|
Post by robeiae on Jul 10, 2017 11:38:59 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. What treason? Are we just throwing that word out now, just because someone says "Russian"? What collusion? She's a private lawyer, not a KGB agent or former KGB agent (as far as we know, of course). The infamous Trump dossier was compiled by an actual former agent (British) at the behest of a group--Fusion GPS--that was funded my Dem and Repub alike. Is there treason in there somewhere? Collusion? Opposition research is actually a legitimate thing, even in junior high politics. And I think that if this very same woman had told people associated with Clinton that she had some damaging info on Trump, they would have met with her in a heartbeat. Ditto for the teams of every Presidential candidate since...well, forever. Taking a meeting with someone like her isn't collusion, much less treason. It's not even in the ballpark. Nothing in the NYT story comes close to making this case at all.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2017 15:09:42 GMT -5
I'm busy today, but for now -- As experts on both side of the aisle have said, this is not business as usual and it is absolutely not the case that campaigns will use any illicit thing they can find. When someone sent Gore's team a copy of the Bush debate book, the Gore team called the FBI. www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/2000/11/06/fbi-quietly-hunts-solution-to-mystery-of-debate-tape/d901a505-6f44-4913-9dab-586d154d4081/?utm_term=.6427e60e565dThat's what you do when a foreign agent offers you dirt on your opponent or someone offers you something that was clearly obtained illicitly -- call the FBI. This is not something they happened to dig up by "opposition research". This is something offered by a foreign entity that was obtained illicitly. The Russian in question -- how would she have obtained dirt on Clinton that no one else apparently had uncovered? Either spying or hacking. and as to whether she was connected with the Russian government -- take a look at the Twitter thread I attached -- Trump Jr. Almost certainly had reason to know she was connected to the Russian government. Then there is the question of why she would want to supply it to the Trump team. Any good, innocent explanation you can think of? All I can think of is that the Russian hoped to gain something in return for supplying the alleged dirt. Say, favorable policy treatment by Trump once in office? By Trump Jr.'s own statement, he met with her to get dirt on Clinton and stayed to talk about Russian policy. As far as whether that's OK or not... punditfact/statements/2017/may/31/gregg-jarrett/fox-news-hosts-wrong-no-law-forbids-russia-trump-c/ First the Trump campaign denies the Russians did anything. Then they deny they had any contact with them. More and more info trickles out showing both assertions are totally untrue. Meanwhile Trump fires and smears the FBI director investigating it, is suspiciously chummy with Putin and to Putin's interests... (Again, read the Twitter thread I posted.) It stinks to high heaven. But even taking that aside and just taking what Trump Jr. acknowledged -- really? You think it's business as usual and perfectly kosher to take hacked dirt on a political opponent from a foreign entity? What exactly would have to happen for you to deem it collusion or even, say, problematic? (That's a serious question, btw -- what's your threshold for it to be collusion (or illegal or fraudulent or something else where someone should get in actual trouble. Taking the facts we have -- what is missing? Have we even reached the stage where you think it's worth investigating and not just a fantasy? Serious question.) And please. A spy giving a potentially explosive foreign dossier to the U.S. government is not the same thing as a political candidate secretly meeting with a foreign entity to obtain such information. If offered such info, the proper thing to do is what the Gore camp did -- call the FBI.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Jul 10, 2017 16:33:10 GMT -5
