Merged All things Trump + Russia

[Ziggurat]

Oddly, this also seems to me to blow a hole in the idea that "money is speech"

That is a misrepresentation of the SCOTUS's position. You're shooting down a straw man. The argument is not that money is speech, the argument is that speech which you pay for is still speech.

 

[NoahFence]

What was the con? He was actually pro Russian during the campaign.

That he was Pro-America.

 

[CapelDodger]

A second, completely obvious, example of how the framers of the constitution openly desired to eliminate outside influence on US behavior - the (in)famous "emoluments clause", forbidding the US president from accepting money or gifts from foreign actors.

Showing a healthy suspicion of British cotton and tobacco interests.

 

[quadraginta]

This is the kind of thing that makes me question *most* of what is presented as "evidence" these days. Pretty much, any person who was born in Russia, or has friends in Russia, or who can be connected to any person in any level of the Russian government within 6 degrees of Kevin Bacon is now considered an "operative" or an "agent".

<snip>

Why do you people keep trying to pull this transparent evasion.

She wasn't just 'pretty much any Russian'. She was presented to them and they believed she was an agent of the Russian government.

They may not have been right about that (Although there remains a lot of questions there.), but that isn't what is important. This is what they were told, and presumably believed she was.

That is where the culpability lies.

[ETA:

Actually, as Ziggurat has so helpfully pointed out. It doesn't matter whether she was a Russian agent or not (Although I don't think that helps things. It certainly doesn't make the exchange look any more respectable for them to have believed believe she was.)

The way the statute is phrased that doesn't make any difference. 'Pretty much any Russian' is still a violation.]

It doesn't matter if the guy you try to hire is really a hit man or not. What matters is if you believe he is and still try to hire him.

 

[CapelDodger]

BS. He's just referring to the rules. It isn't Trump's fault that you have a bizarre electoral procedure that goes back to when delegates had to make dangerous, long travels to attend.

That's not any part of the story of the Electoral College. Thirteen states all on the East Coast, with no hostiles to speak of, in the late 18th Century.

The story is about the politics and diplomacy required to get an agreement between thirteen states. You try it sometime; trust me, it's a nightmare.

 

[Bob001]

This is the kind of thing that makes me question *most* of what is presented as "evidence" these days. Pretty much, any person who was born in Russia, or has friends in Russia, or who can be connected to any person in any level of the Russian government within 6 degrees of Kevin Bacon is now considered an "operative" or an "agent".

Whatsisname was paid to be on a show on a Russian TV channel. The channel is funded by the Russian government. Therefore, he took money from the Russian government! Is that how you would cast it if a foreign person was on a show on PBS and got paid for it?
....

1/ The Russian lawyer represents several government-owned businesses, and has worked to repeal the Magnitsky act and lift U.S. sanctions against Russia. She's not somebody Trump met in traffic court. She represents Russian interests, even if she doesn't have a government title.
http://time.com/4851321/donald-trump-jr-russian-lawyer-natalia-veselnitskaya/

2/ RT is a Russian government propaganda organ. It does not function independently, as PBS does. If RT is paying Gen. Flynn, it's because the Russian government thinks Flynn will be useful to them.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/07/...twork-implicated-in-us-election-meddling.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/08/world/europe/russias-rt-network-is-it-more-bbc-or-kgb.html

It's just silly to say "Ah, everybody does it, no big deal, Russia, Turkey, the U.S., Mars, it's all the same." It's really not.

 

[jimbob]

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 to discuss Clinton June 7 17:16 | Don Jr. confirms meeting w/ Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya 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*
2017 - May| DOJ drops money laundering case against client of Natalia Veselnitskaya***

* An hour after pussy-grabbing video released.


**Unusual activity noticed between Russian bank and Trump server

ETA:*** http://thehill.com/homenews/adminis...-know-why-doj-dismissed-money-laundering-case

 

[CapelDodger]

Why do you people keep trying to pull this transparent evasion.

She wasn't just 'pretty much any Russian'. She was presented to them and they believed she was an agent of the Russian government.

