstruction of justice if there was no investigation of a crime to obstruct?

Look at what the special counsel's "marching orders" are. The charge(s), thus what's being investigated, will most likely be "aiding and abetting such and such criminal activity" or "conspiring to commit such and such criminal activity."

What criminal activity?

Well, now, that is precisely what is being determined by the "Russia" investigation. Why would I sit here and speculate on what criminal acts were committed when there's a federal investigation figuring out what criminal acts were, based on the evidence it collects, committed? I'm perfectly content and patient enough to wait and see what the investigators find.

So, would it be okay if the FBI started an investigation on you to determine what criminal activity you may be involved in without knowing of a specific crime to begin with? There should be probable cause of some crime to merit an investigation, otherwise "investigations" can become a weapon to use against the citizens.

What? You know as well as I that the investigators are aware of the general nature of crimes the circumstantial information indicate may have been committed and that they are thus looking for evidence that supports or refutes the assertion that those crimes were indeed committed. If you are asking me to identify what specific crimes are thus indicated be the ones for which more-than-circumstantial evidence is sought, well, I can't tell you that. I'm not a criminal attorney of any sort and don't know the CFR well enough to tell you.

The FBI doesn't perform thoroughly random criminal investigations as does the IRS perform fully random audits. [1] To initiate an investigation, they have to have some sort of circumstantial evidence -- evidence giving them probable cause -- that militates for thinking a crime may have been committed by one or several individuals. Based on that evidence, investigators go looking for more concrete evidence. In the course of their inquiries, if they find criminal activity other than what they sought to begin with, they'll charge one with those crimes. Those "adjunct" charges may be used to elicit information about the original subject of inquiry.

Given that is the nature of the FBI's and other LEO's methodological approach to investigations, whether I think they should or should not start "an investigation on you to determine what criminal activity you may be involved in without knowing of a specific crime to begin with" is not all that relevant. If you're asking to I agree with the concepts and spirit of probable cause requirements, yes, I do.

As goes the probable cause for the "Russia" investigation, well, that's already in the public sphere. Quite simply, if nowhere else, it's found in the timeline of activities we are already know Trump campaign personnel undertook. Looking only at the sequence of events pertaining to Clinton and DNC emails, the hacks, the meetings and discussions (electronic and in-person) Trump personnel had with Russian government actors/surrogates, one observes that the Trump team was already aware in March/April that Russians had (alleged to have) emails about Hillary and the DNC's electioneering efforts, conversations and so on before the actual hack of the emails happened.

One can say the Trump team knew what was afoot, or one can say the Trump team was being played by the Russians, but something was going on. Which was it? To what extent was there complicity, conspiracy, aiding and abetting, etc. of the Russian efforts to insinuate themselves into the U.S. election process and/or influence its outcome? I don't know, but that's among the things the "Russia" investigation is discerning. The sequence of events and remarks are enough probable cause to make it worth investigating.

Will the investigation find that the Trump team did nothing wrong, or at least not willfully so? It might. Even if it does, what the investigators find will surely be very instructive to future seekers of elective office, particularly novice ones, if only insofar as to provide them with a template of sorts for what kinds of activities and overtures to eschew, or to inculcate them with a better set of tools and understandings they may use to exercise a greater degree of circumspection with regard to whatever entreaties they receive from any individual or entity.


Note:

1. IIRC from my days as an MBA student, something between 10% and 20% of the IRS' audits are completely random. I don't know if the percentage has changed, or that I have the range spot on, but that the IRS does conduct random audits has not changed.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Your point #1. If Collusion is not a crime (which I agree, it's not), then what is the point of the special council that was put in place because Trump fired Comey. In other words, how can there be obstruction of justice if there was no investigation of a crime to obstruct?

Look at what the special counsel's "marching orders" are. The charge(s), thus what's being investigated, will most likely be "aiding and abetting such and such criminal activity" or "conspiring to commit such and such criminal activity."

