Why weren’t crimes charged as a result of the June 9, 2016 Trump Tower Meeting?
Part I begins here:
We’ll begin with the “facts.”
By “facts” I mean what the prosecutors have enough evidence to prove.
On June 9, Jr., Kushner, & Manafort arrived at the meeting, “expecting to receive derogatory information about Hillary Clinton from the Russian government.” (110)
Jr. asked her for evidence to support her claim. She had none.
Kushner became “aggravated” and asked “what are we doing here?” (p. 118) He also iMessaged Manafort stating: “waste of time.”
Veselnitskaya pivoted to talking about the Magnitsky Act, a 2012 statute imposing sanctions on Russia resulting in Russia retaliating with a ban on US adoptions.
After the election, Veselnitskaya tried to follow up with the Trump campaign, but the Trump Transition Team did not engage.
Trump Jr. refused to voluntarily speak to the Special Counsel, which limited their fact-gathering.
The Russians lured senior campaign folks into a meeting with promises in writing that they had dirt on HRC as part of Russia’s on-going campaign to help elect Trump.
The Trump campaign got nothing.
But Russia got a lot. Kompromat.
The Russians got evidence, in writing, that top Trump campaign officials eagerly met with them, expecting derogatory information against HRC . . .
Such good deal makers! (sarcasm)
Russia walks out with Kompromat. The campaign walks out with nothing.
Remember that one goal of Active Measures is to cause chaos in the U.S.
Plus the Trumps need the Russians to stay quiet. Obviously it doesn't look good for the Jr. & Trump campaign to respond so eagerly to that offer.
Issue: Did Jr. and pals commit a financial campaign violation when they eagerly sought help with their campaign from Russia?
law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/52…
Elements:
💠A person receives, accepts or solicits
💠A contribution of money or other thing of value
💠in connection with an election
💠From a foreign national
Analysis: They didn’t accept or receive anything of value (apparently because they thought it had no value) . . .
SC concluded that the “admissible evidence will probably” be insufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction.” (p. 184)
SC also considered whether to charge conspiracy to violate 52 U.S.C. § 30121.
law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18…
While SC thought a reasonable argument could be made that the dirt they were seeking had some value. .
“Trump Jr. could mount a factual defense that he didn’t believe his response to the offer and the June 9 meeting itself violated the law.”(188)
Volume II, Section IIG discusses these events in light of obstruction of justice.
I will leave that for a later thread.
Part IV/ end
That typo in the "IRAC" tweet, Part III, is driving me nuts.