Trump and his ties to Russia

[woolfe9998]

Okay, that's fine, but why is intent involved? Can you explain to me how Sessions could possibly escape a perjury conviction for example?

In the case of his statements at the confirmation hearing, he has argued that he misunderstood the question because the wider context of the line of questioning was about communications which had to do with the campaign. Do I believe him? No. But the prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, not by a mere preponderance of evidence. A lack of intent is the most common defense to perjury and it's often a winning defense, which is why perjury as a practical matter is rarely prosecuted.

So far as Sessions leaving it off his clearance form, he'll say he was advised that he didn't have to. If he was, and believed the advice he was given, then he would have lacked intent. Again, do I believe him? No. But proving a case beyond reasonable doubt means proving it at a level of ~95% certainty.

Even in the case of Clinton, I doubt he would ever have been convicted of perjury had he been prosecuted. Not only might he have argued the intent element based on what he meant by "sexual relations" but had that not worked as a defense, he would almost certainly beaten that rap based on the lack of materiality of his testimony to the Paula Jones case. Perjury means lying under oath about matters which are material to the proceeding in which the testimony is given. Yet it's highly unlikely that a judge in the Paula Jones case would ever have allowed a jury to hear evidence about Clinton's behavior with Monica Lewinsky. They were allowed to ask him about it in deposition, but that doesn't mean any answer he gave would have been admissible at trial. Hence, lying about it would not have met the legal definition of perjury.

Now, if you want something which could be prosecuted, look a Trump's decision to fire Comey as obstruction of justice. That too requires intent, but the dumbass went on television and essentially admitted his intent. I think there would be grounds for prosecution of that right now, if he could be prosecuted while still in office.

 

[interchange]

Makes sense, but what are we talking about now? The possibility that we are going to catch them in the act? That's the only scenario I can currently imagine where removing them now would prevent catching a bigger fish.

Let's say Flynn has evidence that can help bring down Trump. You don't want to cut a deal for immunity, etc. too early. One possibility is that Flynn's evidence is not sufficient to make a case against Trump and you've wasted it. Another possibility is that, with further investigation, you find you didn't need Flynn's evidence at all and now you've let a guilty man off the hook for no reason. And yet another possibility is that you've granted immunity for a scandal and find out he's more culpable than you originally expected and now you can't hold him accountable to it. Or perhaps by arresting Flynn, you tip your hat to evidence you've uncovered that would be useful in a different investigation. Many more scenarios exist.

 

[dank69]

In the case of his statements at the confirmation hearing, he has argued that he misunderstood the question because the wider context of the line of questioning was about communications which had to do with the campaign. Do I believe him? No. But the prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, not by a mere preponderance of evidence. A lack of intent is the most common defense to perjury and it's often a winning defense, which is why perjury as a practical matter is rarely prosecuted.

So far as Sessions leaving it off his clearance form, he'll say he was advised that he didn't have to. If he was, and believed the advice he was given, then he would have lacked intent. Again, do I believe him? No. But proving a case beyond reasonable doubt means proving it at a level of ~95% certainty.

Even in the case of Clinton, I doubt he would ever have been convicted of perjury had he been prosecuted. Not only might he have argued the intent element based on what he meant by "sexual relations" but had that not worked as a defense, he would almost certainly beaten that rap based on the lack of materiality of his testimony to the Paula Jones case. Perjury means lying under oath about matters which are material to the proceeding in which the testimony is given. Yet it's highly unlikely that a judge in the Paula Jones case would ever have allowed a jury to hear evidence about Clinton's behavior with Monica Lewinsky. They were allowed to ask him about it in deposition, but that doesn't mean any answer he gave would have been admissible at trial. Hence, lying about it would not have met the legal definition of perjury.

Now, if you want something which could be prosecuted, look a Trump's decision to fire Comey as obstruction of justice. That too requires intent, but the dumbass went on television and essentially admitted his intent. I think there would be grounds for prosecution of that right now, if he could be prosecuted while still in office.

As far as I know, Sessions was advised he didn't have to disclose meetings where he was acting as a Senator. Sessions met with the Russian ambassador at the RNC which he flew to on the campaign's dime and multiple witnesses say he discussed the campaign with the ambassador. Shouldn't all of this be enough to at least get this asshole out?

 

[woolfe9998]

As far as I know, Sessions was advised he didn't have to disclose meetings where he was acting as a Senator. Sessions met with the Russian ambassador at the RNC which he flew to on the campaign's dime and multiple witnesses say he discussed the campaign with the ambassador. Shouldn't all of this be enough to at least get this asshole out?

I hadn't heard about "multiple witnesses say he discussed the campaign with the ambassador." Can you link a source for that? If true, it would strengthen the charge of perjury, not only in regard to the clearance form, but especially his testimony to Congress.

 

[dank69]

I hadn't heard about "multiple witnesses say he discussed the campaign with the ambassador." Can you link a source for that? If true, it would strengthen the charge of perjury, not only in regard to the clearance form, but especially his testimony to Congress.

Sorry, I think it was just one witness:
https://thinkprogress.org/jeff-duncan-sessions-security-clearance-cnn-trump-russia-33f2299766b9

But it’s far from clear that Sessions was acting as a senator when he met with Kislyak. As the Wall Street Journal reported, one of Sessions’ meetings with the Russian ambassador happened at the Republican National Convention — an event Sessions traveled to and from using campaign funds. What’s more, a person who was at the RNC told the Journal that Sessions and Kislyak discussed the Trump campaign.

