Maybe if they had said "Hey Trump Jr, we the Russian gov't have information illegally hacked from the democrats to give to you" and then they accepted that information and didn't tell anyone we might have the case so many are desperate to make.
Did you not read the emails Trump Jr. posted? The woman who contacted Trump Jr. explicitly said:
1. She was representing the Russian government in contacting him. 2. The Russian government supported the Trump campaign. 3. They had information on the Democrats. 4. They wanted to give it to the Trump campaign to help them win.
At which point
5. Trump Jr. said he would love to have that information.
And no,
6. He did not tell anyone about this whole affair. He didn't even mention it until the New York Times exposed it, months after it happened.
Personally, I'm not sure this woman was really affiliated with the Russian government, so I agree with your end conclusion about this episode. But you just proposed six separate criteria that would give us "the case so many are desperate to make," and Trump Jr.'s own emails, posted publicly on Twitter, satisfy every single one.
In terms of goal posts, the claim has always been, at least from my point of view and correct me if I am wrong, that the Trump campaign was in some way knowingly involved with an illegal hack on the DNC by Russian agents.
I believe you are wrong about this, yes. I accept that you have frequently suggested this is the view of others, but I'm not sure that anyone else contributing to this thread has actually said that is their view.
Accepting an offer to listen to information offered another country, as the son of a politician, or even as a politician, isn't illegal,
As I said earlier that is your opinion, but it's clear that many people don't share that opinion - the issues are briefly covered here. As has been pointed out several times recently it is against the law to plan to break the law. Soliciting something of value from foreign sources is against campaign finance law whether or not something of value is actually obtained. The only possible defense to this charge would seem to be that the information sought was not in fact of any value, but personally I think that is a very weak defense and a court would be highly likely to find the actions were illegal (if the matter ever came to court).
As the left subverted democracy this election cycle quite knowingly without the help of foriegn agents you have to wonder how concerned the most well known Trump/Russia propagandists are with election integrity in the first place and how concerned they are about covering up their own lack of it.
What does this refer to? I'm of course aware of Trump's claims about millions of illegal votes being cast, but is there a credible story about election wrongdoing by the Democrats that I've missed?
The only election fraud reported I recall hearing about were Trump supporters who desperately wanted Trump to win because they believed Trump or right wing propaganda that teh illegals were voting or whatever.
So that's why they voted twice or voted for their dead spouse etc.
Plenty of examples posted earlier in this thread. Here's the main one I remember.
Ex-Colo. GOP leader who said "only Democrats committed voter fraud" is charged with voter fraud. He used his ex-wife's mail in ballot after she'd moved because he assumed she wouldn't vote. When she did go to vote she was denied because they said she'd already voted. She called bs and investigation come to find out her ex-husband had voted for her.
To me if there is voter fraud why have some jackass vote twice or whatever easily detectable just have the machines do it for you, they don't keep paper ballots, the software is locked and uninspectable. I suspect this is more realistic for our Republicans dominated states to do.
You know pre-emptively cheat because they KNOW the Democrats are doing it. But they aren't and the only one cheating is you.
Look, first off, the DNC, AT WORST, was guilty of having one person tell Hillary Clinton there was going to be a question about the death penalty in a debate in advance, and scheduled the debates on nights when it was likely fewer people would watch. No delegates were changed, no vote totals were messed with. The DNC and Podesta emails were nothing but the equivalent of a gossip column.
But furthermore, I don't know how to tell people this, but the Democratic (and Republican) Party are individual organziations and are not subject to the same rules as a general election. They can align and set their delegate rules the way they see fit. And you know who doesn't get to decide what those rules should be?? People who aren't Democrats. You won't see me going around telling Republicans how to run their primary, because I'm not a Republican. I don't walk into an El Zagal meeting on Wednesday night telling them how to run their pancake feed, because I'm not a Shriner.
