• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Trump Campaign and Bribery (Title 18 United States Code section 201)

RedFishBlueFish

RedFishBlueFish

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 24, 2017
Messages
3,648
Reaction score
4,273
Location
Blue Ridge Mountains
Political Leaning
Liberal
The Trump Campaign and Bribery (Title 18 United States Code section 201)

There are a number of crimes that have been discussed that Trump and his campaign and associates could be charged with in the Mueller investigation. Some of the possibilities are; Obstruction of Justice, Providing False Statements to the FBI, Conspiracy to Violate the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, Conspiracy Against the U.S., Conspiracy to Defraud the U.S. by Interfering in an Election, Violation of Campaign Finance Laws, Klein Conspiracy, Honest Services Fraud, and Foreign Agent Registration Act Failures.

One crime that has received very little attention is Bribery. Good ole common everyday Bribery.

Trump or others who worked on the Trump campaign could have committed Bribery. Bribery can go back to campaigns and isn’t restricted to those in office. Perhaps the best chance for a bribery charge is in relation to the Trump Tower Meeting in which Don Junior, Manafort, Kushner and a bunch of Russians met. In the lead up to this meeting the possibility of the Russians having dirt on Hillary Clinton was discussed as well as the lessening of sanctions on Russia. This involves a quid pro quo.

What would the Trump Campaign get? Help in getting Trump elected both by release of the “dirt” on Clinton and the cyber attack that took place. What would the Russians get? Relief from the sanctions imposed by Obama with respect to the invasion of the Ukraine, sanctions relative to the inference in the election and sanctions regarding the Magnitsky Act (and possible future sanctions). If this or a similar quid pro quo could be proven that would be Bribery and could carry a 15 year sentence. (Title 18 United States Code section 201) The below cited article, the basis for much of this post, says that bribery is a much easier crime to prosecute and that it is something that most Federal prosecutors are familiar with and comfortable in executing.

Partial Timeline
June 9, 2016 Trump Tower Meeting
July 22, 2016 Hacked DNC emails released
August 23, 2016 Roger Stone communicates with Guccifer 2.0
Sept. 22 and Oct 3, 2016 Wikileaks contacts Donald Trump Jr.
October 11, 2016 Genius Junior speaks to Pro-Russia Group

Another arrow in Mueller?s quiver: The special counsel would be wise to focus on a criminal law few people have so far discussed
 
Last edited:
I saw that earlier. Interesting and very disturbing. What is also disturbing that a POTUS who repeatedly fails to preserve, defend and protect the Constitution.
 
RedFishBlueFish said:
The Trump Campaign and Bribery (Title 18 United States Code section 201)

There are a number of crimes that have been discussed that Trump and his campaign and associates could be charged with in the Mueller investigation. Some of the possibilities are; Obstruction of Justice, Providing False Statements to the FBI, Conspiracy to Violate the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, Conspiracy Against the U.S., Conspiracy to Defraud the U.S. by Interfering in an Election, Violation of Campaign Finance Laws, Klein Conspiracy, Honest Services Fraud, and Foreign Agent Registration Act Failures.

One crime that has received very little attention is Bribery. Good ole common everyday Bribery.

Trump or others who worked on the Trump campaign could have committed Bribery. Bribery can go back to campaigns and isn’t restricted to those in office. Perhaps the best chance for a bribery charge is in relation to the Trump Tower Meeting in which Don Junior, Manafort, Kushner and a bunch of Russians met. In the lead up to this meeting the possibility of the Russians having dirt on Hillary Clinton was discussed as well as the lessening of sanctions on Russia. This involves a quid pro quo.

What would the Trump Campaign get? Help in getting Trump elected both by release of the “dirt” on Clinton and the cyber attack that took place. What would the Russians get? Relief from the sanctions imposed by Obama with respect to the invasion of the Ukraine, sanctions relative to the inference in the election and sanctions regarding the Magnitsky Act (and possible future sanctions). If this or a similar quid pro quo could be proven that would be Bribery and could carry a 15 year sentence. (Title 18 United States Code section 201) The below cited article, the basis for much of this post, says that bribery is a much easier crime to prosecute and that it is something that most Federal prosecutors are familiar with and comfortable in executing.

Partial Timeline
June 9, 2016 Trump Tower Meeting
July 22, 2016 Hacked DNC emails released
August 23, 2016 Roger Stone communicates with Guccifer 2.0
Sept. 22 and Oct 3, 2016 Wikileaks contacts Donald Trump Jr.
October 11, 2016 Genius Junior speaks to Pro-Russia Group

Another arrow in Mueller?s quiver: The special counsel would be wise to focus on a criminal law few people have so far discussed
Click to expand...

shrug...

