|
Post by Optimus on Jul 11, 2017 18:00:35 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2017 18:19:33 GMT -5
As I said above, if Clinton did what Trump's campaign did, it was equally problematic -- except that Hillary didn't win and isn't president, so our ferreting it out and figuring out whether she did something criminal or just plain sleazy isn't nearly the same priority as figuring out whether the oval office and west wing is stuffed with criminals, traitors, and/or sleazebags. I confess I know little about the Clinton Ukraine story. I'll see what I can find. This slate article, FWIW, makes the case that it is not at all the same thing. www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2017/07/11/did_the_clinton_campaign_collude_with_ukraine.htmlE.g.,
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Jul 11, 2017 18:28:38 GMT -5
Whoa, slow down there fireball. I was simply, in a slightly tongue-in-cheek manner, responding to Amadan's request for the "but what about Clinton?" question. I was mostly joking, so retract your claws.
The first victim of your fervor over this Jr. story seems to have been your sense of humor (and irony, apparently).
I honestly don't care about Clinton/Ukraine, however, I will say that the two situations are similar in a few key ways and if this is something that is worthy of investigating Trump for because he's Prez, I doubt the Republicans wouldn't be trying to make a thing out of it if Clinton had won.
But, given that Trump is President, I absolutely agree that his situation is much more serious than anything with Clinton/Ukraine.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2017 18:40:42 GMT -5
It wasn't claws, pumpkin. I genuinely don't know much about the Clinton story so am not at all in a position to evaluate it, except to say that (a) if she colluded with a foreign gov't, I'm happy to kick her for it, and I'm interested in learning more, and ((b) My usual "But Trump Is President." If she did the same thing, it doesn't in the least excuse Trump, but that doesn't mean it's irrelevant.
|
|
|
Post by mikey on Jul 11, 2017 19:56:55 GMT -5
Hello folks, first post here. Hoping I'm not stepping into a lions (lioness?) den, but here's my toes.
I was curious as to where the NYT come up with Jr's e-mail. Was it a Russian hack?
Seriously, how does a news agency come up with someones e-mails?
Mike
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2017 20:59:46 GMT -5
Mike, welcome! I gave you a "welcome" karma point for jumping into this crazy thread for a first post!
I've also been wondering who the sources were -- the New York Times said it was three people with direct knowledge of the meeting. And I doubt very much they needed to do any hacking.
Since they obtained a copy of the email, my guess is that at least one of the three sources was connected to either the Russian attorney, to that Rob Goldstone tabloid clown, or was perhaps someone who worked at Trump tower and had access to Jared, Don Jr., or Manafort's emails.
Any of those seems quite plausible to me. If Goldstone forwarded the chain to the Russian attorney, the Russians might have leaked it. Their goal might not be so much to have Trump in power as to destabilize the U.S.
Goldstone is obviously indiscreet and careless, or he never would have put this into an email to begin with. And not hard for me to picture a Trump Tower admin getting hold of it. A quick forward, and zing! The press has a copy.
So I don't think any hacking would be necessary -- just carelessness and/or tattling.
If I were a betting woman, I'd guess someone on the tabloid end is in there among the sources for sure, and a Russian, too.
Pro tip: If you are going to do something illicit, NEVER put it in an email! It's not just hacking you need to worry about. You really have no control of whether the recipient forwards it or to whom, and who they might give access to. If you must collude, do so in person, in a place you know is wiretap free!
Better yet, of course, don't collude.
ETA:
Then, too, it appears the White House itself is riddled with leakers. Easy to see a rogue staffer getting access to emails. They seem awfully disorganized over there, and loyalty to the Trump regime does not seem to be a given...
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Jul 11, 2017 22:51:18 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. Congratulations! You assumed correctly. ....the email exchanges, which were reviewed by The Times, offer a detailed unspooling of how the meeting with the Kremlin-connected Russian lawyer, Natalia Veselnitskaya, came about — and just how eager Donald Trump Jr. was to accept what he was explicitly told was the Russian government’s help.As low down as colluding with a foreign--and hostile--power that has a vested interest in helping yo daddy winning the White House?The June 3, 2016, email sent to Donald Trump Jr. could hardly have been more explicit: One of his father’s former Russian business partners had been contacted by a senior Russian government official and was offering to provide the Trump campaign with dirt on Hillary Clinton.
The documents “would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father,” read the email, written by a trusted intermediary, who added, “This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump.” The documents “would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father,” read the email, written by a trusted intermediary, who added, “This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump.”The documents “would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father,” read the email, written by a trusted intermediary, who added, “This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump.”The documents “would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father,” read the email, written by a trusted intermediary, who added, “This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump.”The documents “would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father,” read the email, written by a trusted intermediary, who added, “This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump.”Say it with me. Collusion. C-O-L-L-U-S-I-O-N. Ah, it's like music when you say it. But...but what about Hillary?