There are people here who have flat-out stated they wouldn't have voted for Hillary OR Bernie simply concern trolling about the fate of two candidates they didn't even support, as if they cared what the outcome was. If you have a problem with how the Democrats ran their primary, join the party and attend local meetings to voice your opinion. Or don't.
I've gone into in-depth reasons as to why Bernie lost the primary, and virtually none of it was because of the DNC, who isn't nearly as powerful or influential as eveveryone seems to think. Nor is the RNC.
I've had a fun morning reading up on election interference issues in the US, which will no doubt be a topic of future debate. As a result of that reading I thought it would be worth making one addendum to my previous post about Donald Trump Jr. That relates to the idea some commentators are putting forward that the First Amendment would protect his actions. Personally I think that would have virtually no chance of success in court.
The reason for that view goes right back to the founding of the US when the constitution reflected considerable concerns about the possibility of foreign influence. Those concerns have persisted throughout the history of the US and remain a significant influence on political and legal decision making today. As a result, even in a Republican dominated Supreme Court, I would expect judges to respect the constitutional principles against foreign interference, even if that meant a marginal curtailing of First Amendment rights.
On a different topic I also came across a couple of mentions of LOBO loans this morning. That's another in the long line of examples where some major financial institutions appear to have acted in their own interests rather than those of their customer. While not a well-known issue it's of interest to me because I work in a local authority (which does have a few of these loans, though to date none of those have seen changes in interest rates). Here's an article if anyone wants to find out more.
The story as I see it is that Hilary Clinton needed an excuse for losing and the actual, proven, and rampant election interference coordinated on her behalf so she blamed the Russians because of Wikileaks and now the left is stuck defending something they never should have doubled down on and if they just had the ability to find fault with their own they could have just shut her down on this topic because, frankly, its all been a behind-covering ruse from the start.
There are legitimate issues with Trump, but this Russia stuff is not one of them and isn't ever going to amount to anything.
There is quite a bit of spurious logic here.
Yes, Hilary Clinton wanted an excuse for loosing, and is clearly personally unable to accept that she was just a horribly bad candidate. And yes, if the Democrats hadn't had so many dirty secrets it would have been much harder to influence the outcome.
- but this does not imply that Russia did not try to influence the election. The Russians certainly tried to influence the French election, and only tight co-ordination between the French intelligence services and the judiciary prevented the release of Russian-concocted fake news. The Germans are currently putting a lot of effort into trying to shield their upcoming election from Russian interference.
- but this does not mean that the election would not have had the same result even without Russian interference.
The Russians have always been keen players in "The Great Game", and personally I don't hold that against them. They are simply trying to advance their own interests, and playing smarter than other countries. (and I'm afraid the USA is a rank amateur).
The Russians have always been keen players in "The Great Game", and personally I don't hold that against them. They are simply trying to advance their own interests, and playing smarter than other countries. (and I'm afraid the USA is a rank amateur).
Cyber security is somewhat of a joke. The ruling class lived in a time before computers and it's all kind of beyond them, they don't care about it. They recognize it but would rather get the money in their own pockets or have a defense contractor build a tank than pre-emptively spend the money where it should be spent.
And subtle manipulation. It's not something a guy like Trump can do. He's loud yelling in your face and transparent. There is no subtlety to Trump, you can tell what he thinks. He doesn't put you in a position to do what he wants you to without you realizing it. He's a easily manipulated bull in a china shop. His aides do just that by planting fake stories to get him to do things or focus on things they think he should be doing. Reports are prepared on one page with lots of fancy pictures and they put his name in there liberally because they think that might get him to read it. But he's just an example in this respect of a lack of intelligence, wisdom and forethought of American politicians.
@Dorcus, you spoilsport, stoping flamewar before it even begun... I've just bought a book about connections between polish Minister of Defense and russian secret services. I wonder if it'll beat scandal with Don Trump Jr.
EDIT: It's interesting that Minister of Defense this book is about threatened to file a lawsuit about defamation... I'm kidding. He didn't. Instead, he accussed the author of a book of... using illegal pressure via threat or violence on public servant and ofpublicly defaming public servant. Am I the only one confused? I mean, if that book was full of lies, then it would be a simple matter of defamation, right? Truly baffling.
The Russians have always been keen players in "The Great Game", and personally I don't hold that against them. They are simply trying to advance their own interests, and playing smarter than other countries. (and I'm afraid the USA is a rank amateur).
Cyber security is somewhat of a joke. The ruling class lived in a time before computers and it's all kind of beyond them, they don't care about it. They recognize it but would rather get the money in their own pockets or have a defense contractor build a tank than pre-emptively spend the money where it should be spent.
And subtle manipulation. It's not something a guy like Trump can do. He's loud yelling in your face and transparent. There is no subtlety to Trump, you can tell what he thinks. He doesn't put you in a position to do what he wants you to without you realizing it. He's a easily manipulated bull in a china shop. His aides do just that by planting fake stories to get him to do things or focus on things they think he should be doing. Reports are prepared on one page with lots of fancy pictures and they put his name in there liberally because they think that might get him to read it. But he's just an example in this respect of a lack of intelligence, wisdom and forethought of American politicians.
Err, yeah, pretty sure it's not Trump doing the manipulating...
And I'm Pretty sure Putin has no idea how to hack a modern computer system (he could take a 1960s system apart in seconds though). These days he has bright young Russians (some of whom I probably helped to educate) to do it for him.
Remember the Russian objective isn't to put a specific person in the Whitehouse, the Russian objective is to destabilise the USA. If they can do that by appearing to have influenced the election outcome, and by appearing to have had contact with the winning side, that's a win for them.
If you want to know the source of the leaked information about contacts between the Trump camp and Russians, I wouldn't look at the Trump camp, I would look at Russia.
That's one of the uncertainties of the Russian interference problem. We don't know if Putin was trying to install Trump in power (which could come from any number of smaller motives), if he wanted Clinton to enter office in a damaged state, or if he was going for either one.
So far, Putin has made no new dramatic moves, neither making Trump look particularly better, nor making him look particularly worse. I'm not sure what to think.
That's one of the uncertainties of the Russian interference problem. We don't know if Putin was trying to install Trump in power (which could come from any number of smaller motives), if he wanted Clinton to enter office in a damaged state, or if he was going for either one.
So far, Putin has made no new dramatic moves, neither making Trump look particularly better, nor making him look particularly worse. I'm not sure what to think.
The trick to winning at the Great Game is to make sure that whatever the outcome you benefit.
And if you are seen to make a "dramatic" move, it's probably a bad move. But my hypothesis is the information about Trump Jnr's secret meeting was leaked to the press by Russia. After all, who would know? Only the people who would be harmed, and Russia.
That's what I'm not sure about. If Russia thinks Trump is good for them, they wouldn't try to embarrass him; they'd prefer to strengthen his chances of winning again in 2020. If Russia is just trying to weaken the U.S., however, they would be glad to embarrass him.
Maybe they'll do something close to the midterms or the 2020 election, but so far, they seem to have attempted neither.
That's what I'm not sure about. If Russia thinks Trump is good for them, they wouldn't try to embarrass him; they'd prefer to strengthen his chances of winning again in 2020. If Russia is just trying to weaken the U.S., however, they would be glad to embarrass him.
Maybe they'll do something close to the midterms or the 2020 election, but so far, they seem to have attempted neither.
They hacked Macron in France and attempted to meddle in German elections I believe. I have confidence that they will be doing the same crap in 2018 and 2020, why not they got away with it scot free in 2016. Allegedly, Putin told Trump he didn't do it. To Trump that seals it there's nothing further needed to be done like upgrading security or anything like that.
