Merged All things Trump + Russia

[Darat]

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

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

It is a rather unfair question - how is he meant to know which meeting the journalists know about? He can't categorically state he didn't have such a meeting until they tell him which one they have proof happened!

 

[The Don]

It is a rather unfair question - how is he meant to know which meeting the journalists know about? He can't categorically state he didn't have such a meeting until they tell him which one they have proof happened!

Well whatever meeting(s) it was that he didn't have, I'm sure he didn't have it as part of his routine duties are Governor of Indiana.

 

[Ziggurat]

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?)

By "criminalizing speech" I simply mean that you're making it a crime to talk to people about a topic.

For example, suppose that candidate A knowingly hired an illegal immigrant to clean their house, while advocating legislation to severely punish employers of illegal immigrants. Suppose this employee decides to talk to candidate B's campaign, so as to expose their hypocrisy on the issue, something that voters might clearly be interested in knowing. Your position means that it would be illegal for them to do so. Does that really make sense to you? Do you really think that this doesn't infringe upon the first amendment rights of both the employee and candidate B's campaign? Do you really think there's a strict scrutiny justification for such a limitation? And if so, what is it?

 

[Ziggurat]

Body of work, Zig.

Which is basically a way of saying you just don't like me. It doesn't constitute any sort of actual argument.

See? You're twisting what I'm saying just to troll me. You know full well that this isn't what I said.

That appears to be exactly the meaning of what you said. If it's not what you meant, then start writing what you mean. The hostility started with you, not me. I asked for clarification, and you had a melt down.

Do you act like this in real life?

You just admitted you made a bunch of posts in order to annoy me (and you wanted to annoy me because I asked for clarification), and you think I'm the one with the problem here?

 

[Belz...]

You might be the only poster here who thinks that dealing with treason is a free speech issue.

 

[Belz...]

Which is basically a way of saying you just don't like me.

Non sequitur. Your history demonstrates it. My feelings towards you have nothing to do with it. But put it to the test: turn over a new leaf and let's see.

That appears to be exactly the meaning of what you said.

I don't care what it appears as to you. It's just not true.

You just admitted you made a bunch of posts in order to annoy me

Again with the twisting of words. What I said, clearly, is that the posts were meant to demonstrate to you the inherent quality of your responses in order to -- assuming you are being honest, of course -- convince you to change your methods.

And come on, there are many definitions of "constitute", so I think it's fair to ask you what you mean by it. That you refuse to answer is, as another poster put it, quite telling.

 

[Ziggurat]

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.

No, it cannot. Laws which make it illegal to talk to people are always narrowly construed. The law being cited here isn't. The only interpretations on offer that could make their conversation illegal require incredibly broad readings of the statute, and there's really no chance that can survive strict scrutiny.

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

There's nothing vague about it. The state has no compelling interest in preventing all speech between a campaign and all foreign nationals which might be at all related to the campaign. The law as written is not narrowly tailored to any such interest either. It's an unconstitutional reading on its face.

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.

All of this is speculative, and none of it means the Trump Jr. meeting itself would be in any way illegal.

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.

Um... that's not really espionage, that's just diplomacy.

 

[Minoosh]

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

Trump says that the fact that we heard of Russia's involvement is proof that Putin had nothing to do with it? He might be right, but Putin's personal involvement is kind of irrelevant.

I don't want Trump impeached over this. If that's going to happen I want there to be a much more solid case against him personally, and enough Republican opposition to put this on firmer ground. That will depend to a large extent on how popular Trump is in their districts.

This little scandal illustrates a lot about Trump's family and his attitude toward it, but it's not proof of wrongdoing by Trump himself.

CNN should regroup on its Trump coverage. On the whole I trust CNN but IMO it's making a strategical (tactical?) mistake. It's preaching to the choir on Trump/Russia. I'm not saying don't cover it heavily, but it annoys me to hear it go on for hours and hours without any mention of other stories happening in the country/world. It's behaving like an attack dog. Lead the hour with summaries and new developments in this latest scandal. Then offer something else. If something breaks in that hour, share that with viewers. It's a more balanced approach.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Do you really think there's a strict scrutiny justification for such a limitation? And if so, what is it?

I can't answer to the narrowly tailored and least restrictive prong, but avoiding foreign influence of elections probably passes compelling government interest.

 

[BobTheCoward]

There's nothing vague about it. The state has no compelling interest in preventing all speech between a campaign and all foreign nationals which might be at all related to the campaign. The law as written is not narrowly tailored to any such interest either. It's an unconstitutional reading on its face.

Debating compelling interest is like debating angels on a pin. Is there anything more arbitrary than determining what is "compelling?"

 

[KDLarsen]

A handy reminder of how Jr.'s claims evolved over the past week: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/7/11/15954012/trump-jr-emails-russia

Remember not even a week ago, when the story first broke, that he was claiming that no meetings had been set up with Russians.