What criminal activity?

Well, now, that is precisely what is being determined by the "Russia" investigation. Why would I sit here and speculate on what criminal acts were committed when there's a federal investigation figuring out what criminal acts were, based on the evidence it collects, committed? I'm perfectly content and patient enough to wait and see what the investigators find.

So, would it be okay if the FBI started an investigation on you to determine what criminal activity you may be involved in without knowing of a specific crime to begin with? There should be probable cause of some crime to merit an investigation, otherwise "investigations" can become a weapon to use against the citizens.

What? You know as well as I that the investigators are aware of the general nature of crimes the circumstantial information indicate may have been committed and that they are thus looking for evidence that supports or refutes the assertion that those crimes were indeed committed. If you are asking me to identify what specific crimes are thus indicated be the ones for which more-than-circumstantial evidence is sought, well, I can't tell you that. I'm not a criminal attorney of any sort and don't know the CFR well enough to tell you.

The FBI doesn't perform thoroughly random criminal investigations as does the IRS perform fully random audits. [1] To initiate an investigation, they have to have some sort of circumstantial evidence -- evidence giving them probable cause -- that militates for thinking a crime may have been committed by one or several individuals. Based on that evidence, investigators go looking for more concrete evidence. In the course of their inquiries, if they find criminal activity other than what they sought to begin with, they'll charge one with those crimes. Those "adjunct" charges may be used to elicit information about the original subject of inquiry.

Given that is the nature of the FBI's and other LEO's methodological approach to investigations, whether I think they should or should not start "an investigation on you to determine what criminal activity you may be involved in without knowing of a specific crime to begin with" is not all that relevant. If you're asking to I agree with the concepts and spirit of probable cause requirements, yes, I do.

As goes the probable cause for the "Russia" investigation, well, that's already in the public sphere. Quite simply, if nowhere else, it's found in the timeline of activities we are already know Trump campaign personnel undertook. Looking only at the sequence of events pertaining to Clinton and DNC emails, the hacks, the meetings and discussions (electronic and in-person) Trump personnel had with Russian government actors/surrogates, one observes that the Trump team was already aware in March/April that Russians had (alleged to have) emails about Hillary and the DNC's electioneering efforts, conversations and so on before the actual hack of the emails happened.

One can say the Trump team knew what was afoot, or one can say the Trump team was being played by the Russians, but something was going on. Which was it? To what extent was there complicity, conspiracy, aiding and abetting, etc. of the Russian efforts to insinuate themselves into the U.S. election process and/or influence its outcome? I don't know, but that's among the things the "Russia" investigation is discerning. The sequence of events and remarks are enough probable cause to make it worth investigating.

Will the investigation find that the Trump team did nothing wrong, or at least not willfully so? It might. Even if it does, what the investigators find will surely be very instructive to future seekers of elective office, particularly novice ones, if only insofar as to provide them with a template of sorts for what kinds of activities and overtures to eschew, or to inculcate them with a better set of tools and understandings they may use to exercise a greater degree of circumspection with regard to whatever entreaties they receive from any individual or entity.


Note:

1. IIRC from my days as an MBA student, something between 10% and 20% of the IRS' audits are completely random. I don't know if the percentage has changed, or that I have the range spot on, but that the IRS does conduct random audits has not changed.

inculcate them with

Correction:

Given how the sentence in which the words above appear ended up, the thought it expresses being not what I had in mind to say when I commenced it, I should have changed "inculcate" to "vest" or "bestow" or some similar word. My bad for not doing so.

FWIW, I initially intended that sentence to introduce an exposition of another paragraph or two dealing with mindset matters deriving from the "lessons learned" from the results of the investigation, which I think are important, for one's frame of mind when planning for any endeavor results in one making more or fewer mistakes depending on how aptly one considers the pursuit in question. Bet that as it may, I just decided I didn't feel like writing enough to adequately make that point; thus I switched to a more tangible and simply grasped outcome.​

 

[EverCurious]

Be careful that you don't misunderstand the legal meaning of the first charge. Look it up, because the general idea posited in this thread is barking up the wrong tree in many ways.

