Cont: All things Trump + Russia Part 2

[sunmaster14]

Its just incredibly dishonest to still be harping on Benghazi after 7 investigations by her opponent found her cleared, yet those people are absolutely convinced there's nothing there in the collusion investigation, the 1st of which is still on going.

The hypocrisy is nauseating.

Think how I feel about the utter stupidity.

 

[sunmaster14]

Quid: We will help you win the election, with support from the Russian government.

Quo: You will attempt to loosen Magnitsky Act sanctions, so as to allow Russian oligarchs a freer hand in global markets.

Can we at least agree that striking such a deal (assuming that really happened) would indeed run afoul of federal election law, and require prosecution?

Yes, but from all of the evidence I've seen, Trump Jr. had no idea that the Russians wanted to talk about the Magnitsky Act. I doubt he even knew what that was. He probably thought that they had some evidence that Hillary did something illegal (which is hardly implausible, given all of the Clinton Foundation shenanigans), and he wanted to see what they had. Whether he would have been willing to give them a quid if what they had was delectable is in the range of unfounded speculation and not the kind of stuff our criminal law deals with. It would be even beyond criminalizing thoughts. It would be criminalizing thoughts you might reasonably have if circumstances were different, but you haven't even had yet.

 

[NoahFence]

Think how I feel about the utter stupidity.

The stupidity of your Fuhrer and his minions? I assume if you feel anything, it would be embarrassment. Embarrassment for yourself for embracing him as the viable option, embarrassment for the entire country for electing him, and embarrassment for anyone who still supports him.

It IS "Stupid Watergate". All the illegal crap they've pulled and continue to pull is so transparent it's absurd. The hammer will fall on all this. I'll do my best not to spike the ball like you people do with Hillary's loss.

No guarantees.

 

[NoahFence]

Yes, but from all of the evidence I've seen, Trump Jr. had no idea that the Russians wanted to talk about the Magnitsky Act. I doubt he even knew what that was. He probably thought that they had some evidence that Hillary did something illegal (which is hardly implausible, given all of the Clinton Foundation shenanigans), and he wanted to see what they had. Whether he would have been willing to give them a quid if what they had was delectable is in the range of unfounded speculation and not the kind of stuff our criminal law deals with. It would be even beyond criminalizing thoughts. It would be criminalizing thoughts you might reasonably have if circumstances were different, but you haven't even had yet.

OK. Trump Jr. is an idiot and didn't know the Maginski act, and he's too stupid to know ignorance of the law is no excuse.

Care to fire up your excuse-o-meter for the other folks that attended the meeting who damn well knew what they were doing was illegal? Are you really going to sit there an say Paul Manafort was in the same boat? That HE knew nothing of the Maginski act, that HE is also innocent in all this? That HE thinks the adoption story was actually about adopting kids?

Come on man.

 

[Belz...]

Yes, but from all of the evidence I've seen, Trump Jr. had no idea that the Russians wanted to talk about the Magnitsky Act. I doubt he even knew what that was. He probably thought that they had some evidence that Hillary did something illegal (which is hardly implausible, given all of the Clinton Foundation shenanigans), and he wanted to see what they had.

And that's illegal. How do you not get that?

 

[d4m10n]

Yes, but from all of the evidence I've seen, Trump Jr. had no idea that the Russians wanted to talk about the Magnitsky Act.

Until they started talking about it during the meeting itself?

 

[Emily's Cat]

Ok here I go again: "It's unanimous that you rejected everything, so you must be lying either to us or to yourself!", which was your rewording, is a lie, since that is not what I said at all.

What is it that you think you said? What do you think would be an acceptable paraphrasing of the implication of your statements in this exchange:
You: You've ignored all the evidence presented so far, so you'll forgive me if I conclude that you'll never admit to having seen evidence, no matter what it is.
Me: No, I haven't ignored it all. {Provides examples}
You: It's pretty unanimous that you have. So either you're not telling the truth, or you're not very good at introspection.
Me: {Provides summary of the interchange above...}
You: Obviously the stuff you accepted beforehand, you didn't reject.

Is your objection to the fact that I removed the word "pretty"? Are you trying to convince me that you were not implying that it was so close to unanimous as to be indistinguishable from unanimous... and furthermore that the only people who aren't in that unanimity are people who defend Trump no matter what?

Are you objecting to my rephrasing of "either you're not telling the truth or you're not good at introspection" into either you're lying to us (which is what not telling the truth means) or you're lying to yourself (which is clearly implied by not being good at introspection). Especially when you pair it with your repeated accusations of dishonesty. What would be an acceptable paraphrase for that in your mind?