Another "could be charged with" speculation added to those other "could be charged with" dreams you mentioned. Not much substance to the speculation, but hey...the useful idiots don't need hard facts to take this and run with it.
 
Shrug all you like, Mycroft. Facts are facts. Unless you can cite case law and cite references and legal precedence that refute Federal Law.
 
Parrish said:
Shrug all you like, Mycroft. Facts are facts. Unless you can cite case law and cite references and legal precedence that refute Federal Law.
Click to expand...

You have a lot of "facts", but you have nothing to connect them together except speculation.

I expect this is the same problem Mueller is having.
 
Mycroft said:
You have a lot of "facts", but you have nothing to connect them together except speculation.

I expect this is the same problem Mueller is having.
Click to expand...

Don't count on it. My question remains. Do YOU have reference to case law and ANY legal precedence? If not, your post is just more BS.
 
Sounds good to be, hope they get enough evidence to bring charges, because there is damn sure enough evidence of the appearance of this (or something like it). White collar crimes involving intelligence operatives from Russia and political operatives in the U.S. are always hard to pin down, they are slippery. But Mueller's team is as good as it gets, if they can't piece all this together, then Russia was just too good at helping everyone cover their tracks, or not leaving any in the first place (the "deal" is done in plain sight).

Mycroft said:
Another "could be charged with" speculation added to those other "could be charged with" dreams you mentioned. Not much substance to the speculation, but hey...the useful idiots don't need hard facts to take this and run with it.
Click to expand...
Your entire thread on Nunes's BIG NOTHINGBURGER is speculation, but you were stunned by it and felt it was important. Why so skeptical when it comes to team Trump and the mountain of obvious, in-your-face evidence that points to this (or related misdeeds involving Russia)? Your position is as partisan and biased as they come, to the point of being absurd.

Considering there is an ongoing criminal investigation into Russia's involvement with the election and the Trump campaign, and we know there is a mountain of evidence that points to their conspiracy, it's a worthwhile thing to ponder for those interested. As opposed to Nunes, who has no criminal investigation going, and has gotten got at least 3 times in a big way, simply running cover for the White House.
 
Mycroft said:
You have a lot of "facts", but you have nothing to connect them together except speculation.

I expect this is the same problem Mueller is having.
Click to expand...

It is, indeed, the problem Mueller has. He has to connect the dots and prove the quid pro quo or collusion or whatever is needed to prosecute a crime. That's what he has been working on and it appears he is making pretty good progress. I hope he solves this problem, but if he doesn't at least I will feel like it was thoroughly evaluated.
 
Parrish said:
Don't count on it. My question remains. Do YOU have reference to case law and ANY legal precedence? If not, your post is just more BS.
Click to expand...

Heck, I'm just waiting for evidence of a crime.

I'm not interested in speculation.
 
Parrish said:
Shrug all you like, Mycroft. Facts are facts. Unless you can cite case law and cite references and legal precedence that refute Federal Law.
Click to expand...

What facts? The article is speculation. I see no facts.
 
RedFishBlueFish said:
It is, indeed, the problem Mueller has. He has to connect the dots and prove the quid pro quo or collusion or whatever is needed to prosecute a crime. That's what he has been working on and it appears he is making pretty good progress. I hope he solves this problem, but if he doesn't at least I will feel like it was thoroughly evaluated.
Click to expand...

Progress? I haven't seen any.

Oh...I've seen him bag...or attempt to bag...a couple of small fry, but I don't see him catching the big one. He just doesn't have the evidence.

I think it's more likely his job will be eliminated before he finally calls it quits.
 
Mycroft said:
Heck, I'm just waiting for evidence of a crime.

I'm not interested in speculation.
Click to expand...

Isn't speculation something people do on message boards? Seems like I've seen a lot of speculation about what crimes Hillary Clinton and other Democrats may have committed.
 
Mycroft said:
Progress? I haven't seen any.

Oh...I've seen him bag...or attempt to bag...a couple of small fry, but I don't see him catching the big one. He just doesn't have the evidence.

I think it's more likely his job will be eliminated before he finally calls it quits.
Click to expand...

Seems to me that raiding the personal attorney of the POTUS is not small fry stuff.
 
RedFishBlueFish said:
Isn't speculation something people do on message boards? Seems like I've seen a lot of speculation about what crimes Hillary Clinton and other Democrats may have committed.
Click to expand...

It's certainly something some people do...when they don't have facts.
 
Mach said:
Sounds good to be, hope they get enough evidence to bring charges, because there is damn sure enough evidence of the appearance of this (or something like it). White collar crimes involving intelligence operatives from Russia and political operatives in the U.S. are always hard to pin down, they are slippery. But Mueller's team is as good as it gets, if they can't piece all this together, then Russia was just too good at helping everyone cover their tracks, or not leaving any in the first place (the "deal" is done in plain sight).
Click to expand...

No they were pretty evident about it. Clinton and DNC > Fusion > Steele > Russians.
i mean they didn't do a very good job of hiding that they were working with russia.

Still wondering why mueller isn't investigating them yet. I mean his task was to investigation russian meddling and that is about a close as you can get.

Your entire thread on Nunes's BIG NOTHINGBURGER is speculation, but you were stunned by it and felt it was important. Why so skeptical when it comes to team Trump and the mountain of obvious, in-your-face evidence that points to this (or related misdeeds involving Russia)? Your position is as partisan and biased as they come, to the point of being absurd.
Click to expand...

SO far there is 0 evidence that trump has done anything. some of the people on his campaign lied about some connections to the FBI. ok that is a perjury charge.
most of manafort stuff came from 2013 way before the election so that is a no go.

Considering there is an ongoing criminal investigation into Russia's involvement with the election and the Trump campaign, and we know there is a mountain of evidence that points to their conspiracy, it's a worthwhile thing to ponder for those interested. As opposed to Nunes, who has no criminal investigation going, and has gotten got at least 3 times in a big way, simply running cover for the White House.
Click to expand...

yet no evidence says that trump was in anyway connected.
yet we know for a fact that clinton was.

you should be outraged that clinton and the DNC tried to use Russia to upend our election.
not once but twice.
 
RedFishBlueFish said:
Answering that would involve speculation on my part since we have no official statement on the raid.
Click to expand...

The FBI raided the office of Michael Cohen, a personal lawyer and confidant of President Donald Trump, Cohen's attorney confirmed to CNN Monday.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/09/politics/michael-cohen-fbi/index.html
Click to expand...

Sounds pretty official to me. Furthermore, that article tells you exactly who authorized and conducted the raid.

Hint: It wasn't Mueller.
 
Mycroft said:
Sounds pretty official to me. Furthermore, that article tells you exactly who authorized and conducted the raid.

Hint: It wasn't Mueller.
Click to expand...

This is not a statement from the DOJ or FBI but from Cohen's attorney. Cohen's attorney is not an official. TV talking heads and the CNN article you quote assume that Mueller "transferred" this to the SDNY office based on Cohen's attorney's statement, but that is an assumption (speculation). We don't know if this was "transferred" or what connection Mueller's team had with the raid. It does appear that the SDNY is working the case, but that doesn't mean Mueller is disconnected.
 
RedFishBlueFish said:
This is not a statement from the DOJ or FBI but from Cohen's attorney. Cohen's attorney is not an official. TV talking heads and the CNN article you quote assume that Mueller "transferred" this to the SDNY office based on Cohen's attorney's statement, but that is an assumption (speculation). We don't know if this was "transferred" or what connection Mueller's team had with the raid. It does appear that the SDNY is working the case, but that doesn't mean Mueller is disconnected.
Click to expand...

Well, okay. I guess you think Cohen's lawyer is lying.

No problem. Never mind.
 
Mycroft said:
Well, okay. I guess you think Cohen's lawyer is lying.

No problem. Never mind.
Click to expand...

It was widely reported at the time that the FBI used a "no-knock" warrant on Manafort's house. That was a false report. In a recent court filing the documents show that it was NOT a "no-knock" search. As in this case, at the time of the raid there was no official statement about the type of warrant and search. The whole idea of a pre-dawn, no-knock warrant and them busting in the door and knocking on Manafort's bedroom door to wake him up was either SPECULATION or false leads from Manafort's attorney.

So, no. You shouldn't believe Cohen's lawyers.
 
RedFishBlueFish said:
It was widely reported at the time that the FBI used a "no-knock" warrant on Manafort's house. That was a false report. In a recent court filing the documents show that it was NOT a "no-knock" search. As in this case, at the time of the raid there was no official statement about the type of warrant and search. The whole idea of a pre-dawn, no-knock warrant and them busting in the door and knocking on Manafort's bedroom door to wake him up was either SPECULATION or false leads from Manafort's attorney.

So, no. You shouldn't believe Cohen's lawyers.
Click to expand...

Oh...did Cohen's lawyer say the Manafort raid was a no-knock?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom