Would that be for something else?

and to use such information create false narratives including lying about a former President of wiretapping his phones.

And that sounds good for that.

Is it going to be the cover up he gets in trouble for and not the hacking?

If that's not illegal, we got bigger problems.

I don't think rigging an election is illegal. I don't know, but I don't think it is. That's why I'm asking to see if anyone knows what the charges may be. I'm not trying to bring up "right wing talking points", so y'all don't go alerting all over the place, I'm trying to figure out what to say to my co-worker when he says this again. Nixon didn't actually break in to anything, but he knew about it. Not sure what his charges would have been. Seems similiar.

Electoral fraud, election manipulation, or vote rigging is illegal interference with the process of an election. Acts of fraud affect vote counts to bring about an election result, whether by increasing the vote share of the favored candidate, depressing the vote share of the rival candidates, or both. What constitutes electoral fraud under law varies from country to country.

Obstruction of Justice

Money laundering

I think that's more than election fraud. The Russian mob, Putin and the Oligarchs are all in the same basket. It's undermining our country. RICO maybe? As far as I'm concerned, we were attacked by Putin with cyber warfare and that's enough for treason, but I'm no attorney... just a gut feeling of hatred for the entire bunch.

Cyberwars are as good as dropping real bombs to me. I think it should all be illegal.

I feel so cheated by all this crap. Had anyone official reported this before the election we wouldn't be in this spot now.

I don't think one can build a case of electoral fraud.

The reality is that its not illegal for a foreign government to attempt to influence the outcome of a US election. Foreign leaders have in the past (and did so during the 2016 election) publicly expressed a preference for one candidate over another.

What is illegal, based on what evidence has thus far emerged, is obtaining, without authorization, access to private email and other electronic communications and disseminating those to the public. At this point the evidence strongly suggests that members of the Trump campaign organization and those affiliated with the campaign conspired with the Russians with regard to such activities, which would at minimum constitute a violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (and probably other laws designed to prevent unauthorized access to and dissemination of electronic communications).


Beyond that, however, I'm not sure what legal case can be made based on the currently available evidence.

There has not been a single bit of evidence that has "emerged". Tons of speculation with some CTs thrown in but no actual evidence.

Here.... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_fraud

And just because Trump may have rings of capos to protect him,
he can still be the guilty party ... like Nixon. Like a mob boss.

Right now it all seems like a massively multiuser silly string battle.
But it's still moving forward. I don't see how Trump can last the year.

But I have nothing to back it up, but all these shady Russian contacts seem to be money launderers, and Trump was in dire straights financially.

But he said again it wasn't illegal to know about the hacking. I think it is, but asking to see what actual charges might be.

If it can be established beyond a reasonable doubt a president welcomed the interference of a foreign power to intervene in an election on his or her behalf it certainly rises to a high crime or misdemeanor.


See 18 U.S. Code § 595 . I am sure he has some legal exposure as well.

As in 1996 when the U.S. openly backed Boris Yeltin for Russian president and Clinton went to Moscow to campaign for him? That's ok?

That's a great point. The Russians should have impeached Yeltsin if he invited us to interfere in their election. Elections are like spouses, you don't want other people messing around with him or her.


I didn't agree with him because I oppose the death penalty but it reminded me of William Buckley's answer to those who asked for leniency for Jonathan Pollard because he was spying for an ally .Buckley said Pollard should have hanged.

by creating fake news, etc.

The U.S. used all of its resources, CIA, U.S. Information Agency, State Department, etc. and most important -- money to support Yeltsin. But it is Ok when we do it. I get it....

If you did, you wouldn't be pretending there is "no evidence" of Putin's interference, or creating ridiculous false equivalencies about Hillary.

USA! USA! USA!

You've got all your false equivalencies and talking points down. You're not fooling anybody, you've swallowed the Putin and RT propaganda whole.

Under federal law, perpetrators face up to five years in prison and a fine of $10,000 for each act of fraud. Plus various state penalties. If there were millions of "acts", the obergropenfuhrer could go away for a long time.

those that are used for paperless voting we aren't allowed to examine. That is that only way I think it would be election fraud.

