Merged All things Trump + Russia

[Belz...]

Christ.
Get a room guys

We're not that kind of couple, Noah.

 

[quadraginta]

Fixed that for you.

I don' think the Democrat pols are particularly concerned about how Trump's behavior is going to affect their support among their constituents.

It isn't very likely he is going to do anything to make those constituents like him significantly less than they already do.

 

[Bob001]

An ex-FBI agent assesses Trump and Russia:

But as a former FBI counterintelligence agent, what I saw as the most explosive aspect of the testimony didn’t involve any legal violation of the U.S. code or questions about whether Comey had broken established Department of Justice protocols. Instead, it was the prima facie evidence that Comey presented that Trump appears unwilling to uphold his oath “to preserve, protect, and defend” the country — which puts the security of our nation and its democracy at stake.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/post...g-shocks-me/?tid=a_inl&utm_term=.eb73c8af69d7

 

[Ziggurat]

I'm not sure that I have any feelings about it. From my understanding, going to that meeting was illegal in and of itself, based on the knowledge that the actors had of what was supposed to transpire there.

And is that understanding based on 52 U.S. Code § 30121? If so, why did you think foreign government involvement was relevant to the legal question? If not, what statute do you base your understanding on?

 

[ponderingturtle]

Just wondering: what comes after semantics? E-mails? Pedophiles at a pizzeria?

Hey when the national security advisor thinks there is something there there must be something there.

 

[Ziggurat]

I don' think the Democrat pols are particularly concerned about how Trump's behavior is going to affect their support among their constituents.

That's not quite my point. They are concerned about whether voting for impeachment will affect their support. Which, ultimately, is what Republicans would be interested in too. Even if Trump is hurting their election prospects, if they won't vote for impeachment if doing so further hurts their prospects. That's the fundamental dynamic in play, with both parties, since the very beginning of the Republic.

 

[ponderingturtle]

That's not quite my point. They are concerned about whether voting for impeachment will affect their support. Which, ultimately, is what Republicans would be interested in too. Even if Trump is hurting their election prospects, if they won't vote for impeachment if doing so further hurts their prospects. That's the fundamental dynamic in play, with both parties, since the very beginning of the Republic.

Exactly all politicians will sell out the american people for their interests. We are and have always been a kleptocracy, trump is just a slight big more blatant about it.

 

[jimbob]

Noted, thanks.

Thanks to you and C Felix:

Adding events pertaining to Roger Stone / Podesta:

My additions in red

Mar 19| Podesta email hacked
Apr 19| DCLeaks.com registered
May 3| Trump becomes presumptive nominee
June 3| Goldstone contacts Trump Jr. to setup meeting which promises discuss Clinton June 7 17:16 | Don Jr. confirms meeting w/ Russian lawyer June7 21:13 | Trump promises press conf the next week with Clinton dirt
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 (and lie about it)
Late July | Malware researchers spot unusual server activity between Trump server and Alfa Bank
Aug 21| Roger Stone writes "it will soon be Podesta's time in the barrel"
Oct 27| Wikileaks releases Podesta emails*

* An hour after pussy-grabbing video released.


Unusual activity noticed between Russian bank and Trump server

 

[Belz...]

And is that understanding based on 52 U.S. Code § 30121? If so, why did you think foreign government involvement was relevant to the legal question?

Now you're conflating two things: the legality and the compelling interest. The statute is relevant to the legality. The foreign government is relevant to the compelling interest.

 

[Ziggurat]

Exactly all politicians will sell out the american people for their interests.

In this specific case, that's not really selling out the American people, it's selling out to the American people. It's doing whatever voters want, even if for purely selfish reasons. If the voters are making good choices about what they want, then following the will of the voters will produce good outcomes.

To paraphrase Milton Friedman, you don't get good governance by making sure the right people get elected, you get good governance by making sure whoever get elected has incentive to do the right thing.

 

[Ziggurat]

Now you're conflating two things: the legality and the compelling interest. The statute is relevant to the legality. The foreign government is relevant to the compelling interest.

No, I'm not conflating two things. The relevant interest here is the interest that this specific law advances.

If you can only find a compelling interest which is much narrower than this law covers, then that is not enough constitutional justification for the law (or in this case, a specific interpretation of that law). It will fail because it is too broad. Any speech restriction must be narrowly tailored to the compelling interest, and this law clearly isn't narrowly tailored to your suggested compelling interest. And it doesn't matter if some much narrower hypothetical law might pass constitutional muster, because that's not the law we actually have.

 

[quadraginta]

<snip>

First off, as a practical matter the state cannot protect itself against any foreign influence.

Does this mean that the state shouldn't ever try to?

Second, it's not clear that we should, even if we could.

Why not, if those influences are hostile to the welfare of the state? It would seem to be an imperative that the state do its best to resist such attempts.

Third, the statutes do not protect against all forms of foreign influence, only very specific kinds.

And it seems to be one of those kinds which we are being confronted with in this instance.

And lastly, there is a much higher burden for statutes that restrict speech than there is for statutes that restrict most other actions. That the state can meet that burden in many non-speech cases doesn't mean that they could meet it about speech such as this.

Does this mean that they shouldn't investigate it at all?

We are talking about a self-admitted conspiracy between what was believed to be an agent of a foreign power and a Presidential campaign to gain what was believed to be advantageous material for a Federal election. This wasn't "opposition research". That's a transparent joke. No one in the Trump campaign went looking for this. They were approached by a self-identified foreign agent claiming to be a representative of a foreign government and offering them assistance with their campaign efforts.

Instead of treating that contact as the potential violation of Federal law that it clearly is and reporting it to the relevant authorities they gleefully pursued the relationship.

And, significantly, tried to hide that until it was no longer possible to pretend it didn't happen. They were unquestionably aware that they were doing something they believed they shouldn't be doing.

Maybe, in the final regard, it will be determined to not have crossed any lines of culpability. But it is unquestionably dancing close enough to them to merit a formal legal process to determine whether or not it did.

Anything less is nothing else but an attempt to erase those lines.

Although I suspect you might view that as a good thing.

Personally, I don't see it as a good precedent to set. It might be beneficial to the short term interests of the GOP, but I think it would be a bad one for the future integrity of our democratic process. And that has taken enough of a beating already.

 

[Bob001]

In this specific case, that's not really selling out the American people, it's selling out to the American people. It's doing whatever voters want, even if for purely selfish reasons. If the voters are making good choices about what they want, then following the will of the voters will produce good outcomes.

To paraphrase Milton Friedman, you don't get good governance by making sure the right people get elected, you get good governance by making sure whoever get elected has incentive to do the right thing.

If you're going to make that case, you have to recognize that 54% of 2016 voters wanted somebody other than Trump, and three million more voted for Clinton than Trump. If you say, "but Electoral College....," then you are qualifying your assessment that "the voters" should get what they want. Only some voters in some places, right?

And what actually is "the right thing?" The Trump voters -- the ones who weren't responding to his racist dogwhistles -- believed his specific promises that he would bring industrial jobs back to the U.S., and that he would give everyone better health care at lower prices than they are getting now. Did they ever ask how he would do that, or if even had the capability to do that? Did they really vote to cut Medicaid and lower taxes on the rich? Because that's what they'll get.

Sometimes we need our leaders to do the right thing in spite of what voters want, like sending troops to desegregate the schools or supporting the Civil Rights and Voting Rights acts despite LBJ knowing "it will cost us the South" or creating Social Security and Medicare despite cries of socialism and communism. Maybe we need our leaders to do what the next generation of voters will recognize as right.

 

[Belz...]

No, I'm not conflating two things.

I talked about one and you thought I was talking about the other. How is that not conflating?

Or, alternatively, could you provide us with your definition of "conflate"?

 

[Belz...]

Sometimes we need our leaders to do the right thing in spite of what voters want

That's why we need leaders that are better than the people.

Good luck with that, though.

 

[Ziggurat]

Why not, if those influences are hostile to the welfare of the stat?.

I put "any" in there for a reason. Not all influences will be hostile.

And it seems to be one of those kinds which we are being confronted with in this instance.

Perhaps, but that's not relevant to the statute, which makes no reference to any such factors.

Does this mean that they shouldn't investigate it at all?

Nope, I never said that.

We are talking about a self-admitted conspiracy between what was believed to be an agent of a foreign power and a Presidential campaign to gain what was believed to be advantageous material for a Federal election. This wasn't "opposition research".

Whatever distinction you're trying to draw here doesn't have any statutory basis.

Instead of treating that contact as the potential violation of Federal law that it clearly is and reporting it to the relevant authorities they gleefully pursued the relationship.

Were you similarly distressed about the Clinton campaign's relations with Ukraine and the release of information designed to hurt Trump?

And, significantly, tried to hide that until it was no longer possible to pretend it didn't happen.

Politically relevant. Legally irrelevant.

 

[quadraginta]

I talked about one and you thought I was talking about the other. How is that not conflating?

Or, alternatively, could you provide us with your definition of "conflate"?

I think it means that he can swim underwater.

 

[Ziggurat]

I talked about one and you thought I was talking about the other. How is that not conflating?

The compelling interest advanced by the actual law is the relevant one, not the compelling interest advanced by a hypothetical non-existent law. I talked about the former and not the latter because that's what matters, not because I can't distinguish them.

 

[Belz...]

The compelling interest advanced by the actual law is the relevant one, not the compelling interest advanced by a hypothetical non-existent law. I talked about the former and not the latter because that's what matters, not because I can't distinguish them.

Ok but your response was irrelevant to my post, then. I talked about the legality of the meeting and then you brought it back to an earlier post about foreign involvement being important to determine compelling interest.

So what, exactly, are you asking or saying?

 

[Aridas]

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

We're not dealing with treason here, though, at last check, given that we're not at war with Russia. Trump Jr's actions may well have been illegal, but fairly certainly do not qualify as treason.

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.



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.



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

You seem to be arguing under a truly odd misconception here. Meeting with foreign nationals in general, even ones associated with a foreign government, is not being claimed to be illegal. On the other hand, some kinds of interactions with foreign nationals are indeed illegal. When you're fairly consistently arguing as if people were claiming the former, especially when they're clearly trying to discuss the latter, it's hard to take your arguments seriously.

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

By people without the authority to do so and in line with common spying practices?