What would count as corroborated evidence in this case, @Benkei?

and more generally:

What if Mark Zuckerberg had walked up to Trump and said "I've got dirt on Clinton, do you want it?" and Trump had said yes, what crime had been committed?

Then Mark says "oh, and by the way, I can use targeted advertisements to influence Americans. How many ads would you like Donald?"

To which Trump replies, "I'll take a 150,000 in cash."

What crime would be committed?

Just replacing Mark with the Russians doesn't make it a crime. It's only when Trump directed or knew about the DNC hacks that I start to see something of a case but I'm not sure nor reporting a crime is a crime itself in the USA. It's certainly not the case in the Netherlands.

more witnesses. Placing everyone at the scene of the meeting Cohen references (the one where they discuss the Trump tower meeting to take place) without them being able to establish alibis. That sort of thing.

As far as I'm aware a conspiracy to commit a crime against the US government is sufficient to get one's self in the slammer. So, foreknowledge has already been assured with Cohen coming out on the recorrd about the issue. Now the rest lies with what Muller has already been covered by his investigation.

So that requires proof Trump knew they were going to hack the DNC beforehand. It's not even certain this was discussed.

Good luck with that one since everyone present would be criminally liable as well so they won't talk unless they make a deal. Making a deal makes you an untrustworthy witness as you could say anything to get a free pass on an unrelated parking ticket or tax claim. You'll need to flip quite a few people that aren't family to get anywhere near establishing a case for this.

also, you do know I'd be happy if he'd be successfully impeached right? I'm just trying to be realistic here.

Yeah, that goes without saying. I'm more into letting this drag out until the next relection just to sear it into the memory of everyone who voted for Trump that that was a bad idea.

did Trump jr. originally lie about the existence of that meeting? — Benkei

I recall they did. Then there was a very strong rumour that Snr. helped draft a statement about the meeting after the news of it broke, whilst on Air Force One. I think that is one of the subjects of the 'obstruction of justice' part of the investigation.

Just replacing Mark with the Russians doesn't make it a crime.

I believe it would be a crime if Trump encouraged Russia to get information illegally. That would mean he was conspiring with the Russians. He actually did ask Russia to find Hillary's emails, and reportedly this prompted activities to do just that. Had Russia actually delivered the emails, then I think Trump might be held guilty of a crime. They didn't, but it's dancing close to the fire. Also consider the "nothing burger" meeting between Don Jr and the Russians - again, nothing came out of it, but had something come out of it, it would possibly have been a crime.

It would also be a the crime if someone hinted or promised relief on Russian sanctions in return for information.

I'm not too sure about Pence being Prez either. Dems stand to benefit more from dragging out the investigation. Trump will just be a lame duck after the midterms so no harm done there.

There's also a more nefarious and sickly part of me that just wants to see Trump squirming and watching his base be composed of a diminishing pool of shit and idiocy. So, there's that full disclosure.

Just replacing Mark with the Russians doesn't make it a crime. — Benkei

Accepting or soliciting a "thing of value" from a foreign national for election purposes is a crime:

52 U.S. Code § 30121 - Contributions and donations by foreign nationals

Here's where some legal experts say that the June 9th Trump Tower meeting could show this law being broken, as opposition research counts as a "thing of value".

I recall they did. Then there was a very strong rumour that Snr. helped draft a statement about the meeting after the news of it broke, whilst on Air Force One. I think that is one of the subjects of the 'obstruction of justice' part of the investigation. — Wayfarer

If you are talking about Don Jr's statement about the meeting (being about adoption, etc.), then it's more than a strong rumor that Donald J. Trump helped draft it. Trump's legal team acknowledged that he dictated it to Don Jr. This admission came after repeated denials that Trump Sr had anything to do about it.

Right! And also, not to be forgotten, Trump saying at a campaign stop around that time, that he would have 'really big news on Hillary' next Monday (i.e. after the meeting) - which never, of course, eventuated, as the meeting turned out to be a fizzer.

From the CNN story on the Cohen claim:

To be clear, these sources said Cohen does not have evidence, such as audio recordings, to corroborate his claim, but he is willing to attest to his account.

But if Cohen is believed (and it's a big 'if') then it will definitely show that Trump has been lying about the meeting from the outset. Although as many people have commented, Trump lies or confabulates so often that he has actually managed to normalise it to the point where his followers don't think it matters - they will still blame the media, or the FBI, or whomever, for anything untoward. It's the 'post-truth world' that he has ushered in.

Trump will just be a lame duck after the midterms so no harm done there. — Posty McPostface

If only. He does enormous harm just being there.

But if Cohen is believed (and it's a big 'if') — Wayfarer

The article does say "Cohen alleges that he was present, along with several others, when Trump was informed of the Russians' offer by Trump Jr." so Mueller can always subpoena these others to testify to the grand jury. If he's telling the truth then they'll either corroborate or perjure themselves.

cool. I wasn't aware of those campaign financing rules.

Didn't Clinton hire a foreign national?

:yikes:

I don't think hiring a foreign national is the problem as both campaigns probably had several foreign nationals working on or for them. It is more hiring or encouraging a foreign government or officials of a foreign government to try to influence an election or an election outcome.

Steele was no longer an agent? I thought the law was against receiving something of value from some specified foreign entity. If Steele needed to be a British agent at the time, and he was not, then she's in the clear, but if it applies to any foreign agent whether current or not...

Also it is not clear if Clinton herself played any direct role in hiring Steele, although later use of the dossier under her knowledge and direction might constitute a violation. Likewise if agents of Donald Trumps campaign met with Russian officials but Trump was unaware or nothing came of the meetings he would be in the clear. He did openly call for Russia to hack Hilary Clinton's email server and that could conceivably be a problem if any action followed.

I thought the law was against receiving something of value from some specified foreign entity. — creativesoul

I don't think it covers hiring some professional service. Else Trump would have broken the law by paying Chinese workers to make his MAGA hats.

Much ambiguity in the language of "influencing an election"...

Also it is not clear if Clinton herself played any direct role in hiring Steele, although later use of the dossier under her knowledge and direction might constitute a violation — prothero

Ah, which included hiring Russians, by the way.

Indict them both if they are both guilty.

Today’s outburst - the twitter rant directed at Bob Mueller - is pathetic. It’s so obvious that Trump lives in his own world and that he’s incapable of comprehending the truth of what is happening in this enquiry. What’s almost as pathetic is the way his minions then scramble to rationalise and justify his raves, as if it were merely ‘business as usual’ and Trump just ‘expressing a point of view’.

He’s playing politics. Is it working? Probably. He is not going to care about voters he knows he will never persuade.

Your analysis is probably different than mine, but I think what concerns many people is that he doesn't seem to be playing politics much of the time. I would be less concerned if I thought is rants and outbursts were calculated.

I think you are concerned either way. You don’t want him there regardless of how he is there. I am being presumptuous, I do realise.

Anyway, I think the worst sort of people are those who have risen to the top of politics and the media.

It is all corporate games.

Oh I definitely am not a supporter of Trump and the majority of his ideas, but I'm only referring to my relative level of concern. Seeing someone make calculated political moves is different than seeing someone move from one political blunder to the next and getting lucky some of the time.