Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Next part of thread...claiming it's bribery now!
40/ Because the Trump-Agalarov deal extended beyond Election Day and into the Trump presidency, it presents *also* as a BRIBERY case. But there's another critical way in which the—already lied about—timeline of the Trump-Agalarov deal suggests that it was in fact a criminal act.
41/ If you know someone is committing a criminal act, you can't do anything to INDUCE THEM to keep committing that act, and inducement often involves payment as well as encouragement. The AIDING AND ABETTING statute means Trump couldn't induce Russian crimes once he knew of them.
42/ So now we see a *second* reason it's so suspiciously convenient that the Trump-Rozov deal "ended" in June 2016. It's not just because it preceded Trump's nomination for president, but because it preceded—or was contemporaneous with—Russian hacking activities becoming public.
43/ For nearly two years, this feed has not only meticulously detailed how Trump's foreign policy was developed, and when/where he signed deals with the Russians, but *also* how *long* his team's sanctions negotiations with the Russians went on *after* it knew of Russian hacking.
44/ *After* we knew of Russian hacking, Trump's NatSec negotiated sanctions *at a minimum* at the RNC, in Sessions' office, in *pre-election* Flynn-Kislyak talks, and through "public collusion" like a Papadopoulos-Interfax interview, Jr.'s emails to WikiLeaks, and Trump speeches.
45/ Throughout all of this, Russia was holding out an ACTIVE Trump Tower Moscow deal for Trump via Aras Agalarov, who NOT ONLY stayed in contact with Trump throughout the election but tried to get oppo research to Trump on Clinton and offered to secretly introduce Trump to Putin.
46/ Given the foregoing—and despite having written a book on Trump-Russia collusion entitled PROOF OF COLLUSION that answers many of the mysteries surrounding Trump's collusion with Russia—I cannot *fathom* why media speaks of the Trump-Rozov deal but not the Trump-Agalarov deal.
47/ And given all the foregoing—given the BRIBERY, CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD THE UNITED STATES and AIDING AND ABETTING COMPUTER CRIMES federal statutory violations that are clearly in play here—I've *no idea* why *anyone* in media refers to these two deals as *legal*. They *weren't*.
48/ What happened this week was *not* that we got proof of collusion. We already *had* proof of collusion, and it's catalogued in detail in my book PROOF OF COLLUSION. What we got was *more* proof of collusion. And if people wonder why it doesn't feel that way, look at the media.
49/ The mistake the media makes is giving Trump hours of airtime denying his crimes—though his denials are *less* credible than a murderer saying he didn't murder someone, as Trump *lies more frequently* than any murderer I've ever represented in court or even *seen* represented.
41/ If you know someone is committing a criminal act, you can't do anything to INDUCE THEM to keep committing that act, and inducement often involves payment as well as encouragement. The AIDING AND ABETTING statute means Trump couldn't induce Russian crimes once he knew of them.
42/ So now we see a *second* reason it's so suspiciously convenient that the Trump-Rozov deal "ended" in June 2016. It's not just because it preceded Trump's nomination for president, but because it preceded—or was contemporaneous with—Russian hacking activities becoming public.
43/ For nearly two years, this feed has not only meticulously detailed how Trump's foreign policy was developed, and when/where he signed deals with the Russians, but *also* how *long* his team's sanctions negotiations with the Russians went on *after* it knew of Russian hacking.
44/ *After* we knew of Russian hacking, Trump's NatSec negotiated sanctions *at a minimum* at the RNC, in Sessions' office, in *pre-election* Flynn-Kislyak talks, and through "public collusion" like a Papadopoulos-Interfax interview, Jr.'s emails to WikiLeaks, and Trump speeches.
45/ Throughout all of this, Russia was holding out an ACTIVE Trump Tower Moscow deal for Trump via Aras Agalarov, who NOT ONLY stayed in contact with Trump throughout the election but tried to get oppo research to Trump on Clinton and offered to secretly introduce Trump to Putin.
46/ Given the foregoing—and despite having written a book on Trump-Russia collusion entitled PROOF OF COLLUSION that answers many of the mysteries surrounding Trump's collusion with Russia—I cannot *fathom* why media speaks of the Trump-Rozov deal but not the Trump-Agalarov deal.
47/ And given all the foregoing—given the BRIBERY, CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD THE UNITED STATES and AIDING AND ABETTING COMPUTER CRIMES federal statutory violations that are clearly in play here—I've *no idea* why *anyone* in media refers to these two deals as *legal*. They *weren't*.
48/ What happened this week was *not* that we got proof of collusion. We already *had* proof of collusion, and it's catalogued in detail in my book PROOF OF COLLUSION. What we got was *more* proof of collusion. And if people wonder why it doesn't feel that way, look at the media.
49/ The mistake the media makes is giving Trump hours of airtime denying his crimes—though his denials are *less* credible than a murderer saying he didn't murder someone, as Trump *lies more frequently* than any murderer I've ever represented in court or even *seen* represented.