Mid-air Collusion (Mueller Thread v. 19)

[OverCoronavirus Pressure]

A federal judge appointed by President Donald Trump ruled Monday that special counsel Robert Mueller's probe is constitutional and legitimate, rejecting an effort by a Russian company -- accused of financing a massive political influence operation in the United States -- to stamp out the ongoing investigation.

Judge Dabney Friedrich, who Trump appointed to the U.S. District Court of Washington D.C. last year, is the fourth judge to quash efforts to upend Mueller's legitimacy and cancel his investigation. Judges overseeing the two trials of former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort -- D.C. judge Amy Berman Jackson and Eastern District of Virginia Judge T.S. Ellis -- rejected Manafort's bid to invalidate Mueller.

Oh, bullshit. Rigged Witch Hunt!

 

[waiguoren]

Yes, because I don't care if someone is a presidential candidate or not, they should all be treated just like any other citizen in this country.

Then the FBI will investigate both candidates for every election from now on. That's a recipe for disaster.

If someone isn't a Presidential candidate and someone hands over "suspicious" material to the FBI and the FBI analzes that material and then deems it worthy of an investigation, then an investigation would happen.

Again, unless you spell out a definition of "suspicious", that system is going to lead to endless investigations of every presidential candidate from now on. Did you think the Hillary Clinton e-mail investigation was justified?

Why do you believe Presidential campaigns should need a higher standard for an investigation than any other ordinary citizen?

I think I answered this above.

 

[waiguoren]

It's not true. It ignores the existence of inchoate crimes like "attempt" and "conspiracy." Dershowitz's counterargument is based on one of statutory construction, but that relies on an untested theory of the first amendment. (And it seems to rely construing setting up a meeting to receive info as "merely soliciting.")

Conspiracy, similar to obstruction, requires an underlying crime. To construe a mere solicitation of information as "conspiracy" in the absence of an underlying offense against the United States would be a huge stretch, certainly unprecedented in case law.

Also, the right to solicit information need not be grounded in the First Amendment. The Ninth Amendment works too.

 

[vengeful]

Then the FBI will investigate both candidates for every election from now on. That's a recipe for disaster.

I really don't see an issue with this. If you really think about it, it might actually be good that anyone running for the highest office in the land is thoroughly vetted by the FBI before being able to hold office.

Again, unless you spell out a definition of "suspicious", that system is going to lead to endless investigations of every presidential candidate from now on. Did you think the Hillary Clinton e-mail investigation was justified?

It doesn't need to be spelled out and it hasn't led to endless investigations, Trump's campaign had unique circumstances that triggered the investigation, yet you seem mystified that this is happening and are creating a slippery-slope argument. Yes it was justified, she should have been investigated. I also think the whole thing with Hilary and selling uranium after receiving a large donation to the Clinton Foundation from one of the founders of Uranium One should have been investigated. (even though I think he was divested from the company at the time of the sale)

I think I answered this above.

You did, I just don't agree with the answer, and it ignores the whole "justice is blind" "all men are created equal" creeds that our country's system was founded on.

 

[vengeful]

@waiguoren I'm curious, since you believe that soliciting/publishing information can't be a crime, can the US actually charge Julian Assange with anything? Also, if Wikileaks was hosted on US data center, would the US Government have been able to shutdown that website?

 

[waiguoren]

I'm sure there have been journalists that have been jailed for information they've printed that was deemed classified material.

Post-1971? No way. See Justice Black's opinion in New York Times v United States.

 

[Rational Poster]

A federal judge appointed by President Donald Trump ruled Monday that special counsel Robert Mueller's probe is constitutional and legitimate, rejecting an effort by a Russian company -- accused of financing a massive political influence operation in the United States -- to stamp out the ongoing investigation.

Judge Dabney Friedrich, who Trump appointed to the U.S. District Court of Washington D.C. last year, is the fourth judge to quash efforts to upend Mueller's legitimacy and cancel his investigation. Judges overseeing the two trials of former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort -- D.C. judge Amy Berman Jackson and Eastern District of Virginia Judge T.S. Ellis -- rejected Manafort's bid to invalidate Mueller.

