I donât think the legal standard is even that high: known or should have known. And besides, what con artist doesnât do due diligence on potential associates or marks?
Trump wouldnât have been put off by all that. Heâs positively attracted to louche, boundary-violating types, being one himself. But when anything like this is pointed out about an associate heâs suddenly Mr. Magooâdoesnât remember, barely ever heard of the guy, wouldnât know him in a room, employed him very briefly, all that. Heâll be saying that about Jared Kushner any day now, never mind Sater.
Willful ignorance is nice
The âNew Yorkerâ Aug 21 has two nice articles, one about the dubious sides of DTâs business, the other about Julian Assange.
The later suggests, that the Russian actions against HRC were revenge for the Panama leaks, which Putin took personally as an American attack on him, his family and close associates. It was a coincidence, that the Trump campaign could be used as a tool, and a nice bonus, it cost HRC the election. Makes a lot of sense to meâŚ
Well, of course he knew. He probably liked that about Sater.
ETA: I see @mattinpa beat me to it. Again. 
I suppose it would even the playing field if I did more constructive work. But whereâs the fun in that? 
Like most folks Trumpâs primary concern appears to be getting what he wants but, unlike most folks (and grandiose vulgarity aside), appears to have no moral or ethical restraints about getting it. What he wants doubtless varies from arena to arena â from women itâs one thing, toadies another, mob connected operators another, etc â but abundant lack of restraint seems constant. Iâm sure Trump knew in a general way that Sater was dirty, or at least was unlikely to get him what he wanted if he wasnât suitably âconnected,â but doubt that mattered except to the degree Sater could serve his need.
Somewhat OT but I keep coming back again and again to how perfectly Trump represents the pragmatic consequences of contemporary Republicanism and nihilistic individualism (AKA conservative libertarian) generally: he is no outlier â he is their apotheosis, his every act a graphic illustration of the difference between license and liberty â and their outrage at his excesses can only be interpreted as the shock of recognition.
Perfect!
It sounds like Sater has been walking a tightrope by making himself valuable enough to the Feds to get them to look the other way at his illegal activities. He will probably turn on Trump in a second if it is to his advantage and he has already hinted that is going to happen. Stay tuned folks, the big reveal is probably close and I canât wait. Mueller seems to be running a really tight ship and no one, including the WH, may see it coming until it lands. My guess is that Sater is already under protective custody or heavy surveillance at this point.
How Could Donald Trump Have Not Known �
Uhhh he lied about it?
I donât know what to think, on the one hand, to any normal person Slaterâs issues are obvious, on the other hand are the numerous examples of folks who have tried mightily to penetrate Trumpâs thick skull by painstakingly explaining very simple concepts and failing over and over again. Remember Australiaâs Prime Minister and refugees that come by boat or Angela Merkel trying to explain that EU countries donât make trade deals independently, all deals must go through the Union.
There is a lot he should know, that normal people know, but he doesnât. I donât think being dumb as a stump is an excuse, but it is Trumpâs reality.
Trump can no more say no to dirty money than he can say no to that second scoop of ice cream. He lives in a completely different moral universe than the rest of us - as a matter of fact, for a malignant narcissist morality has about as much meaning for him as string theory.
Just gotta say, Sam Thielman is rockinâ it.
How could Trump not have known?
âI donât deal in hypotheticalsâ
âloucheâ?? Thatâs such a 90âs, New Yorker word.
The murky concoction of absinthe and water is the basis for âloucheâ, or so I read once, 20 years agoâwhen people actually used such pretentious words:)
From todayâs FT:
I donât think this President values any skill so highly as the con manâs ability to convince people who matter, that he isnât such a bad guy.
That conviction is the only thing keeping him out of the Cabinet.
Either that, or heâs done a Whitey Bulger, only with much more money and not quite as many killings. We like to think of the FBI as incorruptible, and they donât seem to be as corrupt as, say, some local police departments. But there have certainly been plenty of cases where agents have acted in corrupt ways.
Whatâs the point of Due Diligence if the government can hide someoneâs fraud conviction? This doesnât make any sense.