I will look further into it when I can get on a faster computer.

"obtaining of information considered secret or confidential without the permission of the holder of the information"

But is that the knowledge of it or the actual doing it I wonder. I want him on tape ordering this.

One is espionage involving information relevant to national security or classified by the government. I don't think the emails hacked by the Russians fall into that category.

The other is the Economic Espionage Act which is aimed at protecting "trade secrets." As that term is defined, it doesn't appear that the email hacking would qualify as a violation of that provision either.

The most obvious choice is the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, which makes it illegal for a person or entity to obtain access to electronic communications without authorization and to disseminate them.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwi1k9Wl5OvSAhVG3IMKHbp5DD4QFghEMAE&url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FTreason&usg=AFQjCNH4GRxipkZg5nfVMZSYGigxereOAQ
"...adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."
We need two witnesses to the same overt act. A flip by Flynn and revenge by Christie.

but not "Treason" which is strictly defined in American law as aiding an "enemy"...and an enemy is strictly defined as a country or citizen of a country we are at war with.. We are not at war with Russia, although if this keeps up we could be.

They won. We have been taken over.

The Constitution has already been completely subverted. It's no more. We can call it treason if we want.

once they decide he is a liability.

Actually knew about the Russian hacking - and failed to report, the crime would be 'Misprison of a crime or felony' (hope I got that right).

If he acted with a foreign government to undermine our government - seems like treason to me.

If he was blackmailed into acting as a puppet for a foreign government - and then once elected as POTUS, continued to act as an agent of Russia - smells like treason to me..

or some derivative thereof?

possibly additional information supporting an emoluments clause violation as well...

wtf? who knows? the shit is deep here and the current is swift

The Republican answer is, of course...




And I hope that many of them go to prison for treason once Democrats gain control again.

if his $60 million payout from the fertiliser king on that house in Florida can be tied to a quid pro quo.

n/t

*which I guarantee are fewer than he claims.

(cyber war). He will resign and be pardoned in my opinion.

that includes "cyber war" in the definition of war?

"In Savage, from the case summary to the opinion of Justice Dawkins of the Louisiana District Court:

"War does not exist merely because of an armed attack by the military forces of another nation until it is a condition recognized or accepted by political authority of government which is attacked, either through an actual declaration of war or other acts demonstrating such position."
http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/W/War.aspx

"Or other acts demonstrating such position" sounds like an opening for any type of attack so long as the victim suffers a loss and views it as an attack. We need to get Rachel on this.

I define invading our cyber domain as an act of war myself.

First of all, the Savage case is an old, lower court case in which it was held that an individual killed during the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor did not die as a result of war because the United States had not formally declared war on Japan at the time of the attack. Thus, the court found that the insured's death was accidental and that his beneficiary could collect double indemnity under an accidental death policy. I'm not sure what value that citation has today where it is generally understood that a state of war can exist where there is armed conflict even in the absence of a formal war declaration.

Second, and more importantly, as a matter of both domestic and international law, cyber attacks are not currently recognized as acts of war. Under domestic law, an enemy is one who engages in hostilities against the US and hostilities are actions that fall within the rules of war (which is an international term of art).

With respect to cyber attacks, it may well be that at some point domestic and international law will be revised to recognize some or all such activities as acts of war. But that isn't the case today. One scholar who has studied and written on the issue has pointed out that "no state has claimed that a cyber-attack constitutes an “armed attack” giving rise to a right of self-defense
under Article 51 of the U.N. Charter. Nor has any state argued that cyber-attacks generally constitute a prohibited use of force." The same scholar points out that the members of NATO (including the US) have adopted an approach under which "a cyber-attack will obligate member states to “consult” with one another under Article 4 of the NATO treaty, but a cyber-attack will not
constitute an armed attack that obligates member states to assist one another under Article 5 of the treaty."

Ultimately, a state of war generally is not viewed to exist between two countries where there is an interruption of all peaceful relations between them. Thus, where countries maintain diplomatic relations, allow tourism and business travel and bilateral trade, they are not considered, as a matter of international law, to be in a state of war with one another.

