• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Merged All things Trump + Russia

Status
Not open for further replies.
Trump Jr. offers to testify under oath

Falsifiable prediction: he will not testify under oath (or he will plead the 5th)

BTW, remember when Trump Sr. offered to testify? Whatever became of that? Did everyone just forget?

Trump: I'm '100 percent' willing to testify under oath

President Trump said Friday he is "100 percent" willing to testify under oath about his interactions with James Comey in order to dispute the fired FBI director’s claims.

“One hundred percent,” Trump said when asked if he would give a sworn statement to Robert Mueller, the special counsel leading the investigation into Russia’s election interference.

"I would be glad to tell him exactly what I told you,” the president said during a press conference in the White House Rose Garden.
Click to expand...

Well it's been over a month since he said that and I haven't heard anything since. Is Mueller going to take him up on that offer or what?
 
Aridas said:
There's a bit of debate, given the specifics. Going by the short version, campaign law forbids accepting or soliciting foreign money or other notable aid from foreign sources. Trump Jr. was fully intending to break that, given the e-mails, and Manafort and Kushner were apparently in on it directly. Fairly certainly Trump, himself, too, given his statements right after the e-mails. Supposedly, nothing of value was actually presented at the meeting itself, though, which gives a tiny bit of a defense regarding whether campaign law was actually directly broken or not.
Click to expand...

Can you define "notable aid" precisely?

I understand money, but information seems like a grey area.

Would it be legal for a US citizen to hire a foreigner to do opposition research on an opponent?
 
Puppycow said:
Can you define "notable aid" precisely?

I understand money, but information seems like a grey area.

Would it be legal for a US citizen to hire a foreigner to do opposition research on an opponent?
Click to expand...

It's not defined clearly in the first place, by the look of it, so no, I cannot define it precisely. Yes, though, pretty much anytime that things aren't clearly defined, there's a grey area. I'll be deferring to the people who actually directly work with the legal system for judgements there, much as it seems pretty clear that what was offered to Trump Jr. qualifies as notable aid under common usage.
 
Puppycow said:
Can somebody explain to me what the crime was here?

I'm not a Trump defender or anything, I would like to see him gone ASAP. I just wonder what precisely is the crime.
Click to expand...

Since oppo research has value, one crime would be soliciting campaign contributions from a foreign national, whether or not they got anything, and whether or not the lawyer was an "official" government representative. Without more details about what was discussed, that's probably all Mueller could go for (except for Kushner's additional crime of "forgetting" the meeting in his security clearance disclosures).
 
Childlike Empress said:
Hey varwoche, not that I'm not impressed by your use of colours and tables, but I suggest your time would be better spent by putting sources to the little items you collect, not least to make sure they aren't only true in your mind. I'm sure it would also help to convince others that you're not just engaging in free-flying conspiracy theorizing.
Click to expand...

I love how you're acting as if the last year of scandals and revelations didn't happen. "Uh? Really? I never heard about this! Evidence! Present evidence". :rolleyes:

Just general advise in dealing with credibility issues that might arise. Not with me of course, that's settled.
Click to expand...

You talking about source credibility is pretty hilarious, given the sources you usually cite.
 
Last edited:
If I'm reading the right bit of legislation (and I am by no means certain of that, legal systems are something of a mystery to me, and this is not my legal system)

I'm reading this from the FEC website, which is just titled as 'Federal Election Campaign Laws' which says it is unlawful for

a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make
(A) a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election;
(B) a contribution or donation to a committee of a political party"

and

a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) from a foreign national.
Click to expand...

'thing of value' seems to be deliberately vague to me.
 
Aridas said:
There's a bit of debate, given the specifics. Going by the short version, campaign law forbids accepting or soliciting foreign money or other notable aid from foreign sources. Trump Jr. was fully intending to break that, given the e-mails, and Manafort and Kushner were apparently in on it directly. Fairly certainly Trump, himself, too, given his statements right after the e-mails. Supposedly, nothing of value was actually presented at the meeting itself, though, which gives a tiny bit of a defense regarding whether campaign law was actually directly broken or not.
Click to expand...

Supposedly nothing of value came of it, however, the intent to get some aid is evident and that should be enough to violate the law. It's like when a person goes to buy drugs from an undercover cop, he doesn't actually get the drugs but he does get to go to jail.
 
Worm said:
If I'm reading the right bit of legislation (and I am by no means certain of that, legal systems are something of a mystery to me, and this is not my legal system)

I'm reading this from the FEC website, which is just titled as 'Federal Election Campaign Laws' which says it is unlawful for



'thing of value' seems to be deliberately vague to me.
Click to expand...

I'm not a lawyer, but it seems too vague to me. Obviously some sort of tangible good would be a "thing of value" but information seems doubtful.

