Merged All things Trump + Russia

Status
Not open for further replies.
I continue to be amazed at the extent that republicans are willingly accepting Russia working to get a specific person elected as President.

This well beyond "not the party of Eisenhower" and has reached the level of "not the party of Reagan"

Russia's overwhelming support for Trump (irrespective of their work in the election) should have been a huge red flag. As in, "Wait a minute - Russia wants him to be our President? That doesn't sound good." Because communist or not, there's no reason to be thinking that Russia wants what's best for the US.

But if people elect an openly pro Russian, does that mean self perception of US interest aligns with Russia? If not, how do you define a US interest that is not influenced by your perception of what is good for a country?
 
Free speech is actually a very good argument. There are a whole host of laws on the books that people think would not survive an appeal to the supreme Court. Having that position is not laughable.

Yes, but this really is not one of them. The FEC has clearly found that this sort of thing is a legal violation, and I have no doubt that it'd hold up in courts, if only because, again, protecting US elections from outside influence has always been a basic principle of the US constitution. This is as much a "free speech" issue as Chelsea Manning's leaks of classified information - it simply does not apply in this situation.
 
I have to admit that, from outside the US, this whole deal has been both worrying and incredibly amusing.

I'm amused by Don "Puffy" Combover, but only due to his absurd incompetence. I'm actually far more worried by some people around him - Jeff Sessions' open hostility to civil rights and police reform, and the Voter Suppression All-Stars (which were assembled entirely because Fiasco wants to show that he somehow won the popular vote) attempting to inject steroids into their attempts to attack young and minority voters. These are vastly more important, because they set the stage for a competent version of the current president to step into power.
 
If you're going to make that case, you have to recognize that 54% of 2016 voters wanted somebody other than Trump, and three million more voted for Clinton than Trump. If you say, "but Electoral College....," then you are qualifying your assessment that "the voters" should get what they want. Only some voters in some places, right?


BS. He's just referring to the rules. It isn't Trump's fault that you have a bizarre electoral procedure that goes back to when delegates had to make dangerous, long travels to attend. One useful thing you "resistance" folks could do with your time is organize a movement for electoral reform. There would be many people across "the isle" for it including your president himself, who has said that if it were one Yankistani, one vote, he would have campaigned very differntly and it would have been even easier to win. Remember what the late Chavez said about Obama: Where are the people taking it to the street to give him the backbone and incentive to do what he promised? They were nowhere to be found.

Get active and stop chasing windmills.
 
Last edited:
This semantics defense is getting more desperate. I am starting to feel, however, that it's not so much a defense of Trump, but rather a defense against being forced to admit that he's wrong. Mainly to himself.
 
This semantics defense is getting more desperate. I am starting to feel, however, that it's not so much a defense of Trump, but rather a defense against being forced to admit that he's wrong. Mainly to himself.


Imagine if the statue stated:
It is illegal to take the life of; to kill another human being.


Some of us round here would claim, "MURDER IS LEGAL! Murder isn't mentioned!"
 
BS. He's just referring to the rules. It isn't Trump's fault that you have a bizarre electoral procedure that goes back to when delegates had to make dangerous, long travels to attend. One useful thing you "resistance" folks could do with your time is organize a movement for electoral reform. There would be many people across "the isle" for it including your president himself, who has said that if it were one Yankistani, one vote, he would have campaigned very differntly and it would have been even easier to win. Remember what the late Chavez said about Obama: Where are the people taking it to the street to give him the backbone and incentive to do what he promised? They were nowhere to be found.

Get active and stop chasing windmills.

The popular vote also seems to track with opinion polls of him not to mention voting by demographics extrapolated to non voters also doesn't support a broader base than demonstrated in the election.
 
The popular vote also seems to track with opinion polls of him not to mention voting by demographics extrapolated to non voters also doesn't support a broader base than demonstrated in the election.


He campaigned under the current rules, he would have campaigned differently under different rules. What would have come out of this is parallel universe stuff, but the argument is sound.
 
Yes, but this really is not one of them. The FEC has clearly found that this sort of thing is a legal violation, and I have no doubt that it'd hold up in courts

Can you point to some specific cases?
 
But if people elect an openly pro Russian, does that mean self perception of US interest aligns with Russia? If not, how do you define a US interest that is not influenced by your perception of what is good for a country?

The people were victims of a con. They just didn't pick up on it.
 
That's one more than I expected!