How is my paraphrasing not what you said?

Unless, of course, you're falling back on a trivial and completely senseless interpretation of "lying" wherein if it's not LITERALLY the exact wording that you used, then it's a "lie"? Is that what's going on here? If so, then grow a spine and just admit that this is the game you're playing so I can move on.

And right after I pointed it out, I explained that rejecting everything about the Russian collusion story doesn't prevent you from thinking that Trump has flaws or has done bad things otherwise, so bringing up the fact that you think Trump has flaws or has done bad things otherwise doesn't counter my claim that you reject eveything about the Russian collusion story.

Well, except for those things that I specifically mentioned that I haven't rejected. The only issue here is that I don't see that there's sufficient SOLID evidence for a conclusion of collusion. It's a non-negligible possibility, and there's a very reasonable likelihood that additional solid evidence will surface that will make that conclusion more viable. But at the moment, I cannot reach that conclusion unless I rely on confirmation bias and what I want to be true.

Furthermore, anything you accept now, you've accepted begridgingly and kicking and screaming. These things have been pointed out to you for months, and even now you're not accepting them fully.

1) There are several things that I've accepted with no argument at all. There are several other things that I've accepted once there has been verification of the claim presented.
2) There are many, many, many things that I don't accept "fully". First because I'm not a very dogmatic sort of person, and I think that all or nothing approaches to this sort of mess are idiotic and absolutely drip bias and belief. And second because that "full" acceptance is nearly always an acceptance of someone else's interpretation of what something is assumed to actually mean, rather than an acceptance of fact. And yeah, I'm not much given to accepting opinion and jumping on bandwagons.

Are you confused because I don't crow from the rooftops about the things I do accept? Am I failing to virtue signal loudly enough to satisfy you on this?

Hey, another lie! Obviously, I wasn't saying that you are a liar because you don't understand the explanation. That would make no sense. Seriously, I cannot believe that you are "misunderstanding" so much stuff by accident.

I didn't say you were calling me a liar because I didn't understand. I'm saying that you call someone a liar (not just me), pretty much whenever they don't accept your explanation, or when they find fault with your explanation. You call people liars with no evidence of them actually being dishonest, simply because you don't believe them. Like in this case exactly. You don't "believe" that I am misunderstanding you, therefore you conclude that I'm lying, and you feel justified in accusing me of such. It never seems to occur to you that either you have failed to be clear in your explanation, or that your explanation might be flawed. Rather, you immediately jump to the assumption that the other person is being dishonest.

Please step back and think about this a moment. Several times now, you have either misunderstood or in some fashion misrepresented what I said, as well as being in error about what I believe and what I think. At no point have I accused you of dishonesty. The things you have said about me are false. There's no question about that - they absolutely are false. But you clearly believe them to be true. Given that, it would be poor logic for me to decide that you are lying about them. It becomes incumbent upon me to change your belief first.

You might give that a try, instead of so frequently jumping to the accusation of dishonesty. I know from observation that you do not like being called a liar in similar situations. Why not go ahead and apply that golden rule for a while?

You don't think that me bringing up people from other planets was hyperbole? You have got to be kidding me.

Given that you seem to be hung up on me having dropped the "pretty" out of your claim of unanimity... no, it's not clear that it's hyperbole. It's also a completely pointless type of hyperbole that adds nothing to the discussion in any fashion, fails to illustrate any point, and is otherwise a distraction and misdirection within this conversation.

You're essentially refusing to allow any of the evidence of collusion. How is that not defending him? That you're not defending him on other matters doesn't change the fact that you're defending him on this, going so far as to find excuses for him.

Have you ever been on a jury?

Imagine you're on a jury, and the prosecuting attorney presents you with a bunch of arguments that the defendant is a child molester. His case consists of many, many items:

• The defendant was seen hanging out near an elementary school
• The defendant was observed having a conversation with a child, but the topic of the conversation is unknown. The defendant claims he was asking the child if they liked the school because his sister has a kid and he's been thinking about trying to convince her to move to the area.
• An anonymous person who refuses to testify said that he was acting susipiciously
• Another anonymous person who refuses to testify said that several years ago they observed what might have been a child on his browser window, and if so then he might have been looking at child pornogrophy
• Another anonymous person claims that several people are convinced that he is a child molester, but refuses to disclose who those people are, nor how many constitute several
• Another person claims that they heard from an inside source that the defense was having a hard time trying to cover up something that the defendant had done, and that it's possible that this thing might be child molestation

Which of those items would you reject as not being sufficient to consider in a court of law? Which would you set aside as speculative until further, more solid information surfaces to corroborate them?

Which items would you accept as evidence? Do those items, by themselves, constitute sufficient evidence to reach a verdict of guilty with respect to a charge of child molestation?

++++++++++++++++++++++++++

There's a huge pile of circumstantial information, and a monumental pile of speculation and allegation at present. Some of that information may ultimately be corroborated, and lend additional weight to the allegation of collusion. But at present, the actual known facts are quite slim. I don't accept the preponderance of hearsay as evidence. I don't accept that "where there's smoke there must be fire" - it's entirely too easy to give the impression of smoke when there is merely steam.

Since Trump's election, we have seen several cases of false-flags. I know nobody wants to acknowledge them, but especially with respect to race relations, there have been several instances of perceived hate-crime turning out to be fake. There have been several instances of Anti-Trump groups initiating violence against Trump supporters, and in some cases against innocent bystanders or private property.

It is naive to ignore the current political climate. It is naive to accept speculative articles and uncorroborated allegation as fact. I protest against that. You accuse me of rejecting everything, despite the fact that there are several facts that I do accept as facts.

I challenge you, in return, to show me what you have rejected.

 

[Emily's Cat]

To those who claim that the attempted collusion by Donnie Jr and co. carries no penalty if there was no receipt of the promised dirt...

Why does intent by itself not matter? The meeting was set up with the (now) undenied intention to get damaging info on Hillary, not to talk adoptions. The very act of setting up and attending the meeting is amply demonstrable evidence of the willingness to engage with a foreign actor in matters electoral, which at least someone in the Trump campaign would have known full well was illegal.

Perhaps it will require to prove that there was indeed receipt of information, or some 'payment' made, in order to indict. But if the matter of the shielding against foreign influence that is dangerous to the electoral process is considered of similar import as, say, selling state secrets, then the cheating bastages should have the book thrown at them. Or at least suffer more than the proverbial slap on the wrist.

My understanding of the arguments made on this topic is that the relevant laws have to do with receiving a "thing of value" from a foreign entity. So far as I can tell, and IANAL, it's not illegal to have discussion with a foreign entity, it's not illegal to build relationships for future support from those entities. It is, however, illegal to receive something of value from them.

Given that, there could be a case that Trump Jr. did not actually receive anything. He expected to receive something, which definitely raises questions about his judgement and his ethics... but at present there is no evidence that any actual information was received.

I don't think anyone has argued that his intentions were unacceptable and that his actions were unethical - I think everyone agrees that they were. I think the question is whether or not that intent by itself is sufficient to bring charges against Trump Jr., or even to strengthen a case against Trump Sr.

There has also been some discussion about the ethics, from the perspective of whether or not any other actor would have done the same thing. That doesn't make it ethical, by any means, but if it's something that would commonly be done, then it reduces the degree of ethical malfeasance somewhat. A poor analogy, granted... but it's like pointing out that while jaywalking is technically a crime and therefore illegal, it happens so often that it lacks strength when using jaywalking alone to label someone a 'criminal'.

I don't have any personal opinion on that last part (I simply don't know enough to have an opinion), but I believe that's a fair interpretation of some of the arguments put forth regarding it.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Indeed. There could be no conspiracy laws if intention alone were not grounds for prosecution and conviction. Donnie Jr. is guilty by self-confession in his recent testimony. Donnie BigBoy is likely guilty of witness tampering to affect the outcome of an investigation, he being the author of the duplicitous letter explaining the meeting was only about adoptions. A criminal offense.

Sure, maybe. But do Trump Jr.'s actions sufficiently constitute conspiracy? Will a prosecutor reasonably be able to make that case?

Regarding Trump Sr.'s involvement in the letter... that's a bit more squishy. The letter was misleading, I don't think there's any question about that. But it wasn't technically false. Nothing in the letter was a lie. While I agree that it was definitely spin... I don't see that it was a crime.

It might be, as I've said, I'm not a lawyer. But it doesn't seem like a prosecutor would be able to make any headway on that front with an objective jury.

 

[jimbob]

Opposition research has been considered a thing of value.

Just because stolen emails can't legally be sold, it doesn't mean that they have no value.

It's that the price is high and not in cash but in kind.

 

[Belz...]

How is my paraphrasing not what you said?

I just explained it to you.

Seriously, this is deliberate at this point, and is a nice parallel to how you deal with the evidence of collusion.

Are you confused because I don't crow from the rooftops about the things I do accept?

No, I'm confused because you're refused to accept new evidence during your participation in this thread, except retroactively.

I'm saying that you call someone a liar (not just me), pretty much whenever they don't accept your explanation, or when they find fault with your explanation.

Well, you're wrong.

You call people liars with no evidence of them actually being dishonest, simply because you don't believe them.

The evidence is them making a claim they can be demonstrated to know is false.

Given that you seem to be hung up on me having dropped the "pretty" out of your claim of unanimity... no, it's not clear that it's hyperbole.

What has one to do with the other? The "pretty" was rather important, as it meant it wasn't literally everyone, either in the universe or in this thread. If you think me talking about people from other planets in relation to this agreement could have been meant to be an actual, serious suggestion, you must think I'm insane. More likely, you don't think that at all, hence my accusation.

Have you ever been on a jury?

Imagine you're on a jury, and the prosecuting attorney presents you with a bunch of arguments that the defendant is a child molester.

What a great idea for an analogy! Allow me to add to it:

- A witness provides testimony, backed by e-mail evidence from the accused, that they both met to discuss providing the services of a child for sexual acts, but when the meeting occured, the witness instead talked about the weather. Once you and the other jurors go back to discuss this, you mention that the meeting was probably about the weather anyway, so the accused is not guilty of soliciting sex with a minor because he didn't get what he wanted. You provide similar excuses for other witnesses to the same meeting, and for other testimonies pointing to a history of such behaviour by the accused, including actual victims who were children at the time.

How do you think the other jurors would respond to your argument? Do you think they might accuse you of defending a child molester?

 

[Emily's Cat]

You're walking a terribly fine line here.

Setting up a meeting with the expectation of getting something during the meeting, is not going out and looking for it?

If you open your door and see a vacuum salesman walking past, and you holler out "hey, would you like to tell me about your product for a while?"... has that salesman guilty of solicitation in violation of the sign you've got posted by your door?

There's a world of difference between a person going out and trying to find a thing, and a thing being offered to them when they were not initially seeking it. Even if they accept the offered item, that doesn't mean they solicited it. Solicitation is dependent on the initiator of the exchange.

 

[jimbob]

What a great idea for an analogy! Allow me to add to it:

- A witness provides testimony, backed by e-mail evidence from the accused, that they both met to discuss providing the services of a child for sexual acts, but when the meeting occured, the witness instead talked about the weather. Once you and the other jurors go back to discuss this, you mention that the meeting was probably about the weather anyway, so the accused is not guilty of soliciting sex with a minor. You provide similar excuses for other witnesses to the same meeting, and for other testimonies pointing to a history of such behaviour by the accused, including actual victims who were children at the time.

How do you think the other jurors would respond to your argument? Do you think they might accuse you of defending a child molester?

... When it turns out that some of the people you didn't mention being at the meeting were spokespeople for NAMBLA

 

[Emily's Cat]

That's you playing games with terminology.

No, I'm not playing games. I'm using words correctly. But I also freely admit that it's pedantic.

One wonders why you keep doing so, but I'm sure you'll be back any minute to tell us how close you are to concluding that Trump did something wrong. You just need more. Ever more.

That's silly. I'm not close to concluding that, nor have I indicated I am. There is not sufficient evidence to reach that conclusion, regardless of how high the pile of speculation and allegation.

I think it's a fair possibility that actual evidence could be uncovered that is sufficient to reach that conclusion - I am very, very far away form concluding that he's innocent. At present I do not have sufficient evidence to reach ANY conclusion with regards to Trump's guilt or innocence in this matter.

 

[jimbob]

Here is a list of the new additions to the Trump Russia timeline

http://billmoyers.com/story/heres-whats-new-trump-russia-timeline/

 

[Belz...]

No, I'm not playing games. I'm using words correctly.

Correctly, you say?

the act of asking for or trying to obtain something from someone.

the crime of asking another to commit or to aid in a crime.

If I send you an e-mail offering you something illegal, and you accept and come to meet me, you're asking for something illegal!

That's silly. I'm not close to concluding that, nor have I indicated I am.

My mistake. You'll of course never conclude that.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

... When it turns out that some of the people you didn't mention being at the meeting were spokespeople for NAMBLA

I've heard a lot of people saying that!

 

[Belz...]

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/07/us/politics/russia-facebook-twitter-election.html?mcubz=0

No Russian influence whatsoever!

 

[NoahFence]

Given that, there could be a case that Trump Jr. did not actually receive anything. He expected to receive something, which definitely raises questions about his judgement and his ethics... but at present there is no evidence that any actual information was received.

The highlighted is illegal.

/thread

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Sure, maybe. But do Trump Jr.'s actions sufficiently constitute conspiracy? Will a prosecutor reasonably be able to make that case?
<>

Have we moved on from whether there were actually lies and collusion to whether or not it can be successfully prosecuted now ?