They may not have been right about that (Although there remains a lot of questions there.), but that isn't what is important. This is what they were told, and presumably believed she was.

That is where the culpability lies.

It doesn't matter if the guy you try to hire is really a hit man or not. What matters is if you believe he is and still try to hire him.

Entrapment. That's what it was. By the deep state. That's a relief, now let's move on.

Moving on to the meeting, Donald Jr has said that the mysterious Russian offered him some stuff on Clinton which was vague and frankly a massive disappointment, given the build-up. I would like to hear him tell us on oath what it was about. Even vaguely.

Since the Senates open for an unexpected, and presumably unscheduled, couple of weeks, maybe a hearing can be fitted in.

 

[quadraginta]

Entrapment. That's what it was. By the deep state. That's a relief, now let's move on.

Moving on to the meeting, Donald Jr has said that the mysterious Russian offered him some stuff on Clinton which was vague and frankly a massive disappointment, given the build-up. I would like to hear him tell us on oath what it was about. Even vaguely.

Since the Senates open for an unexpected, and presumably unscheduled, couple of weeks, maybe a hearing can be fitted in.

Maybe they could hold a father and son under oath hearing. Dad did say he was willing to testify.

An appropriately Trump bizarro sort of Take Your Kid To Work Day.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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.

Tactics. If their strategy is to make Trump look bad to as many people as possible, then tactically, this may not be a bad approach. If their strategy is to preserve their journalistic integrity and commitment to the truth, then these tactics are damaging their strategy.

Objective is the desired outcome of a strategy. There should be only one Objective.
Strategy is the framework that defines what will be accomplished through tactics. There can be multiple strategies that support the Objective.
Tactics are the methods and procedures employed in order to accomplish a strategy. There are usually many tactics for each strategy.

Example: The objective is to win the war. One strategy (possibly among many) may be to weaken civilian support for the war. Weakened civilian support may be accomplished through tactics of publishing the cost in both dollars and lives, as well as through the use of propaganda.

On topic... I agree that I'd prefer a less sensationalist reality-TV-esque approach to news.

 

[trustbutverify]

First, the hacking wasn't public knowledge until after the meeting. Second, the information offered could not have come from the hacking anyways. Third, you're wrong: if a crime already took place, then talking about it afterwards, even in secret, doesn't constitute a crime. This is why the NYT doesn't get charged with criminal conspiracy when they publish information from the Wikileaks hack.

Why not?

 

[varwoche]

This is the kind of thing that makes me question *most* of what is presented as "evidence" these days. Pretty much, any person who was born in Russia, or has friends in Russia, or who can be connected to any person in any level of the Russian government within 6 degrees of Kevin Bacon is now considered an "operative" or an "agent".

Whatsisname was paid to be on a show on a Russian TV channel. The channel is funded by the Russian government. Therefore, he took money from the Russian government! Is that how you would cast it if a foreign person was on a show on PBS and got paid for it?

You shouldn't have to dig so deep and engage in so much hyperbole. You've hypothetically got a rampant, far-reaching conspiracy involving large numbers of people, doing incredibly obvious things by all accounts. If it's so broad a conspiracy, it should be easy to find people willing to come clean about it. If it's so obvious and transparent, then solid evidence shouldn't take months of investigation.

That's where I end up being really skeptical. How much of this is genuine wrongdoings of a material nature... and how much is a witch hunt?

What a load of fact-challenged nonsense.

The Russians in question don't fit your straw man whatsoever. The list includes Vladamir Putin, the ambassador to the US, a big shot banker who funds Putin's projects and who has an intelligence background, and a lawyer presented as a representative of the Russian government.

You need to try harder. A lot harder.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Christ.
Get a room guys

No kidding.

 

[jimbob]

What a load of fact-challenged nonsense.

The Russians in question don't fit your straw man whatsoever. The list includes Vladamir Putin, the ambassador to the US, a big shot banker who funds Putin's projects and who has an intelligence background, and a lawyer presented as a representative of the Russian government.
You need to try harder. A lot harder.