To be blunt, why should that matter?

My values are clear. Do you have a problem with that?

Specifically, "What could Trump actually be charged with?"

In that context it doesn't matter bupkis what either of our values are, or who has a problem with them.

When I say I define.... that is my personal values and beliefs. No need to attack me for it. We have bigger fish to fry.

I know there are all sorts of other charges possible, but the issue is whether "cyber war" is War. Because if it isn't then according to current law it also isn't "Treason".

We need to get these guys with charges that will stick.

If he was involved with it, it is at least as bad as Watergate, with the additional potential quid pro quo of changing the RNC platfom on Ukraine.

Then, of course, if there is money involved, that opens up a whole nother can of worms for him, i think.

illegal campaign contributions in kind from foreign entities, failing to report donations in kind, abuse of power, conspiracy, perjury on campaign documents, tax evasion, fraud, bribery, misappropriation of public funds, conflicts of interest, collusion, operating a crime syndicate, aiding and abetting felonies, ....

Hey, I need a break.

At this stage, identifying what law or laws have been broken by Trump, his campaign or those affiliated/associated with the campaign is speculative because we don't have access to all of the factual evidence. But we can make some fairly educated guesses.

For starters, we can focus on the allegations that the Russians (or those acting as agents of the Russians) obtained unauthorized access to certain email communications and arranged, directly or indirectly, for those communications to be disseminated, directly or indirectly, to the American public with the intent of influencing how members of the American public voted in the 2016 presidential election. The crime that most readily comes to mind is a violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, which makes it unlawful for an entity to access electronic communications without authorization and to disseminate them. The role played by Trump, et al might give rise to a charge of conspiracy or accessory before/after the fact to the commission of a violation of that statute. There also may be other statutory provisions designed to protect against the unauthorized access to and dissemination of electronic communications that come into play.

But beyond that, based only on the obtaining and release of the emails, its hard to identify a criminal law that has been broken.

Obstruction of justice? Possibly, although that would depend on what the evidence showed and might be swept up in the conspiracy or accessory after the fact charge.

Election fraud? Hard to see how that could stick based on the email hack and dissemination of the information. Its not illegal for a foreign government to try to influence an American election by preferring one candidate over another. If somehow it could be established that the Russian assistance constituted an in-kind and thus illegal campaign contribution, maybe that would get somewhere. But whether the information was hacked and disseminated to impact the election or some other purpose (not that one comes to mind) seems irrelevant -- the crime was obtaining and making public the information, not the reason for doing so.

Of course, an entirely different set of questions arises if evidence is found that in addition to trying to influence the election by hacking and releasing information that might be viewed as harmful to one candidate the Russians, with the assistance or at least knowledge of the Trump group, actually hacked voting machines and interfered with the accurate count of the votes cast. But I don't think that evidence has come out yet, notwithstanding speculation about it in some quarters.

For real! I know the russian thing is what the topic of the day is. But the dude, lies, steals, maybe rape, fraud, don't pay taxes, is traitor, and the list goes on. Then also by his actions or in-actions people die, so add murder. What law has he not broken?

It's their "black friend" argument.

He first told me he voted for him once, but not the second time. Now he says both times but I have not forgot. He is a pure rep, but pretends to keep from pissing me off too much. I play along like I believe him, but this morning it was hard.

He only voted for him the first time because he hated Palin

The Mexico wall and the travel ban are blatant 1st amendment violations.

Charged with has to be criminal, hence the FBI and other IC investigation.

‘There is no other word for it’: Former Bush ethics czar says FBI uncovering evidence of ‘treason’

https://www.rawstory.com/2017/03/there-is-no-other-word-for-it-former-bush-ethics-czar-says-fbi-uncovering-evidence-of-treason/

Trump would be charged as an accomplice to the hacking of the DNC and Podesta's emails.

Tack on aiding and abetting, conspiracy and maybe RICO

There is plenty to charge him with, but a good prosecutor would focus on the slam dunks first. A good prosecutor would hammer the small fish first and then give the hammer blow to Trump.