Those darn liberal judges at it again!!

 

[waiguoren]

If the Russians hacked the DNC on behalf of the Trump Campaign couldn't that be deemed as performing a service for the Trump Campaign and thus actually providing a political contribution because services have value?

In this era of lawlessness, who knows what creative interpretations the courts will come up with? It wasn't that long ago that people with law degrees were arguing publicly that Michael Cohen's payment to Stephanie Clifford could be construed as an in-kind campaign contribution.

Your example is similar enough. All we can say here is that this type of argument is without precedent in case law. I will go further and say that stretching statutes beyond their original intent in this manner is very dangerous.

 

[OverCoronavirus Pressure]

Those darn liberal judges at it again!!

Will they pivot to this again?
I'm genuinely curious.

 

[waiguoren]

since you believe that soliciting/publishing information can't be a crime, can the US actually charge Julian Assange with anything?

They can charge him for anything they want.

It's extremely unlikely they will even try to charge under the Espionage Act. A few years ago the DOJ attempted to prosecute Rosen and Weissman for passing classified information to the Israeli government. FBI/DOJ burned a lot of money and time on that case only to drop it all. AFAIK Assange isn't even accused of working on behalf of a foreign government.

The prosecutors' final recourse would probably be conspiracy to defraud the US (seeing a pattern here)? The charges would probably be baseless, but maybe they could nail him for perjury in the process.

 

[Big Nasty Edison]

A federal judge appointed by President Donald Trump

In b4 "deep state got her"

 

[Bobby 3 Sticks]

Conspiracy, similar to obstruction, requires an underlying crime. To construe a mere solicitation of information as "conspiracy" in the absence of an underlying offense against the United States would be a huge stretch, certainly unprecedented in case law.

Also, the right to solicit information need not be grounded in the First Amendment. The Ninth Amendment works too.

Obstruction of justice doesn't require an underlying crime. As such, neither does conspiracy . You don't need to complete the crime to be charged with conspiracy . Hence you can be charged with conspiracy to commit murder and murder assuming the murder was completed

 

[panamaican]

52 USC 30121 Contributions and Donations by Foreign Nationals

Prohibition

It shall be unlawful for—
(1) a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make—

• (A) a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election;
• (B) a contribution or donation to a committee of a political party; or
• (C) an expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication (within the meaning of section 30104(f)(3) of this title); or

(2) a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) from a foreign national.




Dershowitz: First of all, [Trump Jr.'s meeting at Trump Tower] may very well be "soliciting" and it may very well be "a thing of value". The problem is it would be unconstitutional for a statute to prohibit a candidate from obtaining information from any source whatsoever. Just like the New York Times can't be prohibited from obtaining information or Chris Cuomo can't be prohibited from obtaining information even if the information you have is stolen. Even if you know it was given to you by Manning or Snowden or Daniel Ellsberg, the Constitution requires an open marketplace of ideas and you cannot construe a statute that was intended to prevent financial contributions (largely) to apply to information, to apply to facts, to apply to news. That would be unconstitutional.

The statue itself clearly is intended to cover financial contributions. It has always been applied that way. It has never been construed or interpreted...

Cuomo: Then why didn't they say that? Why didn't they say, "money"?

Dershowitz: Well, they did. They said "something of value". Let me be even more specific. Even if they intended to cover this, they can't cover it because it would be unconstitutional. You cannot regulate ideas. The federal government simply doesn't have the power under the 1st Amendment to prohibit a candidate----remember a candidate is also expressing First Amendment views---he has exactly the same status as the New York Times and as you do. He has the right or she has the right to use any information from any source and it doesn't matter if it's a foreign or domestic source. That's why to construe an ambiguous statute that way would violate the First Amendment and the first rule of constitutional construction is that if you have a statue that's capable of being construed in two different ways, you must always construe it constitutionally consistent with the First Amendment.