The highlighted part: ... a lawyer whose client had money laundering charges dropped in May with a small fine.
I've added that to my update to the table of yours...

 

[Emily's Cat]

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.

I dunno, I think you're looking at this too narrowly. Dems need to make sure that they're attacking Trump* Zealously enough to appease their constituents. If they don't keep at him like a slightly rabid dog, their supporters might think they're not doing a good job and support someone else next term.


*Seriously I can't type his name to save my life. Pretty much every time I end up typing "Turmp". I think I'm going to just pack it in and start calling him "Turnip", just so I don't have to make so many corrections.

 

[Bob001]

He campaigned under the current rules, he would have campaigned differently under different rules. What would have come out of this is parallel universe stuff, but the argument is sound.

Yeah, we get that. Clinton would have campaigned differently, too, and I have no doubt she would have picked up votes in the urban areas of Texas and some Southern and Western states. That's alternative history. (I note that the Popular Vote Compact is gaining steam.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact

But it's just a mistake to say that with 46% of votes cast, Trump has a mandate to radically alter U.S. domestic and foreign policy. Trump voters were promised more jobs and better, cheaper health care; they didn't vote for tax cuts for billionaires, a rejection of climate science, cuts in environmental enforcement, cuts in Medicaid, expanded drug prosecutions, confrontation with North Korea, etc., etc., not to mention Trump profiting personally from his job. Nobody wrote Trump a blank check.
http://www.politicususa.com/2016/12...ster-trump-swing-voters-liberal-policies.html

 

[uke2se]

This is the kind of thing that makes me question *most* of what is presented as "evidence" these days. Pretty much, any person who was born in Russia, or has friends in Russia, or who can be connected to any person in any level of the Russian government within 6 degrees of Kevin Bacon is now considered an "operative" or an "agent".

Whatsisname was paid to be on a show on a Russian TV channel. The channel is funded by the Russian government. Therefore, he took money from the Russian government! Is that how you would cast it if a foreign person was on a show on PBS and got paid for it?

You shouldn't have to dig so deep and engage in so much hyperbole. You've hypothetically got a rampant, far-reaching conspiracy involving large numbers of people, doing incredibly obvious things by all accounts. If it's so broad a conspiracy, it should be easy to find people willing to come clean about it. If it's so obvious and transparent, then solid evidence shouldn't take months of investigation.

That's where I end up being really skeptical. How much of this is genuine wrongdoings of a material nature... and how much is a witch hunt?

Is this another example of you being deliberately ill-informed? Because you certainly aren't grasping at straws to defend Trump, are you?

 

[Belz...]

There are things which could conceivably have happened at the meeting which could be illegal.

Such as?

Your interpretation of the statute isn't clear at all.

Well, gee, how about you tell me what my interpretation is, then.

 

[Belz...]

Well that's your fault for underestimating me!

Actually, it's really only because you argumemnoned against my initial response, which I thought was only marginally clever, and not worthy of a response at all. And since neither of us is much inclined to let things go... well here we are.

Oh, come on. It was clever.

 

[Belz...]

This is the kind of thing that makes me question *most* of what is presented as "evidence" these days. Pretty much, any person who was born in Russia, or has friends in Russia, or who can be connected to any person in any level of the Russian government within 6 degrees of Kevin Bacon is now considered an "operative" or an "agent".

It's just putting two and two together. This isn't a Russian plumber who happened to hear something while doing work for the DNC as a refugee in the US. This isn't some random lawyer, either. Why would a lawyer set up a meeting with the heads of the Trump campaign to give them information on Clinton, something that is presumably the same information that found itself on Wikileaks, and that was hacked most assuredly by agents of the Russian government, if that lawyer is not connected to said government? At some point you have to make a pretty wild series of unsupported assumptions to somehow turn this into a perfectly legal coincidence.

That's where I end up being really skeptical.

No, I wouldn't call it skepticism at this point. At some point the evidence reached a tipping point.