I can't get to the WSJ article since I can't seem to go incognito here at work...

 

[woolfe9998]

Sorry, I think it was just one witness:
https://thinkprogress.org/jeff-duncan-sessions-security-clearance-cnn-trump-russia-33f2299766b9



I can't get to the WSJ article since I can't seem to go incognito here at work...

Thanks for the link. I ran it to ground and the point source is a WSJ article which says "a person at the event" but does not identify the person. This person would obviously have to be identified and willing to testify.

 

[sandorski]

Many celebrities have started many different charities of mixed value. If Trump wants to charitably send Ties to Russia, I'm ok with it. Unless it's Bow Ties, those are just stupid.

 

[dank69]

Thanks for the link. I ran it to ground and the point source is a WSJ article which says "a person at the event" but does not identify the person. This person would obviously have to be identified and willing to testify.

Agreed, but I would think just having a discussion with him at the RNC where Sessions was clearly not acting in his capacity as Senator would be enough.

 

[Pens1566]

As far as I know, Sessions was advised he didn't have to disclose meetings where he was acting as a Senator. Sessions met with the Russian ambassador at the RNC which he flew to on the campaign's dime and multiple witnesses say he discussed the campaign with the ambassador. Shouldn't all of this be enough to at least get this asshole out?

And that advice was apparently provided by the person conducting his investigation. When it should have come from an attorney or the investigating agency in writing. This "someone told me not to" is the legal equivalent of "I forgot about it". If it was John Q. Applicant, they'd already be charged.

 

[LPCTech]

Republican is the party of treason now. They have aligned with Russia and corporate control over government control.

Even before the Russia thing, the GOP was the Traitor to America party. Their main goal is to defund and depower the government so that wealthy people would reign and control things and make sure the Gov would not be equipped to stop them.

This is the same goal as Russia, to undermine and marginalize the power of the US government.

And before this these type of people were aligned with the confederacy, the greatest traitors in American history.

They are the true enemies of America and the spirit of America. Traitors through and through.

Republican elected officials and republican voters ARE absolutely Traitors to America for quite a while now.

They go against the will and best intrest of the people for their own profit 100% of the time.

They are a criminal anti american treasonous cabal only concerned with their own enrichment and keeping America in shambles intentionally.

This is why all their supporters seem to be nearly retarded or very evil. Because they are in fact one or the other.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Many celebrities have started many different charities of mixed value. If Trump wants to charitably send Ties to Russia, I'm ok with it. Unless it's Bow Ties, those are just stupid.

BRING IT!

 

[woolfe9998]

Agreed, but I would think just having a discussion with him at the RNC where Sessions was clearly not acting in his capacity as Senator would be enough.

Perhaps, but his version, which is backed up by other Trump people, is that there were a large number of foreign ambassadors there, and that Sessions merely shook hands and exchanged pleasantries with basically all of them, including Kislyak. I doubt he gets prosecuted on those facts. You'd really need a witness to refute their story.

 

[Victorian Gray]

Many celebrities have started many different charities of mixed value. If Trump wants to charitably send Ties to Russia, I'm ok with it. Unless it's Bow Ties, those are just stupid.

Did somebody mention bow ties?

 

[sandorski]

Did somebody mention bow ties?

Oh shit. So much for that plan.

 

[outriding]

So for a minute we believe that he did not have the intent to commit perjury.. then that leaves us with an AG who cannot understand a standard government form that thousands or even more people who can successfully fill out with no issues.

Do we really need that level of incompetence as the AG?

 

[ch33zw1z]

So for a minute we believe that he did not have the intent to commit perjury.. then that leaves us with an AG who cannot understand a standard government form that thousands or even more people who can successfully fill out with no issues.

Do we really need that level of incompetence as the AG?

Maybe smoking weed will help him see more clearly. Lol, it's like he did it once, saw the truth, and it scared him so much he's all anti weed.

 

[BadTrip]

Did somebody mention bow ties?

Putin on the Ritz

 

[retrospooty]

So for a minute we believe that he did not have the intent to commit perjury.. then that leaves us with an AG who cannot understand a standard government form that thousands or even more people who can successfully fill out with no issues.

Do we really need that level of incompetence as the AG?

Come on now, its not like he studied law... Oh, wait. I forgot, he is the highest level lawyer in the country. /shrugs.

 

[fskimospy]

So for a minute we believe that he did not have the intent to commit perjury.. then that leaves us with an AG who cannot understand a standard government form that thousands or even more people who can successfully fill out with no issues.

Do we really need that level of incompetence as the AG?

I mean he was already previously disqualified from being a federal judge because he was such an insane racist. Is being an idiot too really that much worse? Hell, it might be better.

 

[outriding]

I mean he was already previously disqualified from being a federal judge because he was such an insane racist. Is being an idiot too really that much worse? Hell, it might be better.

Winning

 

[JMC2000]

Watch Fox News for about an hour a day for a week and get back to me.

Funny thing about that...

75% of the truck stops I've been to between I-25 and the Atlantic have Fox News playing on at least one TV. Even in deeply blue states; although a lot of them are in the most rural of areas.

I more enjoy places where people can choose something else to watch, even if it is a non-stop marathon of Law & Order.