I don't know, you felt a little bad for Fredo...
PleasePleasePleasePleasePlease
Trump facing legal consequences is about as likely as my dresser hiding a gateway to Narnia.
Though I have never tried climbing inside ...
Though I have never tried climbing inside ...
It feels like a long shot for this to even negatively impact Trump's political power.
We'll have to wait for midterms for that. Cowards like McCain will talk and talk about "concern," but will vote 100% party line anyway.
Really. Any goodwill Senator Maverick may have gained as a POW has been lost by turning into an absolute chickenshit in DC.
Dave
Staff member
Republicans don't want to damage the (R) brand and his cult members don't give a shit.
And if the Democrats even come close to doing any actual damage, Mitch'll just change the rules again.
There have been a few Republican holdouts, otherwise everything Trump wants would've passed by now, but the shenanigans aren't over.
It hasn't even been six fucking months.
It hasn't even been six fucking months.
This article summarizes pretty well how I feel about the recent Trump Jr. & Russia thing: Throw in a Russian and it’s an immediate Trump card
Basically: who's not looking for dirt on their opponent, no matter the source? It's not exactly a "Russian collusion" story when it's 1 meeting for 20 minutes.
Basically: who's not looking for dirt on their opponent, no matter the source? It's not exactly a "Russian collusion" story when it's 1 meeting for 20 minutes.
In an election? Really? Even if it was against the incumbent, that's still a hell of a stretch to say that it "hurt the US" to find dirt on them.
Really.
You don't find anything wrong with a meeting based around the premise of a foreign government agent offering damaging information on an American candidate, and then shifting the discussion to laws that effect sanctions against Russian human rights violations and the adoption industry, to a potential chief executive?
It violates the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, for one thing, as it forbids "foreign nationals from making expenditures to expressly advocate for the election or defeat of a political candidate" according to Benjamin Bluman and Asenath Steiman v The Federal Election Commission in 2011.
It could also be considered a violation of 18 US Code SS1346 against fraud. Under that statute, it is a federal crime to conspire with anyone, including a foreign government, to ‘deprive another of the intangible right of honest services,’ including the integrity of an election.
You don't find anything wrong with a meeting based around the premise of a foreign government agent offering damaging information on an American candidate, and then shifting the discussion to laws that effect sanctions against Russian human rights violations and the adoption industry, to a potential chief executive?
It violates the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, for one thing, as it forbids "foreign nationals from making expenditures to expressly advocate for the election or defeat of a political candidate" according to Benjamin Bluman and Asenath Steiman v The Federal Election Commission in 2011.
It could also be considered a violation of 18 US Code SS1346 against fraud. Under that statute, it is a federal crime to conspire with anyone, including a foreign government, to ‘deprive another of the intangible right of honest services,’ including the integrity of an election.
It is no stretch at all to say it "hurt the US." The collusion put Trump in power.
Most of what you say is addressed (and some of it agreed with) by this article from Global: Reality check: Did Donald Trump Jr. commit treason? Specifically, according to the emails themselves (which are public), saying "foreign government agent" seems like a real stretch. Wasn't it a business associate (from the Miss Universe contest) that initiated the whole chain?
Beyond that, I actually don't have a problem with literally any dirt dug up by anybody against any candidate. Elections should be won/lost on full knowledge about the candidate, and whom they choose to associate with. The only things off-limit IMO is fabrication. If any candidate went to SE Asia to do pedophilia (I picked an extreme thing that I'm not accusing anybody of), I don't care if the government of Thailand gave the information to the opposition of a candidate they don't happen to like. I similarly don't care about the source if a Russian document (that doesn't look... very questionable) says that Trump pisses on hookers was provided by the Kremlin (remember that story?). The motives behind it from a foreign perspective are far less important than the actual conduct of the individual, and that only hinges on the facts of the matter, if they actually did such things. How the information was obtained is only important to the credibility of the information. The actual conduct of the candidate is what's important. Kind of like how whistleblowing is usually violating an NDA (at the least), but I support it in general, because it's important the information/conduct is known. I don't see this differently.
So yes, taking any opportunity to dig up dirt on your opponent is not suspicious IMO. Might it violate specific laws? According to the article I linked, ya, maybe, but that gets REALLY murky really fast, as it gives examples of.
I agree with you in principle that actual behavior is far more important than how the information is divulged. It is increasingly hard - not to say impossible - to determine what reading of events - or even what events - is fact.
And it isn't just about dirt on Hillary. More and more accusations are going on about deliberate fake news targeted regionally, money being funneled to (S)PACs and so on. Russia pumping millions of dollars into an American election and helpnig one side win should be a major red flag. McCarthy may not be the best example, but really, Russia pushing money on candidates and helping them? The KGB "giving" intel to a political party? This doesn't strike you as wrong? I can't help you.
