Mueller is playing pokemon : gotta catch them all

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Fenixgoon

Fenixgoon

Lifer
Jun 30, 2003
31,585
9,967
136
UNCjigga said:
Breaking... Trump is ignoring advice of counsel and speaking with Mueller's witnesses about the investigation and their testimony. Witness tampering much?
Click to expand...

link? i mean jesus, i thought trump was stupid, but not THAT stupid. the trump rule strikes again. At this point Mueller must think this is the easiest investigation in the world with all the stuff piling up in his lap.

edit: damn, ninja'd!
 
S

skull

Platinum Member
Jun 5, 2000
2,209
327
126
Fenixgoon said:
link? i mean jesus, i thought trump was stupid, but not THAT stupid. the trump rule strikes again. At this point Mueller must think this is the easiest investigation in the world with all the stuff piling up in his lap.

edit: damn, ninja'd!
Click to expand...

Thirded I searched but only found this from yesterday which makes it sound like it didn't reach the level of witness tampering.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/07/us/politics/trump-witnesses-special-counsel-priebus-mcgahn.html
 
soundforbjt

soundforbjt

Lifer
Feb 15, 2002
17,787
6,035
136
I’m sure trump was only concerned whether Mueller was nice to them, give me a break.
 
zinfamous

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
110,597
29,231
146
I'm starting to think that "Stupid Watergate" doesn't quite capture the truly deplorable and utter incompetence of the way Trump is stumbling through this mess.
 
HomerJS

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
36,060
27,793
136
woolfe9998

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
16,188
14,093
136
HomerJS said:
This shit has so much potential for highest level of treason of all time. Do we still have the death penalty for treason?
Click to expand...

It actually isn't illegal for them to set up a diplomatic back channel, per se. Depends on what was being said. Of course, there's also the fact that they lied about it. They always lie about their contacts with Russians.
 
hal2kilo

hal2kilo

Lifer
Feb 24, 2009
23,442
10,333
136
woolfe9998 said:
It actually isn't illegal for them to set up a diplomatic back channel, per se. Depends on what was being said. Of course, there's also the fact that they lied about it. They always lie about their contacts with Russians.
Click to expand...
I wonder why.
 
T

thilanliyan

Lifer
Jun 21, 2005
11,871
2,076
126
HomerJS said:
Because it perfectly legit for a transition team to set up a back channel with an adversary to avoid our own intelligence agencies. /s
Click to expand...
Does the reason matter, or is it definitely illegal either way to talk to an adversary without using the usual channels?
 
IronWing

IronWing

No Lifer
Jul 20, 2001
69,052
26,936
136
  • Like
Reactions: ch33zw1z
HomerJS

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
36,060
27,793
136
thilanliyan said:
Does the reason matter, or is it definitely illegal either way to talk to an adversary without using the usual channels?
Click to expand...
Like woolfe said. Would you trust someone who built a meth kitchen but claimed "I won't cook meth". Building it alone probably isn't illegal.
 
T

thilanliyan

Lifer
Jun 21, 2005
11,871
2,076
126
HomerJS said:
Like woolfe said. Would you trust someone who built a meth kitchen but claimed "I won't cook meth". Building it alone probably isn't illegal.
Click to expand...
Lol, of course I wouldn't put my trust into any of those people.
However, I am genuinely asking if what they did is illegal. If it isn't, this is another of the many unethical, but unactionable events.
 
D

deathBOB

Senior member
Dec 2, 2007
566
228
116
thilanliyan said:
Lol, of course I wouldn't put my trust into any of those people.
However, I am genuinely asking if what they did is illegal. If it isn't, this is another of the many unethical, but unactionable events.
Click to expand...

The act itself may or may not be, but it could be illegal in the sense that its part of a conspiracy charge.
 
HomerJS

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
36,060
27,793
136
thilanliyan said:
Lol, of course I wouldn't put my trust into any of those people.
However, I am genuinely asking if what they did is illegal. If it isn't, this is another of the many unethical, but unactionable events.
Click to expand...
Setting it up no. However, Jared did meet with a Russian banker who was on the sanction list. Jared also left meeting off his disclosure forms (upteenth time).

I would characterize it like this, it isn't illegal for POTUS to give away top secret intel to the Russians like Trump did in the Oval Office. However that action can be found to be treasonous.
 
zinfamous

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
110,597
29,231
146
thilanliyan said:
Lol, of course I wouldn't put my trust into any of those people.
However, I am genuinely asking if what they did is illegal. If it isn't, this is another of the many unethical, but unactionable events.
Click to expand...

If the back channel was established to undermine the official policy of the US, which at the time comes through the Obama admin and is pro-sanctions, then yes, it is certainly illegal. The president-elect has no authority to act on behalf of the US, and I do believe that acting in counter to US policy is illegal. If the Trump transition team was specifically discussing ending sanctions during this time and through this back channel, then I believe that is illegal.

But I doubt anything will be done about it. Reagan tested those waters already when he went against Carter and negotiated with the Iranians when he had no authority to do so. GOP sure does love their treasonous rascals.
 
T

thilanliyan

Lifer
Jun 21, 2005
11,871
2,076
126
Thank you for the responses, so it may actually have been illegal. Well, I guess the ammunition is building up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom