Flynn in major trouble for speaking to Russia about sanctions

[boutons_deux]

Despite What NYT‘s ‘Legal Experts’ Say, Trump Could Face Witness Tampering Charges for Talking to Mueller’s Witnesses

Citing unidentified “legal experts,” the original report dismissed the idea that Trump’s conversations with McGahn and Priebus rose “to the level of witness tampering.”

This analysis takes the opposite perspective.

President Trump could already be subject to a raft of potential witness tampering charges as previously noted in a 721 for Law&Crime.

In that report, we analyzed how he could face these charges for reportedly pushing his aides to discredit officials with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”).

These additional conversations only make such charges more likely.

Trump most probably increased his own legal jeopardy by approaching Mueller’s witnesses after they testified.

The law on point here is mostly contained at 18 USC § 1512(b).

Section 1512(b) is essentially the heart of the federal witness tampering statute–it’s also the most famous section and one of the more difficult to satisfy.

Section 1512(b) reads, in relevant part:

Whoever knowingly uses intimidation, threatens, or corruptly persuades another person, or attempts to do so, or engages in misleading conduct toward another person, with intent to—
(1) influence, delay, or prevent the testimony of any person in an official proceeding;
(2) cause or induce any person to—
(A) withhold testimony, or withhold a record, do ent, or other object, from an official proceeding…
shall be fined under this le or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.

Witness tampering charges based on the McGahn conversation might seem like a stretch but federal prosecutors are generally given wide la ude–and this la ude only increases in high-profile cases.


The federal witness tampering statute helpfully contains a catch-all section. Located at 18 USC § 1512(c), this section reads, in full:

Whoever corruptly—
(1) alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, do ent, or other object, or attempts to do so, with the intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding; or
(2) otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so,
shall be fined under this le or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.

Here, Mueller isn’t quite as hamstrung by knowledge requirements.

All he would need to show is that Trump’s conversations with McGahn and Priebus were undertaken “corruptly” and had some sort of obstructive impact or influence–or that there was an attempt to have such an impact or influence.

https://lawandcrime.com/legal-analys...ers-witnesses/

[boutons_deux]

How Russian Trolls Crept Into the Trump Campaign’s Facebook Messages

When the message from Matt Skiber arrived in the mailbox of the Facebook account for Donald J. Trump’s Florida campaign in early August 2016, it raised no flags, despite its slightly awkward attempts at colloquial American English.\\

But Mr. Skiber was not an American supporter of Mr. Trump. Instead, he was a persona created by the Internet Research Agency, the Russian company indicted last month.

A review of the private Facebook messages, as well as interviews with the Trump campaign operatives who were targeted by Russians, reveal that Mr. Trump’s team was susceptible to Moscow’s interference campaign.

It preyed on unsuspecting staff members who were more interested in capturing the enthusiasm of supporters of their unorthodox nominee and did not envision the seemingly far-fetched possibility that Russians might enlist them as unwitting players in a scheme to undermine American democracy.

“Nobody reasonably would have asked — or even thought to ask — ‘Are you sure you’re not with Russia?’”

“It’s just not something that normally you would think you have to watch out for.”

In a plot carried out by 80 employees, the Internet Research Agency, which has come to be known as the “troll factory,”

stole iden ies from Americans and

created social media campaigns and

fake online personas like Matt Skiber to try

to manipulate voters, activists and Trump campaign staff members, court papers show.

The Russians focused on Florida, the nation’s most critical swing state, contacting activists and Mr. Trump’s campaign primarily for help in staging rallies across the state on Aug. 20,

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/08/u...er=rss&emc=rss

[TSA]

you didn't answer the question either.

I didn’t make the claim that Clinton and the campaign heads didn't even know Steele had been hired.
Please back your claim and use the Podesta testimony as proof

[boutons_deux]

Pootin tells Megyn that maybe Russian cyberarmy was working for Americans,

[Pavlov]

I didnt give you an exact date because no one outside Hillarys inner circle knows the exact date. You knew that when you asked your stupid question.

If you honestly think she never knew then you are as gullible and stupid as fuzzy blumpkin.

Why would she know exactly who it was, CC?

Explain your conspiracy.

[Pavlov]

I didn’t make the claim that Clinton and the campaign heads didn't even know Steele had been hired.
Please back your claim and use the Podesta testimony as proof

You didn't answer the question.

When do you say Hillary personally knew Steele was working for the campaign?

[TSA]

You didn't answer the question.

