Kushner in Trouble

AnGrYcRoW said:
Fair enough but if while investigating ties with Russia they find money laundering in China what would you have them do with that information?
Click to expand...

If legitly uncovered they should prosecute to the full extent of the law of course.

That would still make the whole collusion thing bunk... that's all I'm really interested in
 
Throttlehead said:
You tell me.

Jun 3, 2016, at 10:36 AM, Rob Goldstone wrote:

Good morning

Emin just called and asked me to contact you with something very interesting.

The Crown prosecutor of Russia met with his father Aras this morning and in their meeting offered to provide the Trump campaign with some official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father.

This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump - helped along by Aras and Emin.

What do you think is the best way to handle this information and would you be able to speak to Emin about it directly?

I can also send this info to your father via Rhona, but it is ultra sensitive so wanted to send to you first.

Best
Rob Goldstone
Click to expand...

Receiving info isn't illegal but nice try. You were so sure of yourself
 
Darkballs said:
I just did.

You're looking at it wrong. It doesn't matter if the second crime uncovered looks similar enough to the first crime. What matters is whether or not they found evidence of the second crime while within the scope of the first.

Now I'm sure you'd agree that part of investigating about coordination with Russians would include a look at finances. So if they found evidence of a second crime while looking at said finances, it's within the scope. Doesn't matter if that second crime is drug smuggling, paying for donkey shows to be hosted on a yacht, or anything else. So long as it was uncovered through financial records, they're good. And given that one of the accusations for the trump team is that they were making deals with foreign nationals before actually in office, I'm not sure how you can argue that a deal with a different foreign entity (which would likely be found through similar financial disclosures) wouldn't be something they could possible come across during their initial investigation.
Click to expand...

I think I understand what you’re saying. Assuming the relevance of negotiations with the Chinese and Quataris arose from facts uncovered during the investigation, then these facts are directly related. You have to start with the assumption of guilt to believe it. Or you have to have trust in the investigation and take it on faith. The reason I’m not there yet is the dots have not been publically connected. I prefer to start with the nul hypothesis and the presumption of innocence until the evidence convinces me otherwise.
 
Rockapotomuss said:
That’s exactly what I said too. And I’m asking how these two things are directly related?
Click to expand...

A large part of investigative work is establishing patterns of behaviour and finding conduits between discrete examples. Examples of illegal activity in one area cast light on illegal activities in others.
 
Fronk said:
I just don't get it. In most first world nations letting your unqualified goofy son-in-law in on state secrets is generally frowned upon. No clue how it's even acceptable.

gettyimages-821611054_custom-d9ee2cf1283f798d6d8014c782da4bbeb205e0e0-s1100-c15.jpg


Explain this to me America.
Click to expand...
 
Throttlehead said:
I am sure, dont be so silly.

"but is part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump - helped along by Aras and Emin."
Click to expand...

Evidence of this "support" becoming illegal? Receiving info isn't illegal

Russians can "support" whomever they wish. That doesn't instantly make that person a criminal. Surely you see the absurdity in that
 
Happiness said:
A large part of investigative work is establishing patterns of behaviour and finding conduits between discrete examples. Examples of illegal activity in one area cast light on illegal activities in others.
Click to expand...

Sure but Meuller is not mandated to act on inferences based on patterns of behaviour. He needs direct connections.
 
oleDirtyBast4rd said:
Evidence of this "support" becoming illegal? Receiving info isn't illegal

Russians can "support" whomever they wish. That doesn't instantly make that person a criminal. Surely you see the absurdity in that
Click to expand...
The absurdity is that a representative from the Russian Government contacted the Trump campaign (the nominees son) and said they had information against his opponent and Don Jr loved it. The Russian contact said the Russian Government is doing this in support of Trump and Don Jr was game. Any other campaign would have contacted the FBI. Is it illegal, who knows, were the two parties that were going to attend the meeting colluding against Trump's opponent, hell ya. That is the definition of collusion. But, but , it was about adoption...another line of BS at up by the rubes.
 
Throttlehead said:
The absurdity is that a representative from the Russian Government contacted the Trump campaign (the nominees son) and said they had information against his opponent and Don Jr loved it.
Click to expand...

Dirt on opposition? What's not to love?

Throttlehead said:
Any other campaign would have contacted the FBI
Click to expand...

Why? receiving info isn't illegal. If they paid for it or sought out the info, it would be a different story. There is no evidence that is the case here

Throttlehead said:
were the two parties that were going to attend the meeting colluding against Trump's opponent, hell ya.
Click to expand...

Maybe in a common speech way, but there isn't evidence that a crime was commtted as a result of that meeting. At least not visible to you and i
 
Happiness said:
He is mandated to.
Click to expand...

No he’s not. Look at the mandate letter and show me where it says the investigation can shift scope and focus based on indirect behavioural inferences.

Many criminal investigations are botched for failure to pay attention to technical legal requirements.
 
oleDirtyBast4rd said:
Dirt on opposition? What's not to love?



Why? receiving info isn't illegal. If they paid for it or sought out the info, it would be a different story. There is no evidence that is the case here



Maybe in a common speech way, but there isn't evidence that a crime was commtted as a result of that meeting. At least not visible to you and i
Click to expand...
You're hopeless, obviously less morals than the hillbilly Trumps.

Was a crime committed by the book, no. Did they conspire with a foreign government to get information to beat their opponent, yes. If you're good with that, fine, carry on comrade.
 
Rockapotomuss said:
No he’s not. Look at the mandate letter and show me where it says the investigation can shift scope and focus based on indirect behavioural inferences.

Many criminal investigations are botched for failure to pay attention to technical legal requirements.
Click to expand...
Darkballs explained it PERFECTLY to you, you just didn't like the answer.
 
Rockapotomuss said:
No he’s not. Look at the mandate letter and show me where it says the investigation can shift scope and focus based on indirect behavioural inferences.

Many criminal investigations are botched for failure to pay attention to technical legal requirements.
Click to expand...

Read it yourself, it's obvious.
 
Throttlehead said:
Darkballs explained it PERFECTLY to you, you just didn't like the answer.
Click to expand...

I did like his answer. At least he tried to reason through it, and in doing so illustrated that you need to operate on an assumption or leap of faith to reach your conclusion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,237,733
Messages
55,513,826
Members
174,804
Latest member
eltonmjr

Share this page

Back
Top