All things Trump + Russia Part 4

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Where was that in this, in a way that actually makes the statement that was made a lie?

The Conspirators, posing as Guccifer 2.0, also communicated with U.S. persons about the
release of stolen documents. On or about August 15, 2016, the Conspirators, posing as Guccifer
2.0, wrote to a person who wasin regular contact with senior members of the presidential campaign
of Donald J. Trump, “thank u for writing back . . . do u find anyt[h]ing interesting in the docs i
posted?” On or about August 17, 2016, the Conspirators added, “please tell me if i can help u
anyhow . . . it would be a great pleasure to me.” On or about September 9, 2016, the Conspirators,
again posing as Guccifer 2.0, referred to a stolen DCCC document posted online and asked the
person, “what do u think of the info on the turnout model for the democrats entire presidential
campaign.” The person responded, “[p]retty standard.”

Bear in mind that Stone has now confirmed what we all knew anyway, that he's the person mentioned in this paragraph.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

These latest indictments kind of took the piss out of the Strzok grilling debacle, didn't it?

Seth Abramson believes that, as Trump has known about these indictments for a few days, that some of those involved in the Strzok questioning will have known about them, too, and that the entire point of it was to distract from and preemptively lay the groundwork for discrediting them.

 

[Aridas]

Any of our resident Trump apologists care to step up to the plate and explain how not responding to this is not willful treason? Hmmm? Sorry, not possible.

I'm not a Trump apologist, but... Congress hasn't officially declared it a war, therefore it can't qualify as treason, legally, is probably still in play.

Bear in mind that Stone has now confirmed what we all knew anyway, that he's the person mentioned in this paragraph.

Hmm. It feels like it's a stretch to claim that the quoted quite qualifies for that purpose. Almost, but intentionally a couple hairs short, given potential alternate explanations. It certainly helps lay the groundwork for an actual allegation of knowing conspiracy, on the other hand.

 

[varwoche]

A one-on-one meeting with Putin is highly unusual. Of course, former presidents didn't have a pee tape to worry about.

The chance that we'll ever learn what is said is slim, depending on Putin.

We know what you did, and if it doesn't stop we're going to...

I will absolutely bring that up. I don't think you'll have any, ‘Gee, I did it, I did it, you got me. There won't be a Perry Mason here, I don't think, but you never know what happens, right? But I will absolutely, firmly ask the question, and hopefully we'll have a very good relationship with Russia.

Rest easy. he's going to ask firmly.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

I'm not a Trump apologist, but... Congress hasn't officially declared it a war, therefore it can't qualify as treason, legally, is probably still in play.

The United States Constitution. Article III, section 3 reads as follows: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. ..."

A one-on-one meeting with Putin is highly unusual.

"... No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court."

Now we know why the one-on-one.

 

[Aridas]

The United States Constitution. Article III, section 3 reads as follows: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. ..."

And what counts as an "Enemy?" Putin's our Dear Leader, right?

"... No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court."

Now we know why the one-on-one.

Pssh. Like Trump would care about things like that. Obviously, there's nothing wrong going on there. Just Trump licking Putin's boots to make him not mess with our compromised infrastructure and not wanting the associated headlines that would undermine national security. The same goes for that Republican visit to Russia on July 4th. Those men are heroes who are just sacrificing their image to buy time to find and remove Russia's cyber bombs!

 

[zorro99]

After Trump’s disgraceful press conference today, we can conclude that he is the biggest coward to ever hold the presidency. He says nasty things about people when he is not confronting them face to face, only behind their backs. He is a classical coward.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

What more need be said, after NK, and now this Helsinki press conference, a litany of ill-conceived and barely disguised Russian and alt-right conceits?

Putin's bitch Trump now pole dances under the name Hell Sinky.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

https://twitter.com/RVAwonk/status/1019009094584291328

I wrote this in April, after the GOP-led House intel committee shut down its Russia probe.

Newly important: They refused multiple requests by Dems to interview key NRA/Russia-related witnesses including *Maria Butina*, Alexander Torshin, & Rick Erickson.

https://shareblue.com/house-intelligence-committee-russia-report-nra-trump-campaign/ …

https://twitter.com/DHStokyo/status/1019085132626472961

This, from @RVAwonk, bears repeating.

The Dems asked that Maria Butina be questioned by the House Intel committee.

The GOP, in the majority, refused. They shut down their Russia investigation.