They "conspired" to avoid tax law. There is zero Trump Russia connection in any of it.

Popasdlkhasdff is a far more curious case, though due to the dates of the contacts noted, I'm not sure it's going to fly as collusion - especially not if meetings never happened. They might sway the never Tumper's opinions that there was collusion sure, but they could do that by showing a Trump picture after all. This is highly unlikely to help them in the long game; no doubt they are cutting their losses and hoping to gain a short term advantage by releasing this nothing. What will be far more telling, IMO, is if they quietly shut down the investigation after the election cycle this year, or if they attempt to drag it out into the next presidential. There are just so many options for how to play the game here that I'm not sure which I'd go with. I believe I'd choose to drag it out, because frankly, there's just no platform to run on but "hate Trump" atm.

 

[westwall]

Robert Mueller has issued his initial salvo from the "Russia" investigation and we are now hearing responses from Trump, the WH and others sympathetic to or currently/formerly allied, in one way or another, with Trump. Those retorts are really all about managing public opinion; however, public opinion, not matter whether it favors or doesn't favor Trump, Manafort, et al, does not equate to the opinion of the twelve people who will, if the matter goes to trial, decide on the merit of the charges and supporting evidence. Insofar as the trial has not happened, the evidence is not part of the public record, so we don't really know what Mueller has that militated for grand jury to hand down the indictments.

Who does know what the evidence is? Well, the people who are involved in the matter. Manafort, who is an attorney, knew he played "fast and loose" with his taxes. He knew what was in whatever the FBI seized when it raided his home. The authors and recipients of emails know what they wrote and read.

It's quite telling that Manafort's lawyer yesterday in his sidewalk remarks stated that Manafort didn't collude with Russians. What's telling about it?

1. He knows, as do all attorneys, that collusion is neither a crime nor is it something Manafort is accused of having done; thus saying Manafort didn't collude with Russians is pointless. Strawman, red herring, take your pick...The remark doesn't at all address the charge.
2. He didn't say that Manafort did not conspire in any of the ways stated in the indictments against him.

So while those individuals can try to shape public by using a variety of deflective tactics, the fact remains that in a courtroom, if it goes that far, such tactics aren't going to "fly." Whereas in the public sphere, the only people who will "object" and point out the irrelevance of the litany of deflections are also people and groups whom Trump and his cronies have vilified to the point that Trump's most diehard supporters won't believe them, in a courtroom, those very same objections will be sustained by a judge and will thus be ineligible to be considered by the jury weighing the case on its merits. It's nice that Trump, Gates, Manafort, et al may, due to an assortment of circumstances, be able to shape public opinion, but doing so will not keep them out of jail, though it won't put them in jail either.

And that's the thing about indictments and responding to them. One cannot deflect one's way to a not guilty verdict. In a courtroom, unlike when commenting from a sidewalk, in a tweet, from a dais in a briefing room or auditorium, etc., one can't "spin" one's way out of the charges, has to address the charges and evidence head-on.

Your point #1. If Collusion is not a crime (which I agree, it's not), then what is the point of the special council that was put in place because Trump fired Comey. In other words, how can there be obstruction of justice if there was no investigation of a crime to obstruct?

Why are RWNJs all stuck on "collusion"? Conspiracy is at the top of the list right now. And lying to feds. Both are felonies and just about every one of them has done it, gotten caught and quickly tried to back pedal.

And there was indeed crimes to obstruct but what we all saw on television was trump admitting to obstruction. Then, was it just the next day that he's having his secret meeting with Russians IN THE OVAL OFFICE? And bragging that he'd gotten rid of that pesky investigation. Gawd Damn but that man really is a fucking moron.

My guess would be because that is all you clowns have been bleating about for months now.