What law prohibits a meeting with Russian nationals?

a reply to: UKTruth


I didn't post the link to argue. I posted to answer the OP's question; "what laws might have been broken and what crimes might have been committed?" These are accusations and allegations. Not proof. That's Mueller's department.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: UKTruth


I didn't post the link to argue. I posted to answer the OP's question; "what laws might have been broken and what crimes might have been committed?" These are accusations and allegations. Not proof. That's Mueller's department.

He might have murdered someone in the meeting too. Seems more sensible to discuss the laws that might have been broken based on what we know.

a reply to: UKTruth

How about failing to disclose the meeting(s) on security clearance applications?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: UKTruth

How about failing to disclose the meeting(s) on security clearance applications?

Yep - something Kushner will need to answer for - and already has I think. He didn;t disclose any meetings - then disclosed them all before any story broke about the Trump Jr meeting he was in (I seem to recall that the media only found about it because Kushner disclosed it).

Donald Jr does not have any security clearance as far as I know so didn't need to disclose the meeting - same with Manafort.

a reply to: UKTruth

The Facebook warrant means that Mueller has concluded that specific foreign individuals committed a crime by making a 'contribution' in connection with an election.

It's a crime to accept these donations. On top of that the foreign agent bought political ads can be a problem. If there is any link that people knew about them they will be prosecuted. Since he got a warrant for a criminal prosecution it's likely someone knew.

a reply to: UKTruth

Yep - something Kushner will need to answer for - and already has I think.

His attorney did. "Oopsy."

(I seem to recall that the media only found about it because Kushner disclosed it).

No.
It started with the New York Times.
www.cnn.com...

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: UKTruth

Yep - something Kushner will need to answer for - and already has I think.

His attorney did. "Oopsy."

(I seem to recall that the media only found about it because Kushner disclosed it).

No.
It started with the New York Times.
www.cnn.com...

The NYT themselves say that they got the information from govt records. Kusher updated the SF-86 form with this meeting before the NYT were reporting it, potentially months before.

It was Kushner himself who made a statement on the SF-86 form submissions:

There has been a good deal of misinformation reported about my SF-86 form. As my attorneys and I have previously explained, my SF-86 application was prematurely submitted due to a miscommunication and initially did not list any contacts (not just with Russians) with foreign government officials.

Here are some facts about that form and the efforts I have made to supplement it. In the week before the Inauguration, amid the scramble of finalizing the unwinding of my involvement from my company, moving my family to Washington, completing the paper work to divest assets and resign from my outside positions and complete my security and financial disclosure forms, people at my New York office were helping me find the information, organize it, review it and put it into the electronic form. They sent an email to my assistant in Washington, communicating that the changes to one particular section were complete; my assistant interpreted that message as meaning that the entire form was completed.

At that point, the form was a rough draft and still had many omissions including not listing any foreign government contacts and even omitted the address of my father-in-law (which was obviously well known). Because of this miscommunication, my assistant submitted the draft on January 18, 2017. That evening, when we realized the form had been submitted prematurely, we informed the transition team that we needed to make changes and additions to the form. The very next day, January 19, 2017, we submitted supplemental information to the transition, which confirmed receipt and said they would immediately transmit it to the FBI. The supplement disclosed that I had “numerous contacts with foreign officials” and that we were going through my records to provide an accurate and complete list. I provided a list of those contacts in the normal course, before my background investigation interview and prior to any inquiries or media reports about my form. It has been reported that my submission omitted only contacts with Russians. That is not the case. In the accidental early submission of the form, all foreign contacts were omitted. The supplemental information later disclosed over one hundred contacts from more than twenty countries that might be responsive to the questions on the form. These included meetings with individuals such as Jordan’s King Abdullah II, Israel’s Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu, Mexico’s Secretary of Foreign Affairs, Luis Videgaray Caso and many more. All of these had been left off before.

Over the last six months, I have made every effort to provide the FBI with whatever information is needed to investigate my background. In addition, my attorneys have explained that the security clearance process is one in which supplements are expected and invited. The form itself instructs that, during the interview, the information in the document can be “update[d], clarif[ied], and explain[ed]” as part of the security clearance process. A good example is the June 9 meeting. For reasons that should be clear from the explanation of that meeting I have provided, I did not remember the meeting and certainly did not remember it as one with anyone who had to be included on an SF-86. When documents reviewed for production in connection with committee requests reminded me that meeting had occurred, and because of the language in the email chain that I then read for the first time, I included that meeting on a supplement. I did so even though my attorneys were unable to conclude that the Russian lawyer was a representative of any foreign country and thus fell outside the scope of the form. This supplemental information was also provided voluntarily, well prior to any media inquiries, reporting or request for this information, and it was done soon after I was reminded of the meeting.

Note that submitting an incorrect form is also not a major issue as it is understood that updates and amendments can be made.

The form itself instructs that, during the interview, the information in the document can be “update[d], clarif[ied], and explain[ed]” as part of the security clearance process.

That's the knid of detail you don't see on CNN.

a reply to: UKTruth

And you said:

(I seem to recall that the media only found about it because Kushner disclosed it).

Kushner disclosed nothing until well afterwards. He "forgot" to mention it in is security application.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: UKTruth

And you said:

(I seem to recall that the media only found about it because Kushner disclosed it).

Kushner disclosed nothing until well afterwards. He "forgot" to mention it in is security application.