When do you say Hillary personally knew Steele was working for the campaign?

I didn't make the claim. I laughed at your claim.

Because Clinton and the campaign heads didn't even know Steele had been hired.

Stop stalling and back it up.

[Pavlov]

I didn't make the claim. I laughed at your claim.

Yet you have nothing to refute it.

Good talk.

[TSA]

Yet you have nothing to refute it.

Good talk.

You've given nothing to refute. Back your claim up.

[Pavlov]

You've given nothing to refute.

Oh, so you accept my claim?

[Spurminator]

You've given nothing to refute. Back your claim up.

Back up that someone didn't know something? Are you familiar with the concept that you can't prove a negative? The only evidence for a negative is the lack of evidence for the affirmative. You lack that evidence.

[RandomGuy]

Contact with Russians does not equal collusion with Russians.

Do you believe the Trump campaign colluded and coordinated with Russia to sway the election yes or no?

"Russia, if you're listening, I hope you're able to find the 30,000 (Clinton) emails that are missing. I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press."

[RandomGuy]

Trump partied with Russian oligarchs at Vegas nightclub shut down over ‘lewd’ acts involving women and urine: report

https://www.rawstory.com/2018/03/tru...-urine-report/

[Pavlov]

Back up that someone didn't know something? Are you familiar with the concept that you can't prove a negative? The only evidence for a negative is the lack of evidence for the affirmative. You lack that evidence.

They always end up doing this.

Their claim is Hillary knew everything the entire time as some kind of omnipotent supervillain.

They've done nothing to prove it.

[TSA]

Back up that someone didn't know something? Are you familiar with the concept that you can't prove a negative? The only evidence for a negative is the lack of evidence for the affirmative. You lack that evidence.

Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman, John Podesta, recently denied to Senate Intelligence Committee investigators that he knew who had funded the infamous Steele dossier on Donald Trump.

But when he issued that denial, Podesta happened to be sitting next to the man who did pay for the salacious do ent: Marc Elias, the general counsel for the Clinton campaign and Democratic National Committee.

Elias was in the Senate meeting in his capacity as Podesta’s personal attorney, CNN reported on Thursday. But the lawyer, a partner at the firm Perkins Coie, apparently did not reveal during the interview that he was involved in the dossier, which was commissioned by opposition research firm Fusion GPS and written by former British spy Christopher Steele.

The Senate interview with Podesta was conducted before it was revealed that the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee jointly funded the dossier. The Washington Post reported that Elias, a longtime Democratic party “fixer,” paid Fusion GPS through Perkins Coie.

http://dailycaller.com/2017/10/26/jo...who-funded-it/


Hillary Clinton's former campaign manager Robby Mook said on Friday evening that he did not know who funded the controversial, unverified dossier about President Trump, despite revelations that the law firm representing the campaign sponsored the do ent.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefi...are-of-dossier


A spokesman for Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.), who was forced out as DNC chairwoman at the party’s national convention in 2016, also denied knowing about the arrangement.

“She was not aware of anything related to this research arrangement,” spokesman David Damron said.

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign...ssier-payments


Anyone who believes these three is a dumb as .

[Pavlov]

Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman, John Podesta, recently denied to Senate Intelligence Committee investigators that he knew who had funded the infamous Steele dossier on Donald Trump.

But when he issued that denial, Podesta happened to be sitting next to the man who did pay for the salacious do ent: Marc Elias, the general counsel for the Clinton campaign and Democratic National Committee.

Elias was in the Senate meeting in his capacity as Podesta’s personal attorney, CNN reported on Thursday. But the lawyer, a partner at the firm Perkins Coie, apparently did not reveal during the interview that he was involved in the dossier, which was commissioned by opposition research firm Fusion GPS and written by former British spy Christopher Steele.

The Senate interview with Podesta was conducted before it was revealed that the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee jointly funded the dossier. The Washington Post reported that Elias, a longtime Democratic party “fixer,” paid Fusion GPS through Perkins Coie.

http://dailycaller.com/2017/10/26/jo...who-funded-it/


Hillary Clinton's former campaign manager Robby Mook said on Friday evening that he did not know who funded the controversial, unverified dossier about President Trump, despite revelations that the law firm representing the campaign sponsored the do ent.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefi...are-of-dossier


A spokesman for Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.), who was forced out as DNC chairwoman at the party’s national convention in 2016, also denied knowing about the arrangement.

“She was not aware of anything related to this research arrangement,” spokesman David Damron said.