So more people being reported in the DJT jr. treason meeting including a KGB spy. DJT jr. didn't mention that in his transparency thing did he? Perhaps the guy who has changed his story every time more of the truth comes out is STILL not being honest?
Trump is frightened to visit the UK unless the visit is fixed. He doesn't appear on camera or in front of the press these last few months much either unless it's on Fox News or in front of evangelicals.
"I haven’t had great coverage out there lately, Theresa," Mr Trump told Ms May, according to a transcript of the conversation seen by The Sun.
Ms May replied: "Well, you know what the British press are like."
But Mr Trump added: "I still want to come, but I’m in no rush.
"So, if you can fix it for me, it would make things a lot easier. When I know I’m going to get a better reception, I’ll come and not before."
No, it has much more to do with the fact that they are always playing the same old movie on this channel.
Bound to be something brewin', tweetin', or most likely somebody gettin' ready to be 'thrown under the bus'. I shut the news clean off for a bit myself, let it build u again, so to speak.
CNN is starting to sound like a broken record. I stopped watching it. Say what you want about Fox News but at least they're talking about things other than Russia. I used to switch between CNN and Fox to get both sides but one side is getting a little tiresome now...
CNN is starting to sound like a broken record. I stopped watching it. Say what you want about Fox News but at least they're talking about things other than Russia. I used to switch between CNN and Fox to get both sides but one side is getting a little tiresome now...
CNN's not really the opposite of Fox in terms of POV. You want MSNBC for that. (Or my personal favorite, Comedy Central. :P )
Yeah, I think hoping the considerable Russia mess will simply disapear is kinda wishful thinking, and not healthy for democracy. Many, many people are not tired of it because it hasn't finished yet, more and more corruption keeps showing up.
Mind you, there is no law saying you need to keep following the biggest news story in recent memory, as your opinion is that there is nothing interesting or suspicious about the whole story. In my opinion Fox constantly spews the paranoid delusion de jour though, so I find irony in your position.
For the third time, an expected GOP health plan has failed to make it to a vote, despite GOP control of all branches of the federal government.
I'm sure laws sometimes don't make it to a vote, but three times? In six months? Despite the GOP's full control of both houses of Congress? When the GOP has been calling for an alternative to Obamacare for 7 years straight? How is it possible for Republican policymakers, after all this time and all this talk, to not reach a consensus about how to repeal and/or replace Obamacare?
It can hardly be Democratic obstruction when the Democratic party is the minority party in both House and Senate. The only reason the GOP was able to obstruct legislation during the Obama years is because they controlled Congress for the last 6 years of Obama's 8-year term. By definition, the party that controls Congress is the party that writes and repeals the laws.
In other news, it seems like the Iran deal is also here to stay, at least for a while longer. I like the deal--as long as the Iranians remain compliant, I don't mind if the GOP leaves it alone--but I find it striking that the Trump administration isn't undoing it, despite Trump himself calling it one of the worst deals in history.
My theory is that moderate republicans think the plan goes too far, and the extremist wing sees it as far too soft. The Republican party looks very sick, very disharmonious.
Trump has been playing to the extreme side's tune, but most actual elected Republicans aren't extremists, so this might change.
CNN is starting to sound like a broken record. I stopped watching it. Say what you want about Fox News but at least they're talking about things other than Russia. I used to switch between CNN and Fox to get both sides but one side is getting a little tiresome now...
CNN's not really the opposite of Fox in terms of POV. You want MSNBC for that. (Or my personal favorite, Comedy Central. :P )
Wait... I don't get it... what's the difference between Comedy Central and political news from any country on this planet?
Comments
1. She was representing the Russian government in contacting him.
2. The Russian government supported the Trump campaign.
3. They had information on the Democrats.
4. They wanted to give it to the Trump campaign to help them win.
At which point
5. Trump Jr. said he would love to have that information.
And no,
6. He did not tell anyone about this whole affair. He didn't even mention it until the New York Times exposed it, months after it happened.