Well that's your fault for underestimating me! :D

Actually, it's really only because you argumemnoned against my initial response, which I thought was only marginally clever, and not worthy of a response at all. And since neither of us is much inclined to let things go... well here we are.
 
Yes, but this really is not one of them. The FEC has clearly found that this sort of thing is a legal violation, and I have no doubt that it'd hold up in courts, if only because, again, protecting US elections from outside influence has always been a basic principle of the US constitution. This is as much a "free speech" issue as Chelsea Manning's leaks of classified information - it simply does not apply in this situation.

Can you point to some specific cases?

http://electionlawblog.org/?p=93762

In MUR 5409 (2004), the Federal Election Commission voted 5-1 to accept the general counsel’s finding that Grover Norquist’s Americans for Tax Reform (a corporation) provided a “thing of value” to the Bush-Cheney reelection campaign. It was a list of conservative activists in 37 states. Some of the information may have been publicly available when Norquist gave it to Ken Mehlman of the campaign. The General Counsel found that this was a prohibited corporate contribution and that Bush-Cheney violated the law by failing to report it. But it found the list had so little value that the General Counsel did not recommend pursuing the matter further.

http://electionlawblog.org/?p=93752

Following up on this post, there are remaining questions about whether providing “dirt” or files related to Hillary Clinton from Russian government sources could be considered a “thing of value” for purposes of the law barring the solicitation of contributions from foreign entities. I’ve already pointed to a 1990 advisory opinion of the FEC so suggesting, in the context of providing polling information (something intangible) free of charge. Here’s another, from 2007, that is even strong on the question of the breadth of the foreign contribution ban, even as to those things whose value may be “difficult to ascertain” (my emphases added):

Question 4. May your authorized committee accept election materials used in previous Canadian campaigns that are provided without charge by Canadian third party candidates?

No, your authorized committee may not accept election materials used in previous Canadian campaigns that are provided without charge by Canadian third party candidates. Your authorized committee may, however, expend campaign funds to purchase the materials. You may also use personal funds to purchase such materials.
 
Wow! That's quite the explanation. I guess this is the sort of "know it when you see it" kind of stuff, right?

Again: what does it take? The son of Trump and two of the most influential people in his campaign met with a Russian agent to discuss obtaining dirt on Clinton for his father's benefit in Trump tower. If you think that's nothing, then yes, you're ignoring it because you really really don't like the "other side".

This is the kind of thing that makes me question *most* of what is presented as "evidence" these days. Pretty much, any person who was born in Russia, or has friends in Russia, or who can be connected to any person in any level of the Russian government within 6 degrees of Kevin Bacon is now considered an "operative" or an "agent".

Whatsisname was paid to be on a show on a Russian TV channel. The channel is funded by the Russian government. Therefore, he took money from the Russian government! Is that how you would cast it if a foreign person was on a show on PBS and got paid for it?

You shouldn't have to dig so deep and engage in so much hyperbole. You've hypothetically got a rampant, far-reaching conspiracy involving large numbers of people, doing incredibly obvious things by all accounts. If it's so broad a conspiracy, it should be easy to find people willing to come clean about it. If it's so obvious and transparent, then solid evidence shouldn't take months of investigation.

That's where I end up being really skeptical. How much of this is genuine wrongdoings of a material nature... and how much is a witch hunt?
 
A second, completely obvious, example of how the framers of the constitution openly desired to eliminate outside influence on US behavior - the (in)famous "emoluments clause", forbidding the US president from accepting money or gifts from foreign actors. It's very clear that they wanted the US president to work solely for (some of) the American people, and not for any outside power.

Oddly, this also seems to me to blow a hole in the idea that "money is speech" - it's absurd to claim that the US president is not allowed to speak to foreign heads of state, but he's expressly forbidden from accepting money from them.
 
This is the kind of thing that makes me question *most* of what is presented as "evidence" these days. Pretty much, any person who was born in Russia, or has friends in Russia, or who can be connected to any person in any level of the Russian government within 6 degrees of Kevin Bacon is now considered an "operative" or an "agent".

This is more handwaving - Donkey Don Jr was explicitly told that he was meeting with a representative of the Russian government, to be given oppo research as part of Russia's campaign to influence the US presidential election. All of these hypotheticals about "six degrees of whoever" do nothing to change this fact.

"Did you just try to pay a hitman to murder your wife?"

"Yes. What, you're saying I can't give money to anyone now?"

"You have the right to remain silent, anything you say can and will..."
 
The U.S. actually does have a "pecular" definition of "treason".
English Common Law doesn't distinguish between monarch and country, and treason is committed against the monarch and his dynastic descent. It could be turned against internal opposition. The US being very consciously a country without a monarch it did need a new definition - one which faced it very definitely outward, not inward. You can't commit treason against the President, only the country.
 
Oddly, this also seems to me to blow a hole in the idea that "money is speech"

That is a misrepresentation of the SCOTUS's position. You're shooting down a straw man. The argument is not that money is speech, the argument is that speech which you pay for is still speech.
 
A second, completely obvious, example of how the framers of the constitution openly desired to eliminate outside influence on US behavior - the (in)famous "emoluments clause", forbidding the US president from accepting money or gifts from foreign actors.
Showing a healthy suspicion of British cotton and tobacco interests.
 
This is the kind of thing that makes me question *most* of what is presented as "evidence" these days. Pretty much, any person who was born in Russia, or has friends in Russia, or who can be connected to any person in any level of the Russian government within 6 degrees of Kevin Bacon is now considered an "operative" or an "agent".

<snip>


Why do you people keep trying to pull this transparent evasion.

She wasn't just 'pretty much any Russian'. She was presented to them and they believed she was an agent of the Russian government.

They may not have been right about that (Although there remains a lot of questions there.), but that isn't what is important. This is what they were told, and presumably believed she was.

That is where the culpability lies.

[ETA:

Actually, as Ziggurat has so helpfully pointed out. It doesn't matter whether she was a Russian agent or not (Although I don't think that helps things. It certainly doesn't make the exchange look any more respectable for them to have believed believe she was.)

The way the statute is phrased that doesn't make any difference. 'Pretty much any Russian' is still a violation.]

It doesn't matter if the guy you try to hire is really a hit man or not. What matters is if you believe he is and still try to hire him.
 
Last edited:
BS. He's just referring to the rules. It isn't Trump's fault that you have a bizarre electoral procedure that goes back to when delegates had to make dangerous, long travels to attend.
That's not any part of the story of the Electoral College. Thirteen states all on the East Coast, with no hostiles to speak of, in the late 18th Century.

The story is about the politics and diplomacy required to get an agreement between thirteen states. You try it sometime; trust me, it's a nightmare.
 
This is the kind of thing that makes me question *most* of what is presented as "evidence" these days. Pretty much, any person who was born in Russia, or has friends in Russia, or who can be connected to any person in any level of the Russian government within 6 degrees of Kevin Bacon is now considered an "operative" or an "agent".

Whatsisname was paid to be on a show on a Russian TV channel. The channel is funded by the Russian government. Therefore, he took money from the Russian government! Is that how you would cast it if a foreign person was on a show on PBS and got paid for it?
....


1/ The Russian lawyer represents several government-owned businesses, and has worked to repeal the Magnitsky act and lift U.S. sanctions against Russia. She's not somebody Trump met in traffic court. She represents Russian interests, even if she doesn't have a government title.
http://time.com/4851321/donald-trump-jr-russian-lawyer-natalia-veselnitskaya/

2/ RT is a Russian government propaganda organ. It does not function independently, as PBS does. If RT is paying Gen. Flynn, it's because the Russian government thinks Flynn will be useful to them.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/07/...twork-implicated-in-us-election-meddling.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/08/world/europe/russias-rt-network-is-it-more-bbc-or-kgb.html

It's just silly to say "Ah, everybody does it, no big deal, Russia, Turkey, the U.S., Mars, it's all the same." It's really not.
 
Adding events pertaining to Roger Stone / Podesta:

My additions in Red
Mar 19| Podesta email hacked
Apr 19| DCLeaks.com registered
May 3| Trump becomes presumptive nominee
June 3| Goldstone contacts Trump Jr. to setup meeting which promises to discuss Clinton June 7 17:16 | Don Jr. confirms meeting w/ Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya June7 21:13 | Trump promises press conf the next week with Clinton dirt
June 8| Trump posts link to DCLeaks
June 9| Trump Jr, Kushner, Manafort meet with Russian operative
June 12| Assange announces Clinton emails
June 27| Hacked emails posted to DCLeaks
July 11| Trump/Manafort nix pro-Ukranian plank in GOP platform (and lie about it)
Late July | Malware researchers spot unusual server activity between Trump server and Alfa Bank**
Aug 21| Roger Stone writes "it will soon be Podesta's time in the barrel"
Oct 27| Wikileaks releases Podesta emails*
2017 - May| DOJ drops money laundering case against client of Natalia Veselnitskaya***

* An hour after pussy-grabbing video released.


