Merged All things Trump + Russia

[Minoosh]

I'd be the first one to say that the media should stop using the word "bombshell" or "smoking gun" when anything surfaces that seems to compromise Trump's team.

But it's the pattern. In the absence of a smoking gun, those patterns are what prosecutors base cases on. The non-disclosure disclosure statements. Trump's encouragement to Russian hackers. And Donald Jr.'s expectation that Russian operatives would give Trump's campaign a boost by revealing dirt on Hillary, because Russia favors Trump over Clinton.

The constantly shifting landscape of Team Trump's evasions, omissions and obfuscations testifies to the conspiratorial nature of Donald Sr.'s world view.

I too am sick of the Russia scandal. If everyone had come clean immediately about contacts with Russians this thing would have run out of steam by now. Donald Trump Jr. is falling on his sword to benefit his father. It's very sad that Team Trump sees this as advisable, or necessary. It's sad that his son appears willing to take the fall. But IMO, all of Trump's kids are dispensable, except for Princess Ivanka.

Is Donald Trump Jr. gullible enough to believe Russia has a "crown prosecutor"? That's plausible. Dirt on Hillary? "Love it." If that's protected speech, then so are the online flirtations of 45-year-old men hoping to hook up with 15-year-olds. It is not a very convincing defense of Team Trump's deeds or expectations.

 

[Ziggurat]

You know, for someone who keeps asking for definitions to every clear words on the internet,

Since when does ONE word constitute every clear word?

you sure love to use hyperbole

... he said, after using absurd hyperbole.

What hostility? I'm trying to show you how annoying your own behaviour is.

You admit you're trying to annoy me. And you don't know what hostility exists between us. Are you pretending to be stupid now too?

That you can't see how your behaviour can be infuriating because it's counter-productive and insulting is nothing short of fascinating.

I asked for the definition of ONE word. That infuriates you? That's... peculiar. And telling.

 

[Trebuchet]

Party over country. if it was Hillary and/or her staff that had done this or suspected to do these things, the 'right' would be demanding her head.

Trump, of course, doesn't give a rat's ass about party OR country. He only cares about himself.

 

[Elagabalus]

The thick plottens:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/was-russian-lawyer-natalia-veselnitskaya-in-the-us-illegally

 

[LSSBB]

Deleted

 

[Bob001]

Trump Sr. announced that he expected to get dirt about Clinton just before junior's meeting:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...a32c91c6f40_story.html?utm_term=.396a30357a86

 

[Bogative]

Wow! That's quite the explanation. I guess this is the sort of "know it when you see it" kind of stuff, right?

I am waiting for something more along the lines of evidence presented by a special counsel, Congressional committee or a law enforcement agency before I come to a conclusion.

Again: what does it take? The son of Trump and two of the most influential people in his campaign met with a Russian agent to discuss obtaining dirt on Clinton for his father's benefit in Trump tower. If you think that's nothing, then yes, you're ignoring it because you really really don't like the "other side".

I believe it is possible that there may be more to this meeting but I'm going to wait until there's actual evidence before I jump on the collusion bandwagon. Until then, I'll treat it with the same about of gravity as the left treated the secret meeting held on a private jet between the former president and the attorney general who was investigating his wife.

 

[NoahFence]

Trump Sr. announced that he expected to get dirt about Clinton just before junior's meeting:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...a32c91c6f40_story.html?utm_term=.396a30357a86

So that announcement was before the meeting?
And it can be proven to a point that even trumptards can't cry fake news?

 

[I Am The Scum]

What constitutes a "campaign contribution"? Or more specifically in regards to this law, what constitutes a "thing of value"? That is at the heart of the matter, and there is indeed a good first amendment argument to be made that a "thing of value" cannot include simple speech.



All of these restrictions pass strict scrutiny, not one of them applies here. Where's the argument that your reading can pass strict scrutiny? How does this prohibition in any way resemble any of the others? It doesn't. It's completely unprecedented.



Your conclusion simply doesn't follow. Every exception you point to is very narrow. This prohibition, if interpreted the way you want to, is incredibly broad. Look at some of the examples given in the link of what such a reading would prohibit.

As to your first question, I think it's plainly obvious that opposition research is a "thing of value." Campaigns routinely pay employees for gathering it, and it plays a large role in how a campaign is run.

As for the rest, I must be misunderstanding you. It seems that we both agree that the "absolutist" stance does not withstand scrutiny.

With respect, I don't think you've done a very good job outlining your point. So here are two questions that will help me understand:

1. Precisely what do you mean by "criminalizing speech?"
2. How does it potentially apply to this case? (notably, whose first amendment rights might be violated?)

 

[johnny karate]

"Russia" has surpassed Republicans and "Benghazi." it's hysteria on a mass scale.

Only if you don't know how to count or operate a calendar.

 

[a_unique_person]

Wow. You don't even know the definition of "definition".

How about just providing your own.

 

[Bob001]

So that announcement was before the meeting?
And it can be proven to a point that even trumptards can't cry fake news?