Personally, I'm not sure this woman was really affiliated with the Russian government, so I agree with your end conclusion about this episode. But you just proposed six separate criteria that would give us "the case so many are desperate to make," and Trump Jr.'s own emails, posted publicly on Twitter, satisfy every single one.
As I said earlier that is your opinion, but it's clear that many people don't share that opinion - the issues are briefly covered here. As has been pointed out several times recently it is against the law to plan to break the law. Soliciting something of value from foreign sources is against campaign finance law whether or not something of value is actually obtained. The only possible defense to this charge would seem to be that the information sought was not in fact of any value, but personally I think that is a very weak defense and a court would be highly likely to find the actions were illegal (if the matter ever came to court).
What does this refer to? I'm of course aware of Trump's claims about millions of illegal votes being cast, but is there a credible story about election wrongdoing by the Democrats that I've missed?
So that's why they voted twice or voted for their dead spouse etc.
Plenty of examples posted earlier in this thread. Here's the main one I remember.
Ex-Colo. GOP leader who said "only Democrats committed voter fraud" is charged with voter fraud. He used his ex-wife's mail in ballot after she'd moved because he assumed she wouldn't vote. When she did go to vote she was denied because they said she'd already voted. She called bs and investigation come to find out her ex-husband had voted for her.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/03/22/ex-colo-gop-leader-said-only-democrats-committed-voter-fraud-now-hes-charged-with-voter-fraud/
To me if there is voter fraud why have some jackass vote twice or whatever easily detectable just have the machines do it for you, they don't keep paper ballots, the software is locked and uninspectable. I suspect this is more realistic for our Republicans dominated states to do.
You know pre-emptively cheat because they KNOW the Democrats are doing it. But they aren't and the only one cheating is you.
But furthermore, I don't know how to tell people this, but the Democratic (and Republican) Party are individual organziations and are not subject to the same rules as a general election. They can align and set their delegate rules the way they see fit. And you know who doesn't get to decide what those rules should be?? People who aren't Democrats. You won't see me going around telling Republicans how to run their primary, because I'm not a Republican. I don't walk into an El Zagal meeting on Wednesday night telling them how to run their pancake feed, because I'm not a Shriner.
There are people here who have flat-out stated they wouldn't have voted for Hillary OR Bernie simply concern trolling about the fate of two candidates they didn't even support, as if they cared what the outcome was. If you have a problem with how the Democrats ran their primary, join the party and attend local meetings to voice your opinion. Or don't.
I've gone into in-depth reasons as to why Bernie lost the primary, and virtually none of it was because of the DNC, who isn't nearly as powerful or influential as eveveryone seems to think. Nor is the RNC.
The reason for that view goes right back to the founding of the US when the constitution reflected considerable concerns about the possibility of foreign influence. Those concerns have persisted throughout the history of the US and remain a significant influence on political and legal decision making today. As a result, even in a Republican dominated Supreme Court, I would expect judges to respect the constitutional principles against foreign interference, even if that meant a marginal curtailing of First Amendment rights.
Yes, Hilary Clinton wanted an excuse for loosing, and is clearly personally unable to accept that she was just a horribly bad candidate. And yes, if the Democrats hadn't had so many dirty secrets it would have been much harder to influence the outcome.
- but this does not imply that Russia did not try to influence the election. The Russians certainly tried to influence the French election, and only tight co-ordination between the French intelligence services and the judiciary prevented the release of Russian-concocted fake news. The Germans are currently putting a lot of effort into trying to shield their upcoming election from Russian interference.
- but this does not mean that the election would not have had the same result even without Russian interference.
The Russians have always been keen players in "The Great Game", and personally I don't hold that against them. They are simply trying to advance their own interests, and playing smarter than other countries. (and I'm afraid the USA is a rank amateur).