I don't know about that, although I'm certain I know far less that Dershowitz generally speaking. I didn't watch the video but, in the transcript, he doesn't directly address the foreign national element.

And I would disagree that the "thing of value" is the information. I would argue that the "thing of value" is the act of hacking itself. Specifically, that the offer was "to hack the DNC or HRC and see what we can find". If they came to the table with the information in neat little binder, that's one thing. If they came with the offer to extend a type of service that otherwise was not available to the campaign, I see that differently.

 

[waiguoren]

Obstruction of justice doesn't require an underlying crime.

That's not true. Show me a case of successful prosecution of federal obstruction of justice that did not involve an underlying crime (bribery, witness tampering, perjury, etc.).

You don't need to complete the crime to be charged with conspiracy .

Again, conspiracy must reference an underlying crime.

Hence you can be charged with conspiracy to commit murder and murder assuming the murder was completed

Correct.

 

[waiguoren]

he doesn't directly address the foreign national element.

That's because the nationality of the source is irrelevant to the legal argument.

And I would disagree that the "thing of value" is the information. I would argue that the "thing of value" is the act of hacking itself. Specifically, that the offer was "to hack the DNC or HRC and see what we can find". If they came to the table with the information in neat little binder, that's one thing. If they came with the offer to extend a type of service that otherwise was not available to the campaign, I see that differently.

The entire segment was done under the "binder" version of events.

 

[panamaican]

If what Dershowitz says is true, then how can the theft of Intellectual property and 'trade secrets' be a crime?

Copyright and patent laws. And, in the absence of those, it's the process by which the information is obtained or is solicited that is criminal.

Taking open source files off the computer isn't criminal, hacking into the CEO's private computer is, regardless of why you did it and regardless of what you find after you've done it. And soliciting someone to hack into the CEO's computer is a crime, regardless of why and regardless of what they find.

Cybercrimes or, as a learned man once said, "the cyber".

 

[OverCoronavirus Pressure]

Now that a judge has affirmed the legality of the Mueller probe, I'll bet Trump stops calling it illegal and the local bots drop it as a talking point.

 

[vengeful]

Now that a judge has affirmed the legality of the Mueller probe, I'll bet Trump stops calling it illegal and the local bots drop it as a talking point.

lol no he won't. This is like the 4th judge that has affirmed it as being legal.

 

[panamaican]

That's because the nationality of the source is irrelevant to the legal argument.

The nationality of the source is relevant to the U.S. ability to regulate involvement in our elections. Including information.

We limit foreign money donations, yet we've allowed domestic corporations significant contribution leeway because "money is speech" (an opinion I agree with btw). It would take some maneuvering to say that we can regulate foreign campaign speech in the form of money but not regulate their speech in any other form. Or even before that, we regulate domestic speech in the form of money all of the time regarding campaign donation limits.

Which is why not addressing the foreign national component stood out to me. I wouldn't necessarily disagree with him but I'd like to hear his argument.

The entire segment was done under the "binder" version of events.

We know this to be true? Because some of what I read creates a timeline in which the hacking occurs after the meeting. Meeting is offered, accepted, convened, Trump makes public statement "Russia, if you're listening...", same day hackers breach DNC for 1st time.

If that timeline is accurate (and I don't know that it is) then the meeting occurred prior to the obtainment of the information. Which would support an argument that the services were what was offered to the campaign, rather than just concrete previously obtained information..

 

[method115]

We know this to be true? Because some of what I read creates a timeline in which the hacking occurs after the meeting. Meeting is offered, accepted, convened, Trump makes public statement "Russia, if you're listening...", same day hackers breach DNC for 1st time.

If that timeline is accurate (and I don't know that it is) then the meeting occurred prior to the obtainment of the information. Which would support an argument that the services were what was offered to the campaign, rather than just concrete previously obtained information..

Here's the timeline:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...and-clintons-campaign/?utm_term=.d0c3b741bb55

The meeting occurred after.