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign...ssier-payments


Anyone who believes these three is a dumb as .

Oh, so your proof they all knew is their pointedly saying they didn't know.

Including testimony before the senate.



Tell us when you say each of these people knew Fusion GPS employed Steele.

[djohn2oo8]

Oh, so you're proof they all knew is their pointedly saying they didn't know.

Including testimony before the senate.



Tell us when you say each of these people knew Fusion GPS employed Steele.

Lordy he just tripped all over himself!

[TSA]

Oh, so you're proof they all knew is their pointedly saying they didn't know.

Including testimony before the senate.



Tell us when you say each of these people knew Fusion GPS employed Steele.

^^^
dumb as

[RandomGuy]

I will be rhe first to admit Trump Jr. Was a dumnass to meet with that russian . From all accounts they got zero usable dirt from the meeting.

How is hiring Steele as a go between the DNC and Russian "sources" that much different?

This is a question, you should seriously try answering for yourself. How is it different?

[Pavlov]

^^^
dumb as

OK, since you're smart as , answer the questions.

When did each of those people you quoted know Steele was working for the campaign?

And when did Hillary personally know?

Explain your conspiracy.

[Pavlov]

This is a question, you should seriously try answering for yourself. How is it different?

It's obvious Christopher Steele's main concern was adoptions.

If you don't believe that you dumb as .

[RandomGuy]

Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman, John Podesta, recently denied to Senate Intelligence Committee investigators that he knew who had funded the infamous Steele dossier on Donald Trump.

But when he issued that denial, Podesta happened to be sitting next to the man who did pay for the salacious do ent: Marc Elias, the general counsel for the Clinton campaign and Democratic National Committee.

Elias was in the Senate meeting in his capacity as Podesta’s personal attorney, CNN reported on Thursday. But the lawyer, a partner at the firm Perkins Coie, apparently did not reveal during the interview that he was involved in the dossier, which was commissioned by opposition research firm Fusion GPS and written by former British spy Christopher Steele.

The Senate interview with Podesta was conducted before it was revealed that the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee jointly funded the dossier. The Washington Post reported that Elias, a longtime Democratic party “fixer,” paid Fusion GPS through Perkins Coie.

http://dailycaller.com/2017/10/26/jo...who-funded-it/


Hillary Clinton's former campaign manager Robby Mook said on Friday evening that he did not know who funded the controversial, unverified dossier about President Trump, despite revelations that the law firm representing the campaign sponsored the do ent.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefi...are-of-dossier


A spokesman for Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.), who was forced out as DNC chairwoman at the party’s national convention in 2016, also denied knowing about the arrangement.

“She was not aware of anything related to this research arrangement,” spokesman David Damron said.

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign...ssier-payments


Anyone who believes these three is a dumb as .

Smart person: Prove that they knew.
Dumb person: They all said they didn't know. They are liars and only dumb people would believe them.
Smart person:

Thanks Cosmored.

[RandomGuy]

It's obvious Christopher Steele's main concern was adoptions.

If you don't believe that you dumb as .

The only thing I am really 100% certain at this point is that if there was some sort of active collusion, these people are too stupid to be able to hide it, and Mueller WILL find it if so.

I think, ultimately, that Trumps obsequiousness has some underlying reason, and that the Russians have been dictating a few appointments, i.e. Tillerson, behind the scenes.

[RandomGuy]

Nunberg caps off strange week with appearance before Mueller grand jury

Washington (CNN)Former Trump campaign aide Sam Nunberg arrived at District Court in Washington, DC, Friday morning, where he is expected to deliver federal grand jury testimony as part of special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation.

Nunberg is the first recognizable Trump campaign affiliate to appear at a grand jury hearing related to Mueller's investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 election by walking through the main entrance of the federal courthouse and heading to the grand jury area. Other witnesses have presumably testified before Mueller's grand jury since it started meeting last July, but none have made as public an appearance.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/09/polit...urt/index.html


I hope Mueller is there giving him the stink eye the whole time. .... man would I give a testicle to watch Nunberg fold like a deckchair...

[Pavlov]

The only thing I am really 100% certain at this point is that if there was some sort of active collusion, these people are too stupid to be able to hide it, and Mueller WILL find it if so.

I think, ultimately, that Trumps obsequiousness has some underlying reason, and that the Russians have been dictating a few appointments, i.e. Tillerson, behind the scenes.

NO TRUMP SAID NOT KNOW RUSSIANS ANYONE THINK DIFFERENT DUMB AS