Merged All things Trump + Russia

[skyeagle409]

Why should Trump Jr. have thought that this alleged information was obtained criminally? The fact that it was (again, allegedly) coming from the Russian government isn't proof of criminality. Furthermore, why should T. Jr. have called the FBI about alleged information never materialized and may never have existed?

It is very clear that what Trump, Jr. had done is totally unacceptable and in my opinion, Trump, Sr. was aware as well.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

To summarize: Instead of Trump Jr. and campaign officials meeting directly with someone who may have directly obtained opposition research from a foreign government, they should have paid some party-loyalist "consultant" to meet with someone who obtained opposition research from a foreign government as a go-between so there would be no appearance of direct collusion by the campaign.

Where did you get the idea Chalupa was a party loyalist? She was an activist for her Ukrainian homeland.

Honestly, the contortions needed here to make this false equivalence ignore the biggest difference, not to mention all the details that weren't equivalent.

Russia interfered in the campaign big time, on multiple levels from hacking the DNC to hacking into voter databases. They implemented a rather extensive fake news campaign on social media.

How does that compare in the least to an American-Ukrainian citizen initiating the exposure of Manafort's under-the-table $12 million dollar payment by a Russian-Ukrainian source?

 

[johnny karate]

You're stretching credibility if you are claiming that claimed dirt on Clinton could reasonably come from legitimate sources.

It's irrelevant anyway. An attempt to accept aid from a foreign government to influence the elections by officials of one of the campaigns in said election is illegal.

But..but..but... HILLARY!!11!!

 

[Ziggurat]

He should have called the FBI precisely because he is in absolutely no position to make any such determination in the first place, and the FBI is the federal law enforcement agency that investigates (the "I" in "FBI) such matters.

Your standard is not realistic, nor are you holding anyone else to it. Remember, this was before wikileaks revealed that they had DNC emails. The fact that there was any hacking going on with the election wasn't public knowledge.

At the very least, he should have been suspicious of *any* offer of aid from *any* foreign national.

How exactly do you determine how suspicious or not he was from his emails?

The fact that it's from a foreign adversary should have set off all sorts of alarm bells in his head, that he was entering into extremely dangerous, potentially illegal and (given how Putin operates) potentially *lethal* territory.

Oh, please. Lethal territory? Yeah, no. Putin kills Russians with regularity, but he doesn't kill Americans very much.

As for the legality, you really don't know what you're talking about. Nothing about the meeting was illegal. Even if information that was obtained illegally was given to Trump Jr. at the meeting (which there's no evidence happened), that still wouldn't make Trump Jr. a criminal. Newspapers do this sort of stuff on a regular basis: they meet with sources to get information that the source obtained illegally. The newspapers are never on the hook for that. It's one thing to conspire with the source beforehand to break the law, but if the law has already been broken, getting that information from the source is no longer illegal.

At the very best, he attempted to betray the US because he's a blithering idiot.

Getting oppo research on Hillary Clinton isn't betraying the US. This is just ridiculous hyperbole, and at this point it's clear that there's no reason to take you seriously.

 

[Ziggurat]

It is very clear that what Trump, Jr. had done is totally unacceptable and in my opinion, Trump, Sr. was aware as well.

That's not an answer to my question. That's simply a statement of your opinion of Trump. But you know what they say about opinions and rear ends, right?

 

[Ziggurat]

In light of solid evidence that the Trump campaign colluded with the Russian government, Trump apologists keep slinging the same innuendos and unfounded allegations at the wall hoping they'll stick...

Strangely enough, nobody can actually tell me what "colluded" even means. As for innuendos, well, that's a pretty god damn ironic accusation right about now.

 

[johnny karate]

As for the legality, you really don't know what you're talking about. Nothing about the meeting was illegal. Even if information that was obtained illegally was given to Trump Jr. at the meeting (which there's no evidence happened), that still wouldn't make Trump Jr. a criminal. Newspapers do this sort of stuff on a regular basis: they meet with sources to get information that the source obtained illegally. The newspapers are never on the hook for that. It's one thing to conspire with the source beforehand to break the law, but if the law has already been broken, getting that information from the source is no longer illegal.

Getting oppo research on Hillary Clinton isn't betraying the US. This is just ridiculous hyperbole, and at this point it's clear that there's no reason to take you seriously.

Good news, everyone! Ziggurat has determined for us that absolutely no wrongdoing took place.

We can all go about our business.

Nothing to see here.

 

[Cain]

Define collusion, please. Then we can figure out whether or not it's a crime, and whether or not it even occurred.

