Merged All things Trump + Russia

[Ziggurat]

Generally speaking? The expression of thoughts or feelings by articulate sounds.

Or, in one word, information.

No.

Quite so. But why? And once you figure out that answer, figure out why it also applies here.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

It's almost amusing that this one meeting is being treated by some here as if it happened in a vacuum, as if there were not subsequent actions taken and problematic/improper meetings with Russian representatives (unquestionably official ones) held by staffers working for the not-quite-honorable-enough-to-be-considered-an-animal currently occupying the Oval Office.

If you have ever been involved in elaborating an exhaustive timeline of events, you'll know that that is when all is laid bare. A few new twists may pop out. Incredibly powerful. It reads like an unrelenting A then B, so often close to a causal relation that it builds an effective case. Just considering the avalanche of news since before the election until now in the public domain, I'm sure a fairly decent case could already be made that there were highly suspect shenanigans, the legal definition of which I leave to the experts.

 

[Ziggurat]

Trump has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt since taking office, he is unfit to be president of the United States and that is a bad thing for America.

This is a legally irrelevant partisan opinion.

In regard to Trump Jr., his emails speak for themselves.

People keep saying that. Mostly as an excuse for not forming an argument.

 

[uke2se]

Which would connect her to the Russian government. Unless, what? The belief was that she found the information lying in the street?

Not to mention the fact that the email say specifically that this was a "Russian government attorney", so Bogative's defense fails immediately.

 

[johnny karate]

Or, in one word, information.

One wrong word, yeah.

Speech is the expression of information, not the information itself.

If Trump's campaign team met with this woman, and in total silence she slid them a dossier that contained all the damaging information she claimed to have on Clinton, would you also consider that "speech"?

Or maybe you would consider the paper the dossier was printed on to be the "thing of value" as opposed to the information it contained?

Quite so. But why? And once you figure out that answer, figure out why it also applies here.

Gosh, I'm so busy trying to find a definition of "collusion" that you'll find satisfactory, I'm not sure I'll have time. And then I'm going on vacation.

 

[dudalb]

I think we have a couple of those Trump Supporters who would support Trump if he shot somebody in Times Square here.......

 

[jimbob]

The innate dishonesty of the right is on full display anyway. It's pretty disgusting to watch.

No, the dishonesty of some of the right, and many in Congress.

The post below yours is by a registered Republican and he(?) is acting with integrity.

 

[uke2se]

No, the dishonesty of some of the right, and many in Congress.

The post below yours is by a registered Republican and he(?) is acting with integrity.

I'll grant you "most of the right".

Hell, let's just note that you apparently cannot defend Trump while being honest.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

She was an "activist" being paid to report her findings, some of which could have came directly from the Ukrainian government, to the DNC. When she found out Manafort was being hired by Trump, what she had found in her research did not lead her to Trump's campaign or the RNC(that I'm aware of) to warn them of Manafort's connections to Russia, she went to the DNC and Clinton's campaign.

That and the politico article.

The contortions used to decide the equivalencies are false must be giving you a headache. Chalupa was sharing her discussions with the Ukrainian ambassador's top aid with the DNC/Clinton campaign.

Trump Jr had a meeting with a lawyer that was not connected(without playing 6 degrees of Vladimir Putin) to the Russian government.

You are conflating investigating an issue with information being provided. Had Trump campaign operatives conducted an investigation of Clinton and found things out, that would not have been the same as Putin offering dirt on Clinton.

The Putin to Trump direction, from the Politico article:

Russia’s effort was personally directed by Russian President Vladimir Putin, involved the country’s military and foreign intelligence services, according to U.S. intelligence officials. They reportedly briefed Trump last week on the possibility that Russian operatives might have compromising information on the president-elect.

Chalupa is apparently an American born citizen. In this case you have an American seeking information, not a Ukrainian operative offering it to help the campaign

Manafort’s work for Yanukovych caught the attention of a veteran Democratic operative named Alexandra Chalupa, who had worked in the White House Office of Public Liaison during the Clinton administration. Chalupa went on to work as a staffer, then as a consultant, for Democratic National Committee. The DNC paid her $412,000 from 2004 to June 2016, according to Federal Election Commission records, though she also was paid by other clients during that time, including Democratic campaigns and the DNC’s arm for engaging expatriate Democrats around the world.

A daughter of Ukrainian immigrants who maintains strong ties to the Ukrainian-American diaspora and the U.S. Embassy in Ukraine, Chalupa, a lawyer by training, in 2014 was doing pro bono work for another client interested in the Ukrainian crisis and began researching Manafort’s role in Yanukovych’s rise, as well as his ties to the pro-Russian oligarchs who funded Yanukovych’s political party.

Nice try trying to make that equivalent, but it suggests you don't understand what the issue is here.

 

[dudalb]

We have Fredo,now who will be Joe Valachi?

 

[Bogative]

Not to mention the fact that the email say specifically that this was a "Russian government attorney", so Bogative's defense fails immediately.

You've convinced me. IMPEACH DONALD TRUMP JUNIOR!!!

 

[quadraginta]

"Notable aid" cannot refer to simply talking to people. That would be such a clear infraction of the 1st amendment right to speech that the law could never stand, if that is the meaning it is supposed to have.

"Soliciting notable aid" can.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

As soon as the Clinton campaign/DNC release there minutes from the meetings they held with Chalupa and how they encouraged her to arrange a meeting with the Ukrainian president to discuss their opposition data research, I will let you know.

Again, opposition research is not what happened here re the Trump campaign. I know you want that to be the case. It's been repeated often enough on Fox, and I believe from the Trump camp directly say it was opposition research. But it wasn't.

Trump Junior believed the lawyer connected to the Russian government? That's news to me. Last I read he only believed the information she had came from the Russian government.

Why are you ignoring Jr's email exchange?

 

[Childlike Empress]

Daddy Agalarov has denied now to have any knowledge of the events and claims that the stuff is "fabricated", including of course his meeting with the Russian "crown prosecutor", a position that doesn't exist (but a Brit could come up with). Given that Don Jr. and the lawyer basically agree on what took place, which was not what any of them expected, it seems this whole thing was arranged by Rob Goldstone.

Met that guy? Interesting character

There are theories and indications forming as to why and on who's behalf he was acting.

edit: Before the paranoid one-bit-brains throw reflexive ad hominems, Meduza.io is an outlet close to the Navalny "liberal" Russian opposition, operating out of Latvia

 

[Belz...]

No.

Why did you even qualify that with an answer?

 

[Belz...]

I think we have a couple of those Trump Supporters who would support Trump if he shot somebody in Times Square here.......

Oh, no, no. They're absolutely not Trump supporters. No, sir. How do you know that? Are you a mind reader? No? There!

 

[uke2se]

Why are you ignoring Jr's email exchange?

It's rather obvious why. The objective right now is to cram as much FUD into the discussion as possible in order to prevent or delay acceptance of the fact that the Trump campaign provably colluded with Russia. Our resident right wingers aren't stupid. They know there is no way they can defend Trump if it's proven that his campaign colluded with the Russians. Thus, we see two lines of defense forming:

1. "There was no collusion" - even though there obviously was. This is a semantic defense, relying on annoying the opposition with word games.

2. "Clinton did it too" - even though she obviously didn't. This is a continuation of the tradition of tu quoque that we saw during the campaign. It's just as vacuous now as it was then, but it does keep the discussion going.

 

[Belz...]

Daddy Agalarov has denied now to have any knowledge of the events and claims that the stuff is "fabricated"

Oh, well! That settles is, then.

 

[uke2se]

Oh, well! That settles is, then.

I wonder if CE knows Trump Jr has actually already admitted that it happened.

 

[BobTheCoward]

It's rather obvious why. The objective right now is to cram as much FUD into the discussion as possible in order to prevent or delay acceptance of the fact that the Trump campaign provably colluded with Russia. Our resident right wingers aren't stupid. They know there is no way they can defend Trump if it's proven that his campaign colluded with the Russians. Thus, we see two lines of defense forming:

1. "There was no collusion" - even though there obviously was. This is a semantic defense, relying on annoying the opposition with word games.

2. "Clinton did it too" - even though she obviously didn't. This is a continuation of the tradition of tu quoque that we saw during the campaign. It's just as vacuous now as it was then, but it does keep the discussion going.

I might have missed a step. I understand saying they were eager to collude. But where was the actual collusion?