Today's news: "Butina is charged in U.S. with acting as Russian Federation agent"

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

https://twitter.com/RVAwonk/status/1019009094584291328

https://twitter.com/DHStokyo/status/1019085132626472961

I have no idea if they were just being a-holes, but that action certainly makes it look like they were consciously trying to hide something. Maybe not all of them, but enough to convince others it was a good idea to reject the requests.

If "both sides do it", it must mean Democrats are way better at hiding their dirt than Republicans, yet mysteriously can't turn that skill toward obtaining political power. No, at this point, I'd say it's pretty clear that the left side of the U.S. political spectrum is simply less corrupt on the whole. Occam's Razor and all that, you know...

 

[LSSBB]

I have no idea if they were just being a-holes, but that action certainly makes it look like they were consciously trying to hide something. Maybe not all of them, but enough to convince others it was a good idea to reject the requests.

If "both sides do it", it must mean Democrats are way better at hiding their dirt than Republicans, yet mysteriously can't turn that skill toward obtaining political power. No, at this point, I'd say it's pretty clear that the left side of the U.S. political spectrum is simply less corrupt on the whole. Occam's Razor and all that, you know...

Except in Illinois.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Republicans from the House Intelligence Committee stand by their report's conclusion that the US intelligence agencies used improper analytical methods in order to come up with the erroneous conclusion that Putin preferred Trump in the 2016 election, and say that Putin was lying yesterday when he said he did

 

[timhau]

Republicans from the House Intelligence Committee stand by their report's conclusion that the US intelligence agencies used improper analytical methods in order to come up with the erroneous conclusion that Putin preferred Trump in the 2016 election, and say that Putin was lying yesterday when he said he did

Told ya. The DC Chapter of United Russia.

 

[dudalb]

Republicans from the House Intelligence Committee stand by their report's conclusion that the US intelligence agencies used improper analytical methods in order to come up with the erroneous conclusion that Putin preferred Trump in the 2016 election, and say that Putin was lying yesterday when he said he did

"Treason never prospers
and what's the reason?
If it prospers
None dare call it treason".

 

[eeyore1954]

The United States Constitution. Article III, section 3 reads as follows: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. ..."



"... No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court."

Now we know why the one-on-one.

If you honestly believe what President Trump did yesterday was treason I believe your judgement is clouded by hate for him.

Do you think Russia was not an enemy of the US when President Obama said "more flexibility after the elections" but they are now? Or was that also an act of treason.

 

[Cleon]

"Enemies" means wartime, not every country that we might consider a geopolitical adversary at the time.

So no, Trump didn't commit treason no matter how much smoke he blew up Putin's ass.

It's a good thing that the definition of treason is so strict. It prevents political abuse of the crime of treason and legal nightmares developing from changing international political winds.

 

[Aridas]

"Enemies" means wartime, not every country that we might consider a geopolitical adversary at the time.

So no, Trump didn't commit treason no matter how much smoke he blew up Putin's ass.

It's a good thing that the definition of treason is so strict. It prevents political abuse of the crime of treason and legal nightmares developing from changing international political winds.

Legally for the US, at least. I agree that it's a good thing to have the standards that high, for that matter. On the other hand, there's an absurdly high chance that Trump's actions did, in fact, meet the normal usage of the term.

 

[LSSBB]

If you honestly believe what President Trump did yesterday was treason I believe your judgement is clouded by hate for him.

Do you think Russia was not an enemy of the US when President Obama said "more flexibility after the elections" but they are now? Or was that also an act of treason.

What Trump did was capitulate to a foreign power that launched an attack on our Democratic institutions. It is an abdication of his responsibility to defend our nation.

 

[Cleon]

What Trump did was capitulate to a foreign power that launched an attack on our Democratic institutions. It is an abdication of his responsibility to defend our nation.

Perhaps. But it's not treason, and unless Congress stands up to him it's his legal right to do it.

The impeachment process was put into the constitution under the assumption that Congress wouldn't be ok with a corrupt President whose primary allegiance seems to be to a foreign power.

That appears to be a faulty assumption on the Founders' part.

 

[Segnosaur]

If you honestly believe what President Trump did yesterday was treason I believe your judgement is clouded by hate for him.

Not sure what your claim is here.

Are you arguing that what Trump did just wasn't that bad, or that it was bad but it just doesn't fit the textbook definition of "treason"?

Do you think Russia was not an enemy of the US when President Obama said "more flexibility after the elections" but they are now? Or was that also an act of treason.

There is nothing wrong with engaging in negotiations between political leaders, or even making deals with people who might otherwise be opponents. There IS something wrong with excessive praise and/or deference from one leader to another.