Yet again reduced to semantic wanking. It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to understand what is generally meant by collusion (or specifically in this instance): secretly collaborating with Russia in order to win the election. Yes, I, too, read the article in Politico where various lawyers each had their own interpretation of the word (e.g., "'Collusion' technically applies only to anti-trust cases"). Of course, my post anticipated the strident Trump apologists who have already stated that collusion is not a crime; it's their obvious next move because it's now very tough to deny collusion (as popularly understood).

Anyway, for one moment, I'll pretend I care about your opinion: In your view, is there any reason/good reason/no reason/etc to believe the Trump campaign secretly collaborated with Russian operatives to win the election? Check that, don't bother; I already stopped pretending to care.

 

[Belz...]

Strangely enough, nobody can actually tell me what "colluded" even means. As for innuendos, well, that's a pretty god damn ironic accusation right about now.

That sounds like a great legal defense, Zig.

"But your honour, can you even define collusion to my satisfaction?"

 

[Ziggurat]

You're stretching credibility if you are claiming that claimed dirt on Clinton could reasonably come from legitimate sources.

You have provided neither evidence nor an argument for this assertion.

It's irrelevant anyway. An attempt to accept aid from a foreign government to influence the elections by officials of one of the campaigns in said election is illegal.

Yeah, I don't think you actually understand the law here.

 

[Belz...]

You have provided neither evidence nor an argument for this assertion.

I just provided an argument in the bit you quoted. I didn't provide evidence because your question is not about evidence.

Yeah, I don't think you actually understand the law here.

People who do understand the law seem to agree with me, so maybe I'm right by accident, then?

 

[johnny karate]

Strangely enough, nobody can actually tell me what "colluded" even means.

I'm sure the law enforcement officials currently investigating Trump and his campaign have a handle on it.

As for innuendos, well, that's a pretty god damn ironic accusation right about now.

How is it ironic?

 

[skyeagle409]

In light of solid evidence that the Trump campaign colluded with the Russian government, Trump apologists keep slinging the same innuendos and unfounded allegations at the wall hoping they'll stick...

And, multiple investigations are ongoing and still in their early stages. If Trump wants to truly make America great again, he needs to step down and let someone competent handle the job of President of the United States of America since he is responsible for the nose dive that he has placed America in.

Just 6 months into his presidency and look what has taken place.

Thousands Take Part in Marches Across the Country Calling for Trump Impeachment

Protesters gathered in numerous cities across the United States on Sunday to call for the impeachment of President Trump. One of the largest marches took place in downtown Los Angeles, where thousands of people took to the streets to call on Congress to impeach the president.

“Every day when I wake up, something is more terrible than it was yesterday,” a 56-year-old protester told the Los Angeles Times.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slat...he_country_calling_for_trump_impeachment.html

 

[Ziggurat]

That sounds like a great legal defense, Zig.

"But your honour, can you even define collusion to my satisfaction?"

When the law makes an act illegal, it must define that act. If the law doesn't define an act, then it cannot be made illegal. Did you not know this?

So again, what's the definition of collusion you want to use? Is collusion under that definition illegal? Did Trump Jr. collude under that definition? I note that you make no attempt to answer any of these questions. I think I know why you do not.

 

[trustbutverify]

In light of solid evidence that the Trump campaign colluded with the Russian government, Trump apologists keep slinging the same innuendos and unfounded allegations at the wall hoping they'll stick...

Putin and Assange apologists as well. Although the overlap is massive, it's not complete.

 

[Belz...]

I wish Tony Stark were here for this one. He might be the left-wing version of logger sometimes but I'd like to see his reaction to all this.

 

[Belz...]

When the law makes an act illegal, it must define that act. If the law doesn't define an act, then it cannot be made illegal. Did you not know this?

Stop it with the wordplays and platitudes. Next you'll be asking me to define "is".

 

[johnny karate]

When the law makes an act illegal, it must define that act. If the law doesn't define an act, then it cannot be made illegal. Did you not know this?

So again, what's the definition of collusion you want to use? Is collusion under that definition illegal? Did Trump Jr. collude under that definition? I note that you make no attempt to answer any of these questions. I think I know why you do not.

Well, before we can move forward on this, we must define all of our terms to make sure everyone is on the same page.

Could you please provide the definition for every single word you've posted in this thread?

 

[snoop_doxie]

If nothing happened, there is no reason to worry, right?

Why the need to go on Fox News and explain anything?

Pence has issued a statement: I was not there, I know nothing.
LOL


Trump supporters should try to pace themselves, it's going to
be a bumpy ride.

 

[Ziggurat]

I just provided an argument in the bit you quoted.

No. You provided an assertion, not an argument.

People who do understand the law seem to agree with me, so maybe I'm right by accident, then?

Do they? Certainly not all of them.