|
|
|
Post by michaelw on Jul 12, 2017 4:37:48 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 12, 2017 8:11:19 GMT -5
I'm not surprised there's some disagreement -- the standard is rather fuzzy. Note that none of them think "pfft, this was fine." My own opinion is that the plain, acknowledged facts in and around the email are pretty damning, but when you consider it in context with other events and statements, with the likelihood that we almost certainly do not know everything or even close to everything, with the fact that these folks have a history of dubious conduct, that they did not expect to win this election and so likley were careless, and when you consider that there is no reason at all at this point that we should trust Don Jr. et al. on anything (e.g., why believe the Russian attorney gave them nothing?)... I think Don Jr., sooner or later, goes down for something (as the articles in this thread note, there are a few options), and I wouldn't give Jared long odds of staying in the White House. And I find it very hard to believe, just from what we know already, that Trump himself is not in it neck-deep. If the NYTimes has this, Mueller has more. And this investigation isn't going anywhere any time soon. Notice how veeeeeeerrrrry quiet Pence has been...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 12, 2017 8:35:35 GMT -5
I don't generally watch Fox news, so I'm relying on thus article and some Twitter comments by people I think reliable for this, but with that caveat... t.co/zii4SBc60q?amp=1Fox News's coverage of this story LEFT OUT the critical bit of Don Jr.'s email chain about the info being from Russian government, who wanted to help Trump. An edited version of the email was used, and no mention made of that part of the email. And that, boys and girls, is why people who rely solely on Fox News have a different view of the world than the rest of us. ETA: The last sentence of this tweet of Trump's just now is wonderful: Sources say he's been glued to the TV. But never mind, taking that aside, can you imagine any other president just deciding to announce such a thing, not in answer to a question, but just to say it? (Also, take a look at the responses to his tweets for evidence of why this investigation has to be rock solid and as thorough as possible. Some wingnut types wouldn't believe anything against Trump regardless, but we need it to be coralled off into just the extreme wingnuts. We need belt and suspenders, incontrovertible evidence of yuuuuge wrongdoing -- more than for Nixon. ) ETA: Apropos of nothing, my favorite nickname for Don Jr., by far, is Ana Navarro's. She calls him "Trumpito." It's not ugly-sounding -- it sounds almost like an endearment -- and yet the underlying disdain is perfectly clear. I think it's the Spanish thing.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 12, 2017 11:23:51 GMT -5
(Am I the only one totally obsessed with this story?)
Here's the thing about the "this is very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government's support for Trump" line:
It isn't just that it demonstrates conclusively that Trumpito, Jared, and Manafort expected (and welcomed) this Russian lawyer to provide info from the Russian government at this one meeting.
Look at Trumpito's response -- he is not at all surprised that the Russian government wants to help his Dad. He isn't all "really?! wtf, the Russians want to help my dad?". Moreover, he doesn't say "'part of'?! you mean there's more? there's an even larger effort for the Russian to assist my dad's campaign?"
No surprise at all. Which implies very, very strongly he knew already that the Russian government was working to help the campaign. Which means -- this is the top of the iceberg.
I mean, if this came out of the clear blue sky, wouldn't you be surprised?
Also -- that line about Rhona implies that stuff from this effort has previously been sent to Trump Sr. via Rhona, or at the very least, it would come as no surprise to Trump Sr. to receive such info. Implication: Trump Sr. knew about the effort.
As far as what the info actually was, we have no reason at all to trust Don Jr. on this. Come on. What we do know is that 40 minutes after this meeting, Trump tweeted about Hillary's 33,000 emails. (will provide tweet later when I have time to dig it up again, but this is a fact.) Trump was in the building at the time of the meeting. Really? He didn't go? They never told him? The tweet is coincidence?
And that "later in the summer" line -- to me, this sounds like his suggested timing for the Russians (via wikileaks?) to leak info (the emails?).
To me, the email strongly implies it is part of a larger, ongoing plan, not just an isolated thing.
I hasten to add that I think it damning even if it was an isolated thing.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Jul 12, 2017 12:09:28 GMT -5
I think it is damning.
I also think it will go nowhere. It's questionable whether any law has technically been violated, and none of Trump's supporters or the "But Clinton" fence-straddlers will be persuaded.
You see Watergate in the making - I think you are being optimistic.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 12, 2017 13:26:59 GMT -5
And only time will tell which of us is right. I totally see where you're coming from. I just hope I'm right!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 12, 2017 14:43:32 GMT -5
Hello folks, first post here. Hoping I'm not stepping into a lions (lioness?) den, but here's my toes. I was curious as to where the NYT come up with Jr's e-mail. Was it a Russian hack? Seriously, how does a news agency come up with someones e-mails? Mike (Hey people! say hi to Mike, our newbie!) Mikey, was reading today that someone within the White House provided the email to the NYT. Some speculation that it was someone higher up, too -- not just a low-level staffer, but someone with firsthand knowledge of the meeting and the email. If true, wow. Just wow. I can think of a million ways that email could get to the press (really, NEVER put anything incriminating in an email!), but that is the most eye-opening one.
|
|
|
Post by mikey on Jul 12, 2017 15:00:01 GMT -5
Hello everybody (waves) The most heart-felt thing I've got to say to all this is "yes Maxamus,I am entertained, very entertained" www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbBiXPVKuTABTW cassandra, thanks for the welcome and the karma
|
|