Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2017 17:38:54 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Jul 9, 2017 18:05:19 GMT -5
I think the NYT website blocks copy/paste on everything. I've never been able to do it with any of their stories.
And, what point of sketchy shit and probable collusion do we have to reach for the Republicans to finally give a shit and do something about it?
Nixon was impeached for much less.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2017 18:15:13 GMT -5
I regret to say that I think it might take a huge stock market implosion.
It will be very interesting to see what Mueller comes up with -- this is apparently not a Mueller leak, and I am guessing he has a lot more. He is hiring quite a number of excellent prosecutors...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2017 18:22:14 GMT -5
(video at the link)
Hey, but what would you expect out of a crazy liberal...
Oh. Never mind.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2017 18:39:57 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2017 18:45:27 GMT -5
And, by the way, Donald Trump Senior was at Trump Tower that day.
Oh, but, hey, Donald Jr didn't tell him about the meeting. I mean, he didn't even tell Jared and Manafort it was going to involve a Russian dropping Clinton dirt and discussing Russian policy, so why tell his father? I mean, it's not like it had anything to do with him, right?
Nope. Nothing to see here.
|
|
|
Post by michaelw on Jul 9, 2017 19:21:47 GMT -5
Yeah, the idea that this meeting took place without Trump knowing about it seems--while theoretically possible--not very probable, to say the least.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2017 19:26:26 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2017 19:32:56 GMT -5
Yeah, the idea that this meeting took place without Trump knowing about it seems--while theoretically possible--not very probable, to say the least. It was supposed to be a birthday surprise for Daddy. I can just imagine Donny Jr. and wee Jared the next morning tiptoeing up to the elevator in their footie pajamas with a plate of crooked, burnt pancakes and some fresh Russian dirt on Clinton. And then their poor little disappointed faces when the dirt was no good and they only got to liaise inappropriately on foreign policy behind the sitting president's back.
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Jul 9, 2017 20:40:37 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2017 20:46:25 GMT -5
It's as though he thinks it's perfectly fine that he went into the meeting with the intent of obtaining information the Russians obtained by spying/hacking, as long as he didn't actually successfully obtain it.
This is what happens when you repeatedly stiff your lawyers and so can't get a good one anymore.
Quite seriously, as a lawyer, I don't see how Trump Jr. doesn't go down for this. It's a question of who he brings down with him.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2017 21:05:34 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Jul 10, 2017 8:23:04 GMT -5
From the NYT piece (not sure why you guys can't cut and paste; probably some sort of conspiracy): So if I'm following here, Trump people met with a big-shot who claimed to have damaging info on Clinton. Question: would Clinton people have met with a big-shot who claimed to have damaging info on Trump?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2017 8:32:34 GMT -5
If they did, it would also be bad.
Is your implication that anyone would commit treason* if it might give them an advantage, or just that the Clinton campaign would?
This is not a big nothing burger. It's damning.
Here is a fantastic (and quite long) Twitter thread breaking down and giving context to the Trump Jr. et al. meeting with the Russian agent. Really worth reading.
*ETA:
To be fair: I admit that line was a bit of hyperbole on my part, since this may not amount to actual "treason", despite what Bush's former ethics lawyers said. Article III defines treason against the United States to consist in levying war against it or in giving aid or comfort to its enemies.
It is, however, collusion, and it's seriously skanky.
ETA:
My answer, by the way, to the "wouldn't the Clinton campaign have done it?" question:
(1) it wouldn't surprise me much if someone involved somewhere with her campaign at a lower level, was skanky enough to think it a good idea. However, it would surprise me yuuuugely if Clinton or the higher level people on her campaign did. Why? Because she's a damn fine lawyer, and she'd know just how bad it is to do it, and how serious the consequences, and how likely it would become known. She's pragmatic, and it wouldn't be worth the risk. Moreover, everyone, including her, thought she was headed for a big win. Not to mention there was so much dirt on Trump anyway, right out there in the open. No. I don't think Clinton would have done this -- purely on pragmatic grounds, if nothing else.
(2) Even if you assume the Clinton campaign was corrupt enough to consider it, (a) no evidence they did so, (b) she's (unfortunately) not the damn president, so not nearly as consequential, and most importantly, (c) even if her campaign did it, it would not make it OK that the Trump campaign did it. It would just mean they both sucked. It wouldn't cancel it out and make it inconsequential.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2017 9:08:19 GMT -5
|
|