Incorrect. - on a number of levels. His statement is above.
The meeting with Trump Jr was declared before any media story hit, according to Kushner's own official statement. It's a stretch to assume he is lying as the dates can be so easily checked by any investigation.

a reply to: UKTruth
I see your edit added more information.
I stand corrected.

originally posted by: Iconic
Greetings brothers and sisters,

I wanted to ask a question, because I have yet to hear the answer from whomever I ask.

I know that trying to get a foreign government to sway an election has a few laws attached to it, in one way or another.

But, since proving that the president, nor his son, even had successful meetings with Russian nationals seems to be taking so much time; I doubt that proving if they ever intended the foreigner to sway the election in whatever capacity would be illegal would be substantiated.

So- my question is this: what law would have been broken, by a sit down with foreign nationals by a presidential candidate, or someone on his team (way more likely)?

Two laws are involved:

1: en.wikipedia.org...

and

2: en.wikipedia.org...

It's interesting to note that the Reagan Campaign violated the Logan Act by 'arranging' to delay the release of the Iranian Embassy Hostages until after the election in order to take credit for their release.

originally posted by: opecz
There isn't. Even in times of war it is not illegal to meet citizens of a nation that is at war with one's own nation. War is politics between politicians, has nothing to do with civilians who want no part of it.

So high school civics is next year then? Because, at least in the example of disgraced former General, Michael T. Flynn, Flynn violated the Logan Act. Contrary to your assertion, it actually is illegal for a private US citizen to engage in a dialogue with representatives of a foreign nation with the specific intent of undermining an official government position.

In Flynn's case, the topic was the repeal of specific sanctions the Obama administration levied against Russia and Flynn was attempting to leverage the east no or dismissal of those sanctions for the gain of Trump. It's illegal and it's a a felonly no matter what kind of spin you want to try to put on it.

fas.org...

en.m.wikipedia.org...

It there was anything illegal it would have came out before January 20 unless you think the IC is so ept they were not able to find anything.

a reply to: opecz
A number of examples of certain parties being less that forthcoming. Therefore, the investigation(s) are ongoing.

Definition of ongoing
1 a :being actually in process

ongoing research

b :continuing

The investigation is ongoing.

2 :continuously moving forward :growing

the long ongoing history of medicine

www.merriam-webster.com...

a reply to: Phage

It won't matter much. This investigation lasts more than 10 years. If there is anything, it won't come out until Trump is out of office anyway.

a reply to: opecz

This investigation lasts more than 10 years.

Why?

Your English syntax seems strange, btw. Not your native tongue?

a reply to: peter vlar
Getting the dirt from the Russians in exchange for a friendly sanction deal would be a major crime worthy of immediate impeachment. There is no proof of a deal or intent of a deal. Do you have proof Flynn offered sanctions repeal in exchange for the dirt? That is the crux of the whole impeachment dream from the left.

There is no crime if Russia gave the data for free. If Russia or anybody can hack a political party and release dirt then it is up to that party to clean up their dirt. In the modern world you can't control what outside forces might expose. Investigations have proven the hack wasn't the Russians though so it's really a moot point.

The Logan Act is about citizens undermining the government with regards to international diplomacy. Russians giving info to Trump about Hillary or the DNC wouldn't fall under the Logan Act because neither Hillary nor the DNC is the government or representing a position of government.

a reply to: SouthernForkway26

Flynn's potential or alleged violations of the Logan act have no effect on the Trump administration and won't do anything to impeach the current POTUS unless someone, somehow, produced audio or video of Trump asking Flynn to put that option on the table in exchange for dirt on Clinton. If the investigation ends up bearing evidence that General Flynn tried to make a deal, his chances of an immediate pardon are as good as Sheriff Joe's were. The only wait it comes back on Trump is if evidence of multiple people in the administration are found guilty of similar crimes and some of them can be tied directly to Trump. And personally, as much of an idiot as Trump is, I'm much more frightened of a President Pence in the Oval Office. I just don't see enough concrete evidence that ties anything directly to Trump.

As for your comments regarding the Logan Act, it absolutely applies. Offerr My reduction or removal of sanctions in exchange for anytging period, undermines the administration that is in office when the violation occurs. IF Gen. Flynn made such an offer, he is in violation of the Logan Act.

originally posted by: Kharron

originally posted by: ColoradoJens

I really liked your post. Well written.

The only thing is, if everyone in the government were held accountable for their crimes, there wouldn't be a government.

Thanks.

Then perhaps it's time we revised our process on who may be eligible to serve any office. If we created an environment, or rather allowed others to create an environment where criminals prosper and justice is an illusion, it's our duty to change that, now that more and more are aware of it.

I think money should be completely separated from politics. As a government employee of any office, it should be a crime to accept any funds for any reason, other than the paycheck for the service provided. This includes benefits such as trips and vacations, promises of future deals and business ventures, lucrative positions and so on. Equally, it should be a crime to offer such incentives to any government employee, during their campaign or after.

All representatives should be paid the median income of the region they represent, plus any per diem costs. This means no voting raises for oneself. If you wish for an increase in salary, make sure that the people you represent are doing better and making more as well. Representing people should be a service, not a chase for gold.

Transparency should not even be an issue. Before taking any office there must be complete transparency during the candidacy - this includes releasing all tax documents, business ties and group affiliations, as well as separating oneself from any entity that could financially benefit from that office.

Our focus should be to put someone in office who is committed to making these changes, because without them it's all just a charade.

Again, brilliant. You need to post more often.

a reply to: Iconic

No law... Just ethics and morals..