**Unusual activity noticed between Russian bank and Trump server

ETA:*** http://thehill.com/homenews/adminis...-know-why-doj-dismissed-money-laundering-case
 
Last edited:
Why do you people keep trying to pull this transparent evasion.

She wasn't just 'pretty much any Russian'. She was presented to them and they believed she was an agent of the Russian government.

They may not have been right about that (Although there remains a lot of questions there.), but that isn't what is important. This is what they were told, and presumably believed she was.

That is where the culpability lies.

It doesn't matter if the guy you try to hire is really a hit man or not. What matters is if you believe he is and still try to hire him.
Entrapment. That's what it was. By the deep state. That's a relief, now let's move on.

Moving on to the meeting, Donald Jr has said that the mysterious Russian offered him some stuff on Clinton which was vague and frankly a massive disappointment, given the build-up. I would like to hear him tell us on oath what it was about. Even vaguely.

Since the Senates open for an unexpected, and presumably unscheduled, couple of weeks, maybe a hearing can be fitted in.
 
Entrapment. That's what it was. By the deep state. That's a relief, now let's move on.

Moving on to the meeting, Donald Jr has said that the mysterious Russian offered him some stuff on Clinton which was vague and frankly a massive disappointment, given the build-up. I would like to hear him tell us on oath what it was about. Even vaguely.

Since the Senates open for an unexpected, and presumably unscheduled, couple of weeks, maybe a hearing can be fitted in.


Maybe they could hold a father and son under oath hearing. Dad did say he was willing to testify.

An appropriately Trump bizarro sort of Take Your Kid To Work Day.
 
CNN should regroup on its Trump coverage. On the whole I trust CNN but IMO it's making a strategical (tactical?) mistake. It's preaching to the choir on Trump/Russia. I'm not saying don't cover it heavily, but it annoys me to hear it go on for hours and hours without any mention of other stories happening in the country/world. It's behaving like an attack dog. Lead the hour with summaries and new developments in this latest scandal. Then offer something else. If something breaks in that hour, share that with viewers. It's a more balanced approach.

Tactics. If their strategy is to make Trump look bad to as many people as possible, then tactically, this may not be a bad approach. If their strategy is to preserve their journalistic integrity and commitment to the truth, then these tactics are damaging their strategy.

Objective is the desired outcome of a strategy. There should be only one Objective.
Strategy is the framework that defines what will be accomplished through tactics. There can be multiple strategies that support the Objective.
Tactics are the methods and procedures employed in order to accomplish a strategy. There are usually many tactics for each strategy.

Example: The objective is to win the war. One strategy (possibly among many) may be to weaken civilian support for the war. Weakened civilian support may be accomplished through tactics of publishing the cost in both dollars and lives, as well as through the use of propaganda.

:p On topic... I agree that I'd prefer a less sensationalist reality-TV-esque approach to news.
 
First, the hacking wasn't public knowledge until after the meeting. Second, the information offered could not have come from the hacking anyways. Third, you're wrong: if a crime already took place, then talking about it afterwards, even in secret, doesn't constitute a crime. This is why the NYT doesn't get charged with criminal conspiracy when they publish information from the Wikileaks hack.

Why not?
 
This is the kind of thing that makes me question *most* of what is presented as "evidence" these days. Pretty much, any person who was born in Russia, or has friends in Russia, or who can be connected to any person in any level of the Russian government within 6 degrees of Kevin Bacon is now considered an "operative" or an "agent".

Whatsisname was paid to be on a show on a Russian TV channel. The channel is funded by the Russian government. Therefore, he took money from the Russian government! Is that how you would cast it if a foreign person was on a show on PBS and got paid for it?

You shouldn't have to dig so deep and engage in so much hyperbole. You've hypothetically got a rampant, far-reaching conspiracy involving large numbers of people, doing incredibly obvious things by all accounts. If it's so broad a conspiracy, it should be easy to find people willing to come clean about it. If it's so obvious and transparent, then solid evidence shouldn't take months of investigation.

That's where I end up being really skeptical. How much of this is genuine wrongdoings of a material nature... and how much is a witch hunt?
What a load of fact-challenged nonsense.

The Russians in question don't fit your straw man whatsoever. The list includes Vladamir Putin, the ambassador to the US, a big shot banker who funds Putin's projects and who has an intelligence background, and a lawyer presented as a representative of the Russian government.

You need to try harder. A lot harder.
 
What a load of fact-challenged nonsense.

The Russians in question don't fit your straw man whatsoever. The list includes Vladamir Putin, the ambassador to the US, a big shot banker who funds Putin's projects and who has an intelligence background, and a lawyer presented as a representative of the Russian government.
You need to try harder. A lot harder.

The highlighted part: ... a lawyer whose client had money laundering charges dropped in May with a small fine.
I've added that to my update to the table of yours...
 
Last edited:
I don' think the Democrat pols are particularly concerned about how Trump's behavior is going to affect their support among their constituents.

It isn't very likely he is going to do anything to make those constituents like him significantly less than they already do.

I dunno, I think you're looking at this too narrowly. Dems need to make sure that they're attacking Trump* Zealously enough to appease their constituents. If they don't keep at him like a slightly rabid dog, their supporters might think they're not doing a good job and support someone else next term.


*Seriously I can't type his name to save my life. Pretty much every time I end up typing "Turmp". I think I'm going to just pack it in and start calling him "Turnip", just so I don't have to make so many corrections.
 
He campaigned under the current rules, he would have campaigned differently under different rules. What would have come out of this is parallel universe stuff, but the argument is sound.

Yeah, we get that. Clinton would have campaigned differently, too, and I have no doubt she would have picked up votes in the urban areas of Texas and some Southern and Western states. That's alternative history. (I note that the Popular Vote Compact is gaining steam.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact

But it's just a mistake to say that with 46% of votes cast, Trump has a mandate to radically alter U.S. domestic and foreign policy. Trump voters were promised more jobs and better, cheaper health care; they didn't vote for tax cuts for billionaires, a rejection of climate science, cuts in environmental enforcement, cuts in Medicaid, expanded drug prosecutions, confrontation with North Korea, etc., etc., not to mention Trump profiting personally from his job. Nobody wrote Trump a blank check.
http://www.politicususa.com/2016/12...ster-trump-swing-voters-liberal-policies.html
 
This is the kind of thing that makes me question *most* of what is presented as "evidence" these days. Pretty much, any person who was born in Russia, or has friends in Russia, or who can be connected to any person in any level of the Russian government within 6 degrees of Kevin Bacon is now considered an "operative" or an "agent".

Whatsisname was paid to be on a show on a Russian TV channel. The channel is funded by the Russian government. Therefore, he took money from the Russian government! Is that how you would cast it if a foreign person was on a show on PBS and got paid for it?

You shouldn't have to dig so deep and engage in so much hyperbole. You've hypothetically got a rampant, far-reaching conspiracy involving large numbers of people, doing incredibly obvious things by all accounts. If it's so broad a conspiracy, it should be easy to find people willing to come clean about it. If it's so obvious and transparent, then solid evidence shouldn't take months of investigation.

That's where I end up being really skeptical. How much of this is genuine wrongdoings of a material nature... and how much is a witch hunt?

Is this another example of you being deliberately ill-informed? Because you certainly aren't grasping at straws to defend Trump, are you?
 
Well that's your fault for underestimating me! :D

Actually, it's really only because you argumemnoned against my initial response, which I thought was only marginally clever, and not worthy of a response at all. And since neither of us is much inclined to let things go... well here we are.

Oh, come on. It was clever.
 
This is the kind of thing that makes me question *most* of what is presented as "evidence" these days. Pretty much, any person who was born in Russia, or has friends in Russia, or who can be connected to any person in any level of the Russian government within 6 degrees of Kevin Bacon is now considered an "operative" or an "agent".

It's just putting two and two together. This isn't a Russian plumber who happened to hear something while doing work for the DNC as a refugee in the US. This isn't some random lawyer, either. Why would a lawyer set up a meeting with the heads of the Trump campaign to give them information on Clinton, something that is presumably the same information that found itself on Wikileaks, and that was hacked most assuredly by agents of the Russian government, if that lawyer is not connected to said government? At some point you have to make a pretty wild series of unsupported assumptions to somehow turn this into a perfectly legal coincidence.

That's where I end up being really skeptical.

No, I wouldn't call it skepticism at this point. At some point the evidence reached a tipping point.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom