Teri Kanefield @Teri_Kanefield Author, lawyer (U.C. Berkeley). My threads are here: terikanefield-blog.com/ My author website is here: www.terikanefield.com/ Jan. 25, 2019 1 min read

(thread) The larger picture

I updated the main page to include the Roger Stone indictment, and a brief summary.  https://russia-investigation-summary.com 

If you like everything in one place, here it is.

1/The Stone indictment establishes that senior Trump officials engaged in criminal activity in the 2016. Senior Trump officials knew emails were stolen. They had notice Russian had done the hacking. They kept informed about (coordinated?) the release.
 https://www.justice.gov/file/1124706/download 

2/ The indictment of 13 Russians and 3 Russian companies establishes a sweeping, well-organized and well-financed Russian conspiracy to sway the 2016 election.
 https://www.justice.gov/file/1035477/download 

3/ The indictment of Viktor Borisovich Netyksho establishes that Russian military officials were involved in the hacking of the DNC, and that the Russian military weaponized the stolen material to sway our 2016 election.  https://www.justice.gov/file/1080281/download 

4/ I already hear the collective shout of "treason!" from Twitterland.
As you see from these indictments, Muller is careful. He brings only charges he has evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. Prosecutors don't take risks. That's why they have like a 95% conviction rate.

5/ So I don’t expect a charge of treason. The question for me is whether we’ll see evidence of quid pro quo.

Ordinarily bribery is hard to prove.

6/ If two events occur independently—I donate to a politician who laters enacts a law that benefits me— there is no bribery without showing a clearly understood exchange between the two parties.

Quid pro quo means a clearly understood exchange of value.  https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/quid_pro_quo 

7/ A lot of gray area is considered legal, for example, campaign contributions allowing for access to a candidate.
 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/201 
If the value received by the Trump campaign was criminal (benefitting from weaponizing hacked material) it can’t fall into the gray area.

8/ SCOTUS defined “official action” to be a “specific exercise of formal government power.”  https://www.oyez.org/cases/2015/15-474 

I can't even count all of the“specific exercise of formal government power" Trump's administration exercised that benefitted the Russians.

9/ The bombshell charge, for me, would be a charge that the Trump campaign accepted bribes from Russia; or that they offered bribes to Russia.


You can follow @Teri_Kanefield.



Bookmark

____
Tip: mention @threader_app on a Twitter thread with the keyword “compile” to get a link to it.

Enjoy Threader? Sign up.