Are you asking me? He made a public speech with a teleprompter at his golf club on June 7, 2016, promising a "major speech" "next week" about "the Clintons." D. Jr.'s meeting with the Russian lawyer was June 9. No "major speech" followed.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Coming soon, "It's not treason when you win the election. Fake News!"

Wasn't it the great Republican thinker (now RINO) Barry Goldwater who said "Treason in defense of getting elected is no vice."

 

[johnny karate]

It contains the information. You cannot prohibit the information without prohibiting the speech. And you can't prohibit the speech.

Yeah, that's great but we're not discussing prohibiting speech. We're discussing the "thing of value" for which the Trump campaign solicited from a hostile foreign power. And that "thing of value" was information, not the expression of that information.

Yes.

That's ridiculous.

Just like the court considers burning a flag or interpretive dance to be "speech".

Again, great but beside the point.

The Trump campaign was after information. That's the "thing of value" in question.

Although I suppose if you wanted to be super-pedantic, you could argue that it falls under press freedom instead (since it's printed), but that distinction doesn't actually matter in terms of its protection.

You continue to make counterpoints to an argument no one is making.

 

[Puppycow]

Some thoughts about whether this was a violation of campaign finance laws:

https://shugerblog.com/2017/07/12/r...value-campaign-finance-charge-against-don-jr/

 

[Arcade22]

*Look. Something happened and we have to find out what it is, because we can’t allow a thing like that to happen to our election process. So something happened and we have to find out what it is,” he said.

About Putin, he added: “Somebody did say if he did do it, you wouldn’t have found out about it. Which is a very interesting point.“

Why doesn't Trump have his intelligence agencies figure it out for him?

 

[Aridas]

"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.

Luckily, in this case, "notable aid" would not refer to simply talking to people, anyways. With that said, though, your first amendment argument becomes much, much weaker when it's remembered that talking to people can indeed sometimes be illegal, before getting to the parts where talking about certain topics and talking in certain situations very much can be illegal, too. This may very well be one of those cases, given the relevant laws, even if it's not a common case.

In other words, vaguely citing the first amendment based on false premises doesn't make for a valid argument, at all.

There is so much here, Mueller must be having a field day.

More likely, a bit of a headache because of how many trails there are to investigate and coordinate. I've yet to see any indication that he's out to get Trump, either way, rather than to investigate the matters in accordance with the job he's been given. It's not like exposing the President of the United States as a corrupt villain or those close to him is actually reason for glee in the larger picture, after all.

Um... that's not what election fraud means, not even if Trump Jr. knew it was illicitly obtained. Hell, even if Trump Jr. HIMSELF illicitly obtained information about Hillary, that still wouldn't be election fraud.

Indeed, election fraud does refer to a notably different set of violations of laws.

Sure, it absolutely matters to the credibility of the information, if that information cannot be independently confirmed. But from all evidence, no information actually exchanged hands, so the question of evaluating the credibility of information that we don't even have becomes moot.

Both sides claim that no evidence exchanged hands directly there, at least, which is entirely plausible. The Russians tend to be a bit smarter about such things than the Trump team has shown itself to be, though. Much more likely would be tentative deal making for later, regardless. That lawyer was in the US to handle a major case regarding Russian money-laundering, after all... a case that was suddenly settled on for a very tiny fraction of what a guilty verdict would have led to after Trump suddenly fired the guy in charge of prosecuting it after having previously stated that he should be finishing up the cases that he was currently prosecuting... a guy who notably also wasn't willing to be loyal to him on request. Of course, that's just adding to the long list of other favors or attempted favors that the Trump team has been doing for Russian interests.

Was the meeting illegal? Was any other collusion illegal? I don't know, because IANAL. That doesn't stop it from being creepy as hell. Why is ANYONE defending a president who got there with help from a murdering Russian dictator who wants to reinstate the USSR?

To point out something important about that last question... that a murdering dictator supports a candidate or President honestly should have no effect on how they're regarded and how people act regarding them. Why they're being supported could have value, but not the simple fact that they are being supported. Quite frankly, it would be great if the US could get along well with Russia for a lot of reasons, even if it is led by a corrupt murdering villain at present.

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

Except for the part where the meeting was set up on the premise that it would be part of the Russian government's efforts to aid Trump.

What information do you imagine they got from spying on him at that meeting?

Do you think they discovered what he looks like?

The information would likely be more along the lines of how willing he and Trump's campaign would be when it comes to working with them and serving Russian interests, possibly in exchange for aid from the Russians. There's more that could be proposed, but that's very safe territory there.

 

[Belz...]

Since when does ONE word constitute every clear word?

Body of work, Zig.

You admit you're trying to annoy me.

Again with the word games!

I asked for the definition of ONE word. That infuriates you?

See? You're twisting what I'm saying just to troll me. You know full well that this isn't what I said. Do you act like this in real life?

 

[CapelDodger]

Trump, of course, doesn't give a rat's ass about party OR country [OR family]. He only cares about himself.

ftfy

 

[Stacko]

Pence is now refusing to answer if he met with anyone from Russia.

https://mobile.twitter.com/i/web/status/885316072471121921