Translation:
MUELLER DECIDES JUNIOR IS TOO STUPID TO COMMIT TREASON.
5 Likes
Competence is the Deep State.
1 Like
According to the DOJâwhat is the matter with these people?âyou need to be a campaign finance law expert before you can be found guilty of âknowingly and willfullyâ violating the Rules. I can see the merit of such a restrictive approach to the law in relation to donors. But in relation to people running a campaign? The law actually incentivizes them to not acquaint themselves with the relevant rules? It makes no fucking sense at all.
4 Likes
Oh come on, ignorant of that? For someone in his position, that is an absurd thing to ignorant of. It is incompetence on a grand scale. Oh⌠being too incompentent to follow the law sounds like an impeachable offense to me,
1 Like
So ignorance of the law (even after being warned that Russia was tmeddling) is a plausible defense!
And for treason, at that!
Mueller really is a republican. He should be ashamed, but like all repugs, it appears he isnât able to feel shame.
2 Likes
⌠and what about the rest of the attendees? Like Kushner? Is he, also, too dumb to know when an action treason is illegal? And Manafort?
3 Likes
It bears repeating many times. Because it isnât true for 99.99% of Americans.
Apparently. The problem here is the mental state requirement âwillfully,â which in general requires some knowledge that what youâre doing is law breaking. That hurdle gets higher as the complexity and obscurity of the law at issue increases. In terms of Junior, the report seems to indicate heâs just a shithead who couldnât be expected to know better. As to the other two, Iâm not sure how the report handled them. The article was about Junior, so thatâs what I was responding to.
3 Likes
Thatâs certainly one of the takeaways.
Which brings up a question I have long had about something that happened unrelated to this.
The Trump campaign did mass emails fund raising to foreign entities, including a number of people in English Parliament various Scandinavian countries and numerous MPs in other Commonwealth countries.
To my knowledge, the FEC never brought any charges, or even opened investigations, despite this being widely reported by the actual receivers of the emails. Its against the law to even solicit foreign donations.
And bringing such charges would have removed this defense from the entire campaign.
So why wasnât it investigated?
9 Likes
Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner!!!
2 Likes
Muellerâs investigators were unable to find âevidence that the participants in the meeting were familiar with the foreign-contribution ban,â according to the redacted report.
Sounds like a perfect defense for drug-runners:
âSorry Mr. DEA Agent, I think youâll find a lack of evidence that I have any awareness bringing 2.5 kilos of cocaine into the United States is illegal. Perhaps you could ask the executives who will be purchasing this from me to explain?â
1 Like
There is a big difference in the laws that govern drugs and campaign finances. The campaign finance laws require a higher level of intent. Itâs in the statute. I wish to fuck it wasnât.
6 Likes
Excuse me while i go to my classroom and remove all the posters about the harms of ignorance. I guess I was wrong. It can be good for you.
Actually, the Twinkie Defense worked the first time.
(Except it was never really a Twinkie defense, but thatâs another story.)
1 Like
Sooooo If I rob a bank, on foot, when I get caught at the cafe next door, I can claim I was ignorant??? Guess it pays to have money - even in a Special Counsel Investigation ⌠right?
The Twinkie defense was from a Herb Cain column after the defense attorneys for the Milk Moscone assassin claimed diminished capacity due to excessive amounts of junk food.
1 Like
Well, they really did not. They argued that the defendant had acted in a state of severe depression. They mentioned his consumption of Twinkies in passing only; they argued it was just one out of several changes in behavior that showed he was depressed.
It was the press that lazily turned what they said into âThe Twinkie Defense.â
Thatâs what I meant when I said that âit was never really a Twinkie defense.â
3 Likes
this whole episode has laid the foundation for legal foreign influence in our elections, the valuation portion of the discussion seems to indicate a âhave at itâ when it comes to teaming with, well, just about anyone.
The biggest mistake made by Mueller was allowing Trump to send in questions in writing rather then have to answer them in real time, with adjunct follow-up questioning. I knew from the moment that this acquiescence was proffered that any charges of obstruction were very unlikely. How in the hell can you conduct an investigation so important and not seat the President and have him answer for the ten obstructive acts cited in the report? Mueller pushes to the level of extraneous the issues regarding benefit of the doubtâŚnot just for the President, but for key figures surrounding him. The worst part of it seems to be the rationale used by Mueller that it simply wasnât worth the time and effort to compel Trump and others like Trump Jr. to testify EVEN at the risk of a constitutional fight. I think that was a mistake. As you read more of the report you canât help pushing back the nagging feeling that this was a not-so-heroic punt to Congress.