 

[newyorkguy]

Pence's spokesperson answering, "Did Pence meet with the Russians during the campaign," by saying, Pence "was focused on his agenda," reminds me of an interview I saw years ago on PBS. This involved a Florida firm that sold bottled "spring water" which turned out to be Miami tap water. Jim Lehrer asked their spokesperson something like:

• Lehrer: Can you understand why consumers are upset? Buying a product labeled spring water that is actually tap water?
• Spokesperson: Jim I can tell you, we feel very good about our product, really do, we think we offer the consumer a quality product.

Could it be the same guy?

 

[Ziggurat]

Non sequitur. Your history demonstrates it.

Demonstrates what? That I ask for definitions of every word?

Yeah, no, my history doesn't.

My feelings towards you have nothing to do with it. But put it to the test: turn over a new leaf and let's see.

In other words, give in to your demands and maybe you'll be nice.

Yeah, no.

I don't care what it appears as to you. It's just not true.

Yes, Argumemnon, it is true. The meaning of what you wrote is quite clear. Whether you intended that meaning or not, I cannot say for sure, but if it's not, well, that's your fault, not mine.

Again with the twisting of words. What I said, clearly, is that the posts were meant to demonstrate to you the inherent quality of your responses in order to -- assuming you are being honest, of course -- convince you to change your methods.

I'm not twisting your words, Argumemnon. I'm taking their plain meaning. You claim that the "inherent quality" of my responses is that they're annoying, so in order to "demonstrate" that quality, you're being annoying (how else could you demonstrate the quality of annoyance except by being annoying?), because you hope by annoying me you'll get me to stop.

If you're being honest (and you've made it clear you have no interest in that), you will admit that this is exactly what you've been trying to do. You just don't like me pointing it out.

And come on, there are many definitions of "constitute", so I think it's fair to ask you what you mean by it.

You're right, it is fair to ask. But it's not fair to expect an answer when you still refuse to answer a fair question yourself which was posed earlier. This cannot have been a mystery to you. And yet, you proceed as if it is. This is the fundamental dishonesty with you on display yet again. You never take an honest position, you always try to bull **** your way past obstacles.

Has your refusal to answer that question produced the results you desired? Be honest, if you can.

 

[Minoosh]

There's nothing vague about it. The state has no compelling interest in preventing all speech between a campaign and all foreign nationals which might be at all related to the campaign.

That's not even the point. It's the lies, omissions and evasions, and the constantly shifting stories. I agree that the fact of the meeting is no smoking gun. Was it illegal for Nixon to destroy his own tapes? (I do not remember at what point they were subpoenaed). Even if it wasn't illegal, it looked like the work of a man with something to hide.

And Kushner and Manafort? A real estate developer and a guy who got paid $17 million for aiding Putin's cause in the Ukraine? What were they doing there?

Yes, this is innuendo. AKA circumstantial evidence. Kinda makes me go "hmm" though. To me it just doesn't make sense that all those people were in the room.

 

[Minoosh]

I can't answer to the narrowly tailored and least restrictive prong, but avoiding foreign influence of elections probably passes compelling government interest.

Lindsey Graham thinks so. He says that if you are working on a campaign and foreign interests approach you to give you dirt on your opponent, you should call the FBI. And though some may say he's a RINO, he's also no fool.

 

[Belz...]

Demonstrates what? That I ask for definitions of every word?

That you do so often, in order to bog down discussion rather than push it forward.

ETA: (snip)

It's clear that you're using accusations of dishonesty to distract from your own.

There's really no point in discussing anything with you unless you act honestly.

 

[Childlike Empress]

To me it just doesn't make sense that all those people were in the room.

Did you read the interview with Veselnitskaya? She says of the twenty minutes the meeting went, Kushner left after seven minutes or so (after it was clear that she had no dirt on Clinton), and Manafort was sitting in the corner the whole time, busy with his smartphone or whatever. After all, this was in Trump Tower. They didn't meet under a bridge or something.

 

[ponderingturtle]

The nice part is - we don't have to imagine it. Simply put, Hillary would not have done this. Obama would never do this. McCain would eat two boots before thinking about doing this. When Gore was given illegally obtained information on the GWB campaign, he contacted the FBI - as in, this actually happened, in reality. GWB...well, I really doubt even he would do this.

But Toupee Fiasco? Oh, he went right for it like a starving fish to a baited hook.

Paul Ryan would totally do it so there is that point that this is business as usual for republicans.

 

[ponderingturtle]

For the most part, it actually does. A Canadian tourist, for example, is free to speak his mind while he's in Texas.

However, there are clear exceptions that may be pertinent to this case. There is Supreme Court precedent for treating foreign nationals as a separate class for the sake of campaign contributions, and that this restriction does not conflict with the First Amendment.


https://www.bloomberglaw.com/public...ssion_Civil_No_101766_BMK_RMURMC_2?1499907726

(not a lawyer)

We will see if they rule that they do have free speech and as money is free speech foreign governments must be freely able to donate to politicians.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Taking Jr's word on this is utterly preposterous, given that he's lied at every turn.

Aww he takes after his father so well.