@Eriol to my understanding the reason behind banning foreign nationals from helping candidates win elections is because in theory that national could then call in a favour from the candidate along the lines of "Hey, I helped you get elected. You owe me - and here's what I want in return." The winning candidate might then feel obligated to give what is being asked for - even if it is bad for America. Yes I know that happens with large american corporations giving aid to candidates & then calling in favours that are good for them, but bad for America as a whole. But at least those are americans screwing americans as opposed to damn dirty foreigners - who are all probably socialist liberal commie fascist atheist muslims, anyway - screwing americans.
As for your theoretical case with the pedophilia, I'd want the candidate on being approached by Thailand to say "Ack! I can't hear that from you! But if you feel this is info that the american public should know, here's the number of a journalist that's been investigating my opponent. What they do with anything you might tell them is of course nothing to do with me."
As for your theoretical case with the pedophilia, I'd want the candidate on being approached by Thailand to say "Ack! I can't hear that from you! But if you feel this is info that the american public should know, here's the number of a journalist that's been investigating my opponent. What they do with anything you might tell them is of course nothing to do with me."
First Bubble, I never ever edit somebody's quote to put something in there they didn't say, unless it's a clear "FTFY" in humour (and I wouldn't run out of fingers on one hand the number of times I've done that ever). What you did there isn't humour, it's derision. Not cool.
Part of this problem is us voters, in that we keep electing terrible people with massive skeletons in their closets. Then when everybody has such, we just shrug when yet another comes out, and it becomes about making a Villain out of those who would expose the "bad stuff" instead of getting politicians who don't have stuff to expose in the first place!!! This is somewhat related to the history of the FBI, in that Hoover deliberately chose Men whom in his opinion were less likely to be corruptible/compromised. That we aren't doing similarly with our Politicians mean that they are basically all compromised by default. If they weren't so vulnerable to begin with, the FSB (not called the KGB since the 90s) and other state actors would be basically toothless with what you are mentioning.
But what we have is a bunch of criminals (on all sides) up for election, which makes the rest of this "slander train" possible, or at the least "plausible enough" to maybe affect things. But we can't affect what's on the internet, as other countries will continue doing whatever they want. How about we try getting better candidates?
But to both of you, the whole latest shitstorm is about a single meeting with somebody that was marketed as a "friend of a friend" situation with damning information. They went for the meeting. It was about something else, so they never spoke again. It's being jumped on like this is the evidence of collusion between the Trump Campaign with the Russian State. Really? On an honest look at it, does it really look like that?
We agree on something at least.
Sure, but that's not what's being accused here. If somebody's campaign had come out with damaging information that is denied by the other party, and later it was found to be from the Kremlin, that's very important about the credibility of the information. But if the information is not denied then it doesn't matter in the least where it came from. If you did the "bad stuff," then it doesn't matter who wanted it exposed. You shouldn't have done the "bad stuff" in the first place.
Part of this problem is us voters, in that we keep electing terrible people with massive skeletons in their closets. Then when everybody has such, we just shrug when yet another comes out, and it becomes about making a Villain out of those who would expose the "bad stuff" instead of getting politicians who don't have stuff to expose in the first place!!! This is somewhat related to the history of the FBI, in that Hoover deliberately chose Men whom in his opinion were less likely to be corruptible/compromised. That we aren't doing similarly with our Politicians mean that they are basically all compromised by default. If they weren't so vulnerable to begin with, the FSB (not called the KGB since the 90s) and other state actors would be basically toothless with what you are mentioning.
But what we have is a bunch of criminals (on all sides) up for election, which makes the rest of this "slander train" possible, or at the least "plausible enough" to maybe affect things. But we can't affect what's on the internet, as other countries will continue doing whatever they want. How about we try getting better candidates?
That makes total sense. So maybe you guys should stop doing it to Canadian elections too. And wherever else you're doing it. It's all bad.
I don't see the difference. The reporter will just be jumped on for being pro/anti whomever. I'd rather it be more direct, but I think that's semantics.
But to both of you, the whole latest shitstorm is about a single meeting with somebody that was marketed as a "friend of a friend" situation with damning information. They went for the meeting. It was about something else, so they never spoke again. It's being jumped on like this is the evidence of collusion between the Trump Campaign with the Russian State. Really? On an honest look at it, does it really look like that?
There's a difference between digging dirt on your opponent and actually collaborating with another nation to do so.
If another nation approaches you with dirt on your opponent the actual right thing to do is to tell them to release it or not, but there is no deal to be made about it.
Why would they approach the campaign instead of just releasing the info to multiple journalists? What's the advantage of that?
That's something Donald Jr. should have thought of, since apparently they had nothing, and used it as a hook to get a meeting.
Or... is that not something you agree happened, that it was the super-duper-secret Russian State collaboration meeting?