But let's suppose as a hypothetical that he offered to pay her for this information. Then it isn't a "donation". Does that make it legal?
 
varwoche said:
2016 partial timeline, draft:

March 19| Podesta email hacked
April 19| DCLeaks.com registered
May 3| Trump becomes presumptive nominee
June 3| Goldstone contacts Trump Jr. to setup meeting
June 8| Trump posts link to DCLeaks
June 9| Trump Jr, Kushner, Manafort meet with Russian operative
June 12| Assange announces Clinton emails
June 27| Hacked emails posted to DCLeaks
July 11| Trump/Manafort nix pro-Ukranian plank in GOP platform
Click to expand...
Talking Points Memo has a good timeline.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/look-at-the-timeline
 
Worm said:
If I'm reading the right bit of legislation (and I am by no means certain of that, legal systems are something of a mystery to me, and this is not my legal system)

I'm reading this from the FEC website, which is just titled as 'Federal Election Campaign Laws' which says it is unlawful for



'thing of value' seems to be deliberately vague to me.
Click to expand...

The people wielding pitchforks have a tough case to make. Since when has opposition research ever been considered something of value? This was a nothing burger. The meeting, if you want to call it that, involved a bunch of lackeys, including the campaign chairman, the candidate's eldest son, and his senior adviser son-in-law. See, nobodies.

Besides, since when is collusion a crime? Nixon probably sabotaged the Paris Peace talks. Reagan traded arms for hostages. Trump was acting in the tradition of some of the greatest Republican presidents -- that is, IF he colluded. But he didn't. Though if he did, it was to Make America Great Again. Tired of winning yet?
 
Cain said:
The people wielding pitchforks have a tough case to make. Since when has opposition research ever been considered something of value? This was a nothing burger. The meeting, if you want to call it that, involved a bunch of lackeys, including the campaign chairman, the candidate's eldest son, and his senior adviser son-in-law. See, nobodies.

Besides, since when is collusion a crime? Nixon probably sabotaged the Paris Peace talks. Reagan traded arms for hostages. Trump was acting in the tradition of some of the greatest Republican presidents -- that is, IF he colluded. But he didn't. Though if he did, it was to Make America Great Again. Tired of winning yet?
Click to expand...

:thumbsup:

Nailed it as usual Cain :D
 
Puppycow said:
I'm not a lawyer, but it seems too vague to me. Obviously some sort of tangible good would be a "thing of value" but information seems doubtful.

But let's suppose as a hypothetical that he offered to pay her for this information. Then it isn't a "donation". Does that make it legal?
Click to expand...

It's similar to how the corrupt foreign practices act (which my company just made me take a training on) works. Anything that has value combats all the shenanigans people try to get around using money, by is still clearly a bribe.
 
WASHINGTON — After initially holding back, President Trump jumped to the defense of his son on Wednesday morning, denouncing reports about Donald Trump Jr.’s meeting with a Russian lawyer to gain incriminating information about Hillary Clinton as part of “the greatest witch hunt in political history.”

The president fired off posts on Twitter insisting that his son was “innocent” of wrongdoing and embracing the theory that he may even have been “the victim” in the case. He assailed the use of anonymous sources in the reports, although in this instance the story was confirmed by emails released by Donald Trump Jr.

“My son Donald did a good job last night,” Mr. Trump wrote on Twitter, referring to his son’s appearance Tuesday on Sean Hannity’s show on Fox News. “He was open, transparent and innocent. This is the greatest Witch Hunt in political history. Sad!”

In another message, Mr. Trump added, “Remember, when you hear the words “sources say” from the Fake Media, often times those sources are made up and do not exist.” And he retweeted a Fox News Twitter message quoting one of the network’s commentators saying, “I believe Don Jr. is the victim here.”
Click to expand...

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/12/...-innocent-amid-reports-of-russia-meeting.html

After days of lying about what the meeting was about and the basis behind it he revealed the emails only after being informed that the NYT was going to publish them for all to see. He still chooses to play a victim and minimize the seriousness of his actions.

In Trump's America this is that goes for honesty, transparency and openness. Unless Republicans start pushing back hard against Trump they are acquiescing to his behavior. Trump has been pushing political norms on many, many fronts and it's very possible that he will keep on doing so throughout his presidency. The next President might even be worse simply because Trump has shown what you can get away with impunity.

Seriously at this point if Trump came out and said he colluded with the Russian government only because he needed to save America from a Clinton presidency how would they respond? A deep sigh or cheers? Maybe both?
 
Last edited:
C_Felix said:
The following is popping up all over my facebook feed.

I have many errands to run...don't have time to research right now.

So...any truth?

http://dailycaller.com/2017/07/10/e...-clinton-allies-did-the-same-thing-as-don-jr/
Click to expand...

Apparently, Hannity cited the Politico story last night in his knee-jerk defense of all things Trump.

WaPo provides details here.

By contrast, Politico’s report details the work of one person who was researching Manafort with help from inside the Ukrainian Embassy and who, at some undetermined point, provided info to the Clinton campaign, though she worked for the DNC as a consultant until shortly before the party conventions. That, coupled with the Manafort ledger revelation, is the full scope of the Ukrainian plot that’s been revealed. A weak link to the Ukrainians and a weaker link to the Clinton campaign.
Click to expand...

“I think the article raises some troubling questions about Ukraine involvement in our elections,” Noble said. “The difference is that there is not clear evidence of the Clinton campaign coordinating with a foreign national or encouraging or accepting their help.”
Click to expand...


What's the term? Oh yeah... Nothingburger.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom