[ad_1]
The indictment of Stone, Trump's oldest political advisor, reoriented attention to the fact that Trump and his team were transcending legal and ethical boundaries in an effort to defeat Hillary Clinton in an election involving a simultaneous operation of interference led by Russia.
The question for Mueller has always been to find out if there had been a criminal conspiracy among members of the Trump team to cooperate with Moscow's attempt to appoint him president.
Up to now, he has presented no evidence of such discovery, in a forest of charges, court rankings, trials and convictions of people surrounding the president in an investigation which seems to be getting closer to the oval office.
If Mueller establishes such behavior, it would answer the thorny question: why are so many people around us Trump – at great cost to themselves – repeatedly lied about their ties to the Russians?
Or, it is conceivable – if the special council could conclude that, even though it ver-up – it was not motivated by the desire to hide a crime, but was intended to spare Trump the Political embarrassment of non-criminal links with Russia?
But even if this is the case, the voluminous documents of Mueller and other documents available to the public The information established a behavior on the part of Trump and his assistants, who was right in the norms of behavior campaigning and showing a flagrant lack of respect for the integrity of a presidential election – part of the fabric of American democracy.
The Democrat-led House was to consider whether such activity was unethical and so contrary to American values that it deserved to be sanctioned by subsequent action – or even an attempt in accusation.
A Doubtful Electoral Narrative
There is no doubt that the team of Trump was ready to go to the extreme To win in 2016.
This left open the possibility that Trump had not only lied when he did not have a liking. he had told the Americans that he had no commercial ties with Russia, but saw his campaign – a form of public confidence when he should have defended the interests of America – as a way to move things along in the direction of an agreement worth hundreds of millions of dollars.
This episode was born this month of a failed campaign campaign by Manafort's lawyers. It is unclear whether the big lobbyist was acting alone, possibly for the purpose of transmitting information to the Ukrainian oligarchs to whom he was indebted.
It was immediately assumed that Manafort was acting at the request of other agents of the campaign and polling stations. The data may have helped Russian intelligence target misinformation campaigns on social media in major swing states. Mueller claimed in a separate indictment that a Kremlin-related troll farm had spent millions to influence Americans on social media, although the charges do not describe any coordination with the team. of Trump.
Trump has often shown disdain for accepted norms of behavior in the countryside. For example, the Republican candidate of the time called on Russia to find 30,000 missing emails from the private server used by Hillary Clinton while he was secretary of state.
The Trump nominee has repeatedly praised WikiLeaks for the emails that seriously damaged the Clinton campaign of the strain. 19659012] "I love WikiLeaks," he said at one point.
Less than an hour later, Wikileaks launched a new series of emails that appeared to have been designed to eliminate the October sting. surprise that threatened to derail the entire Trump campaign.
Stone pleaded not guilty Tuesday in court against seven charges of false statements, falsification of witnesses and obstruction of the process.
He was not charged with conspiracy, although the indictment indicates how Stone would have coordinated the Trump campaigners on
In an intriguing passage, Mueller asserted that "After the July 22, 2016, broadcast of stolen emails (from the Democratic National Committee) by (WikiLeaks), a senior Trump campaigner was asked to contact STONE about any press releases and other information. WikiLeaks had on the Clinton campaign. "
This phrase sparked speculation as to whether the person giving this direction was Trump or a member of his family. Even though it was Trump's action, he would not necessarily act of a crime but could endanger him if he sought information from Wikileaks which he knew was wrong. ########################################################################################### They had been obtained illegally.