[DOUBLEPOST=1499890597,1499890047][/DOUBLEPOST]
A far stronger argument probably involves pointing out all the shit the US has caused to numerous countries after they helped someone to power.
Although, really, I mean this completely. The biggest problem with Russia helping Trump to Power is that he now is indebted to Russia. He may very well put their interests over his own country's.
Eh, I considered it clearly humorous, but my apoligies if you didn't feel so.
Anyway, the point is - if you don't consider it a problem when another country directly intervenes in internal national politics, good luck. that's the kind of shit the US pulled in plenty of South American countries. it's what the USSR did in plenty of Central-Asian and Eastern European countries.
Is this single meeting a huuuuge problem? Perhaps not - though they're already downplaying it and being evasive, and some of the walkbacks are...not entirely in line with the mails themselves. At the very least, a lot of high up people in the Trump campaign and/or White House lied to the public, repeatedly, about meetings with foreign officials - you know, that's a problem. Also, there are plenty of other still-being-verified hard-to-prove things out there that all got a nice big bump in credibility. Did Russia hack voting records? Did Russia hack voting computers? Did Russia coordinate smear campaigns with the Trump team? Etc etc etc. This is the new warfare - it's power by information, winning hearts and minds, all that jazz. If a quarter of Americans believe Pravda over CNN, you have to start asking some hard questions.
In any other era, with any other opponent but Hillary, this would have been considered treason. Period, the end. Next stop the gas chamber. No semantics tolerated. But Hillary is so despised, anything short of slaughtering children live on Fox and Friends is acceptable.
Hell, Hannity would be willing to torch a school or two if it meant taking a shot at her.
Hell, Hannity would be willing to torch a school or two if it meant taking a shot at her.
Pretty sure he should have thought of that regardless of what they had.
That's kind of the whole point.
Kind of like how Clinton already has been for years? Trump calls for investigation of the Clintons' Russian ties
These aren't even secrets. This is literally millions of dollars that have already been transferred by the Kremlin to the Clintons' bank accounts. Even if you say the foundation has no impact on them, it's at least $500,000 that they've outright admitted to. And this is from the New York Times, not exactly a pro-Trump establishment there.
So, one meeting with no money trail, versus multiple meetings with millions changing hands right before a vote on Russian sanctions (that's the act the lawyer was actually meeting with Trump Jr. about). They only disclosed the foundation donations later when they were caught (as it says in the quote).
Now I have no doubt Trump has had business dealings in Russia as well. Hell, that's the origin of the meeting with Trump Jr., as it was linked with a Miss Universe pageant that was held there. So that's known. Probably other stuff too (real estate is Trump's thing after all), but backroom? Well, maybe (even "probably" given, it's Russia), but not a lot of "backroom money" that anybody's ever found, certainly not on the scale of the Clintons.
So, very public business, versus speaking fees that are failed to be disclosed until later, and pay-to-access charities. Who is in Russia's pocket again?
Regardless of my question above though, this "initial issue" of Trump Jr.'s meeting is a mountain out of a molehill.
Let's say they both are, it doesn't matter since the election's over. Hillary doesn't get to be President if Trump is impeached for his own misdeeds, so whatever flaws she has (and don't get me wrong, I think she has quite a few) are irrelevant.
I think you're right actually, but it's more of a contrast of "look at this corruption, they should be indicted, etc" from those willing to completely overlook something much larger from someone they like (that doesn't look to be you btw Rev). But my original assertion back up there that "they were looking for dirt on their opponent anywhere they could find it" and my belief that it's not really "bad" from either side stands.
So IMO Trump Jr.'s meeting was stupid from his side in that the optics are bad, but IMO it's fine for either side to look just about anywhere to get dirt on their opponent. It's the reaction from most media (and some people on here) that I find most baffling. It's not anything to get worked up about, especially in light of other malfeasance that they're willing to forgive on their own "side" of things. No malfeasance should be OK from either side, but this meeting isn't even that, but is being promoted as such.
This meeting sheds new light on previous actions by this administration that certainly at least looks very suspicious. Back in May, the Justice Department suddenly settled a money-laundering case with a real-estate company owned by a Russian who is represented by - co-incidentally I'm sure - the same lawyer that Trump Jr met with. This was done just days before it was supposed to go to trial. This is what the spokeman for the company had to say about the settlement (taken from the link above):
When even the defense is saying they're surprised by the settlement and calling the offer too good to refuse, something starts smelling fishy, especially when the people involved are having secret meetings with members of the the Trump administration/campaign team. This is the sort of thing that is the problem with colluding with foreign governments, selling out domestic interests to benefit their foreign allies.
Sure, if you think this administration's statements on anything Russia-related, which they have lied about almost too many times to count by now, mean anything. That's like trusting a spouse that you've caught cheating multiple times because they said "This time we're just friends, I swear" though.