And subtle manipulation. It's not something a guy like Trump can do. He's loud yelling in your face and transparent. There is no subtlety to Trump, you can tell what he thinks. He doesn't put you in a position to do what he wants you to without you realizing it. He's a easily manipulated bull in a china shop. His aides do just that by planting fake stories to get him to do things or focus on things they think he should be doing. Reports are prepared on one page with lots of fancy pictures and they put his name in there liberally because they think that might get him to read it. But he's just an example in this respect of a lack of intelligence, wisdom and forethought of American politicians.
The Lies of Donald Trump’s Critics
I've just bought a book about connections between polish Minister of Defense and russian secret services. I wonder if it'll beat scandal with Don Trump Jr.
EDIT: It's interesting that Minister of Defense this book is about threatened to file a lawsuit about defamation... I'm kidding. He didn't. Instead, he accussed the author of a book of... using illegal pressure via threat or violence on public servant and ofpublicly defaming public servant.
Am I the only one confused? I mean, if that book was full of lies, then it would be a simple matter of defamation, right? Truly baffling.
And I'm Pretty sure Putin has no idea how to hack a modern computer system (he could take a 1960s system apart in seconds though). These days he has bright young Russians (some of whom I probably helped to educate) to do it for him.
Remember the Russian objective isn't to put a specific person in the Whitehouse, the Russian objective is to destabilise the USA. If they can do that by appearing to have influenced the election outcome, and by appearing to have had contact with the winning side, that's a win for them.
If you want to know the source of the leaked information about contacts between the Trump camp and Russians, I wouldn't look at the Trump camp, I would look at Russia.
So far, Putin has made no new dramatic moves, neither making Trump look particularly better, nor making him look particularly worse. I'm not sure what to think.
And if you are seen to make a "dramatic" move, it's probably a bad move. But my hypothesis is the information about Trump Jnr's secret meeting was leaked to the press by Russia. After all, who would know? Only the people who would be harmed, and Russia.
Maybe they'll do something close to the midterms or the 2020 election, but so far, they seem to have attempted neither.
https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2017/07/13/republicans-reject-trumps-plan-to-cut-300-million-for-great-lakes-cleanup.html
http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/14/politics/donald-trump-jr-meeting/index.html
"I haven’t had great coverage out there lately, Theresa," Mr Trump told Ms May, according to a transcript of the conversation seen by The Sun.
Ms May replied: "Well, you know what the British press are like."
But Mr Trump added: "I still want to come, but I’m in no rush.
"So, if you can fix it for me, it would make things a lot easier. When I know I’m going to get a better reception, I’ll come and not before."
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/donald-trump-us-president-state-visit-uk-theresa-may-prime-minister-fixes-warm-welcome-a7843391.html
I shut the news clean off for a bit myself, let it build u again, so to speak.
Mind you, there is no law saying you need to keep following the biggest news story in recent memory, as your opinion is that there is nothing interesting or suspicious about the whole story. In my opinion Fox constantly spews the paranoid delusion de jour though, so I find irony in your position.
I'm sure laws sometimes don't make it to a vote, but three times? In six months? Despite the GOP's full control of both houses of Congress? When the GOP has been calling for an alternative to Obamacare for 7 years straight? How is it possible for Republican policymakers, after all this time and all this talk, to not reach a consensus about how to repeal and/or replace Obamacare?
It can hardly be Democratic obstruction when the Democratic party is the minority party in both House and Senate. The only reason the GOP was able to obstruct legislation during the Obama years is because they controlled Congress for the last 6 years of Obama's 8-year term. By definition, the party that controls Congress is the party that writes and repeals the laws.
In other news, it seems like the Iran deal is also here to stay, at least for a while longer. I like the deal--as long as the Iranians remain compliant, I don't mind if the GOP leaves it alone--but I find it striking that the Trump administration isn't undoing it, despite Trump himself calling it one of the worst deals in history.
Trump has been playing to the extreme side's tune, but most actual elected Republicans aren't extremists, so this might change.