Someone who happens to be Russian is not a de facto foreign agent. And when people say "the Russians" with reference to Trump, I've always assumed that term referred to the Russian government. And fyi, that British spy was paid by a private entity--Fusion GPS--to prepare that dossier, which was then leaked to the media, obviously at the behest of Dems and maybe some Repubs. It was a pretty low down thing to do, but then, that's politics. What do we have here? Members of the Trump team took a meeting with someone who claimed to have info on Clinton. It looks like she was full of crap and didn't have any real info, whatsoever. There's no claim (or evidence) that this meating led to anything, that the Trump team took any action because of it. And this was back in June of 2016, before Trump was even the actual nominee. And that equals "collusion"? How? What would it take for me to say "ah, collusion"? Well at the very least they're need to be some actual evidence of some sort of quid pro quo between people on Trump's team and people who could be shown to be actual agents of the Russian government. This "investigation" has been going for over half a year. The NYT "breaks" a story about a 20 minute meaning between a Russian lawyer and Donald Trump Jr.--from over a year ago--that apparently went absolutely nowhere. Yet, people are acting like this story is a Big Deal, that it proves something. It proves nothing. It suggests almost nothing. Imo, the problem with much of the media--and a fair chunk of the population--is that they're only interested in stories that might possibly lead to Trump getting kicked out of office. It's not enough for a story to make Trump--or someone close to him--look bad, anymore. It has to be something bordering on treason or at least unprecedentedly bad. Look at this thread--that I started--that is highly critical of Trump: thecollinegate.boards.net/thread/641/grifterOkay, I don't say "OMG, Trump should be impeached!" but it's a real story, imo, one that makes Trump look really bad. Forbes ran the story, but since it came out, it's had almost no legs (much like my thread). I think there's plenty of room for more digging there, more analysis of other Trump family members' foundation, and so forth. But it's unlikely to lead to some sort of high crimes and misdemeanors moment. So it's mostly ignored. And this "impeachment or nothing" mindset is producing a lot of breathless omg moments in the stories that seem to have legs, even though these stories are filled mostly with just unproven conjectures and assertions. Like this NYT one. I mean, it goes into the Russian hacking allegations again, which it fails to link to the topic of its story, apart from the word "Russian."
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Jul 10, 2017 18:56:50 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. What treason? Are we just throwing that word out now, just because someone says "Russian"? What collusion? She's a private lawyer, not a KGB agent or former KGB agent (as far as we know, of course). The infamous Trump dossier was compiled by an actual former agent (British) at the behest of a group--Fusion GPS--that was funded my Dem and Repub alike. Is there treason in there somewhere? Collusion? Opposition research is actually a legitimate thing, even in junior high politics. And I think that if this very same woman had told people associated with Clinton that she had some damaging info on Trump, they would have met with her in a heartbeat. Ditto for the teams of every Presidential candidate since...well, forever. Taking a meeting with someone like her isn't collusion, much less treason. It's not even in the ballpark. Nothing in the NYT story comes close to making this case at all. You do like your little hypothetical scenarios, don't you? Unfortunately, this lame attempt at "both sides do it" is based upon an assumption: there's dirt out there on Trump which had it been found, would surely have sunk his presidential campaign. Which is possible, but unlikely, since Trump not only survived the "grab 'em by the pussy" scandal, he thrived and is nursing a big-ass grudge against any Republican politician who criticized him about it. Opposition research is legitimate, but what's not entirely legitimate is trying to extract it from a foreign national. It opens one up to the possibility a quid pro quo could be exchanged and that could open up Donny Jr. to the possibility of being compromised or blackmailed.Yes, it would be a gleeful moment to see Donny Jr. and Donny Sr. both perp-walked in cuffs rocking matching orange jumpsuits. And yes, I know it's never gonna happen. But I'm still throwing the penalty flag on your tedious attempt to split the difference between Trump and Clinton and claim there is no difference. This is yet the latest installment in the never-ending saga of your undying Hillary Hate. And for what? She lost and Trump won. Her political career is finished. No need to keep up with this cliched line of " But...what about Hillary?" Yes, yes, we know for you Hillary Rodham Clinton is the devil in the flesh. You hate her stinkin' guts and so does that stubby-fingered tube steak you follow on Twitter and both of y'all need to let that shit go already. Pick up your winnings and cash out. Someone who happens to be Russian is not a de facto foreign agent. And when people say "the Russians" with reference to Trump, I've always assumed that term referred to the Russian government. And fyi, that British spy was paid by a private entity--Fusion GPS--to prepare that dossier, which was then leaked to the media, obviously at the behest of Dems and maybe some Repubs. It was a pretty low down thing to do, but then, that's politics. What do we have here? Members of the Trump team took a meeting with someone who claimed to have info on Clinton. It looks like she was full of crap and didn't have any real info, whatsoever. There's no claim (or evidence) that this meating led to anything, that the Trump team took any action because of it. And this was back in June of 2016, before Trump was even the actual nominee. And that equals "collusion"? How? What would it take for me to say "ah, collusion"? Well at the very least they're need to be some actual evidence of some sort of quid pro quo between people on Trump's team and people who could be shown to be actual agents of the Russian government. This "investigation" has been going for over half a year. The NYT "breaks" a story about a 20 minute meaning between a Russian lawyer and Donald Trump Jr.--from over a year ago--that apparently went absolutely nowhere. Yet, people are acting like this story is a Big Deal, that it proves something. It proves nothing. It suggests almost nothing. Imo, the problem with much of the media--and a fair chunk of the population--is that they're only interested in stories that might possibly lead to Trump getting kicked out of office. It's not enough for a story to make Trump--or someone close to him--look bad, anymore. It has to be something bordering on treason or at least unprecedentedly bad. Look at this thread--that I started--that is highly critical of Trump: thecollinegate.boards.net/thread/641/grifterOkay, I don't say "OMG, Trump should be impeached!" but it's a real story, imo, one that makes Trump look really bad. Forbes ran the story, but since it came out, it's had almost no legs (much like my thread). I think there's plenty of room for more digging there, more analysis of other Trump family members' foundation, and so forth. But it's unlikely to lead to some sort of high crimes and misdemeanors moment. So it's mostly ignored. And this "impeachment or nothing" mindset is producing a lot of breathless omg moments in the stories that seem to have legs, even though these stories are filled mostly with just unproven conjectures and assertions. Like this NYT one. I mean, it goes into the Russian hacking allegations again, which it fails to link to the topic of its story, apart from the word "Russian." Why is something "a real story" because you agreed with it and reposted it? We just spent eight pages and a ton of posts over a racist shitposting troll and a third-place news network. Was that a "real" story? No, no, and hell to the no. But it was an INTERESTING story and those are the kinds of stories people (and posters) gravitate to. I'm not saying it's right. I'm saying that's how it goes. Whether or not Donny-Boy Jr. meeting up with some slick Russian hustler, means a thing, maybe there's something there and maybe there's not. Let find out before we declare it an act of treason or a cold nothingburger. We've certainly seen serious investigations into more trivial matters. What makes this newsworthy, it Donny-Boy Jr's backdoor dealings with a Russian citizen fits into a running narrative of odd and surreptitious contacts, meetings, deals and other shenanigans between Team Trump and the Russians.Since you like "ifs" so much, robeiae, here's one for you. IF this same sort of sketchy stuff had occurred during the Obama Presidency, both Republican-controlled houses of Congress would have launched round-the-clock, 7-days-a-week, we-never-sleep inquiries, subpoenas, and hearings. The GOP would be up Obama's ass like Charmin. Or maybe McConnell and Ryan would skip the dog and pony show and go directly to introducing Articles of Impeachment. Because I'm not the only one with happy fantasies of seeing a hated figure being frog-walked in leg chains by federal marshals.
|
|
|
Post by poetinahat on Jul 10, 2017 19:56:16 GMT -5
Question: If the issue is whether the Trump team did it, and that question is still unanswered, why should a hypothetical about the Clinton team be raised first? Who's under investigation here anyway?
It's amazing to me that, eight months after the election, no matter what Trump's folks are accused of, Clinton's folks always end up having to defend first.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2017 20:25:57 GMT -5
Breaking: Don Jr.was informed in an email prior to the meeting that the information was part of an effort by the Russian government to aid Trump's candidacy. www.nytimes.com/2017/07/10/us/politics/donald-trump-jr-russia-email-candidacy.html?smprod=nytcore-iphone&smid=nytcore-iphone-share(Yes! Yet another breathless NYT story! It's a new one.) As to the quid pro quo, it hasn't struck you that Trump is awfully cozy towards Russia with regard to sanctions? That Trump Jr. acknowledged that the Russian lawyer talked about a policy they wanted changed? It doesn't strike you that Trump Jr. agreeing to meet with the agent to receive info gathered by the Russian government to help Trump's campaign showed, at the very least, a willingness to bargain with them? That it opened them up to blackmail? Gathering opposition research is normal for a political campaign. Meeting covertly with an agent of a foreign enemy government to obtain it? And then "forgetting" about the meeting? Not normal. Definitely not normal. And so say a lot of "breathless" Republicans as well as Democrats.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2017 20:58:06 GMT -5
By the way, one notable silence so far: the National Review. After every little breathless bombshell, right up until the Don Jr. story, they promptly put out a "it might be a bit sketchy, but it's still not collusion" opinion. But this time, radio silence. Radio silence from the National Review altogether so far. Jonah Goldberg's retweeted this, though: ETA: I guess time will tell, but I think this story is the real deal, that it has legs, and that some people are going down. Maybe even Trump -- though not until Mueller has had a chance to look into it all. Watergate didn't happen overnight, either. ETA: OK, I take it back about NR. They did cover it; they just didn't do a prominent "no collusion here, folks" story on their main page, as they did previously. When I searched for collusion, I found that Rich Lowry did put out two very short pieces. The second one came out this morning (before the news emerged that Don Jr. got an email telling him the info was part of the Russian government's efforts to help his father's campaign): www.nationalreview.com/corner/449347/donald-trump-jr-russia-meetingI'll be interested to see what NR says tomorrow. Whatever they say, though, I am betting Trump Jr. at least is going under the bus.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2017 7:13:17 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2017 7:34:16 GMT -5
Great lawfare piece. lawfareblog.com/wall-begins-crumble-notes-collusionAnd yes, I checked the news first thing this morning, before doing anything else. I am doubling down -- I think this is a big deal. ETA: Anyone else glued to the news? Anyone else here think this is the new Watergate?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2017 9:57:56 GMT -5
Ah, Jonah Golberg of National Review has broken his (relative) silence. And he says, basically, that we can't just dismiss the story or defend anyone -- we can only wait and see what Mueller (who must have much greater knowledge) does. amp.nationalreview.com/corner/449366/donald-trump-jr-russia-why-not-just-wait-and-seeQuite true and fair enough -- no one is going to be dragged off in shackles purely on the basis of NYTimes stories, and nothing is going to happen overnight.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2017 10:11:41 GMT -5
Former Watergate assistant special prosecutor Jill Wine-Banks: "it looks like clear proof of collusion." /video/1
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2017 10:25:17 GMT -5
Breaking: the New York times has published Don Jr.'s email exchange with the Russian lawyer. I can't cut and paste, but basically: she I have info collected by Russian gov't as part of effort to help your father's campaign." Don Jr: "Love it! Bring it on." Read: www.nytimes.com/2017/07/11/us/politics/trump-russia-email-clinton.htmlETA: Donald Trump Jr. has released them on Twitter! I suspect that he calculates being brash about this will make his base say "it must be fine or he wouldn't release the emails!" (which, of course, were bound to be released regardless, since the NYTimes has them). This won't impress Mueller, but alas, likely will work on the Trump fan club. As a lawyer, I opine they are damning.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2017 10:46:05 GMT -5
Note this line: "I can also send this info to your father via Rhona, but it is ultra sensitive so wanted to send to you first." and didn't Don Jr. say Jared and Manafort knew nothing about who they were meeting and why? They are cc'd. They all knew -- this was info from the Russian gov't compiled as part of a larger effort to help Trump's campaign. I am indeed breathless.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2017 11:16:45 GMT -5
Put all of this into context with Trump and his administration's statements and actions over the last few months -- from their denials that the Russians meddled in the election to their covert meetings with Russians they conveniently forgot to Mike Flynn to firing Comey...
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Jul 11, 2017 11:41:10 GMT -5
Donald Trump Jr. releases email chainIsn't this... a stunningly bad idea? Question for Cass: while it's sleazy as hell, is there an actual crime here? Question for Rob: Is "Yeah, but Clinton" still the best you've got here? Question for celaw: Still an admirer of Trump's fresh, feisty, fearlessness? ETA: !%#$@ Once again, could not see there was already a second page in this thread.
|
|