ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags donald trump , lying charges , Russia conspiracies , Trump controversies , Trump-Russia connections , US-Russia relations , vladimir putin

Reply
Old 16th July 2017, 05:16 PM   #201
CapelDodger
Penultimate Amazing
 
CapelDodger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Cardiff, South Wales
Posts: 22,630
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
The idea that there was to be an exchange should be enough to demonstrate that this would be considered something of value.
The law of contracts, another excellent can of worms to open and tip over.
__________________
It's a poor sort of memory that only works backward - Lewis Carroll (1832-1898)

God can make a cow out of a tree, but has He ever done so? Therefore show some reason why a thing is so, or cease to hold that it is so - William of Conches, c1150
CapelDodger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th July 2017, 05:38 PM   #202
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 14,624
Originally Posted by CapelDodger View Post
Kushner and Manafort weren't just sucking-up to the boss's son, let's face it. Donald Jr's known as Fredo for good reason, long pre-dating this fiasco.

I blame the parents.
I hadn't heard that he was referred to as Fredo. OUCH. This was in the middle of the campaign. All these people at that time would be busy. Am I mistaken. But I seem to recall Trump Sr soliciting during the campaign for the Russians to hack Hillary. Or something similar.
__________________
“ A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence. ”
― David Hume
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th July 2017, 05:45 PM   #203
CapelDodger
Penultimate Amazing
 
CapelDodger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Cardiff, South Wales
Posts: 22,630
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
Now, that doesn't necessarily mean no crime was committed. Why would the Russian meet with Trump representatives offering to release this dirt of Hillary Clinton? Forget fine print in the campaign finance law for a moment. Let's assume they had this dirt, and they want Trump to win. Why would they call a meeting? Just leak it. No need to get Paul Manafort in a room.
Quite. If you have explosive material you can release a bombshell.

Quote:
Clearly, the Russians wanted something.
Trying to extract useful work from the energy release. Successfully, for all we know.

Quote:
Whatever it was they wanted, if the Trump people offered it, that could be a crime. If there was some sort of quid pro quo, I don't know what statute would cover it, but it sounds like the kind of thing that somebody somewhere would have written a law against it.
If not yet, soon.

Quote:
Bob Mueller will be following this as far as he possibly can, I'm confident.
Mueller doesn't have to follow this, it follows itself. He's following the money-washing trail into the US property market over the last few decades, and how it pertains to Trump. For once, a spotlight Trump didn't want to attract but so has.
__________________
It's a poor sort of memory that only works backward - Lewis Carroll (1832-1898)

God can make a cow out of a tree, but has He ever done so? Therefore show some reason why a thing is so, or cease to hold that it is so - William of Conches, c1150
CapelDodger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th July 2017, 05:57 PM   #204
CapelDodger
Penultimate Amazing
 
CapelDodger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Cardiff, South Wales
Posts: 22,630
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
I hadn't heard that he was referred to as Fredo. OUCH. This was in the middle of the campaign. All these people at that time would be busy.
Kushner and Manafort, yes you'd think so, but Fredo not so much. Which may go some way to explaining the approach being made through him.
__________________
It's a poor sort of memory that only works backward - Lewis Carroll (1832-1898)

God can make a cow out of a tree, but has He ever done so? Therefore show some reason why a thing is so, or cease to hold that it is so - William of Conches, c1150
CapelDodger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th July 2017, 06:39 PM   #205
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 68,393
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
Googling the phrase "anything of value" brings this:

https://definitions.uslegal.com/a/anything-of-value/

It is clearly talking about material value. Money.

I have assumed that the statute everyone is talking about these days uses the same interpretation, but I haven't actually seen the statute.
Information has value.

Seriously, this isn't difficult to understand.
__________________
渦巻く暗雲天を殺し 現る凶事のうなりか

Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th July 2017, 06:48 PM   #206
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 17,049
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Information has value.

Seriously, this isn't difficult to understand.
Seriously, then why doesn't every lawyer in the country agree?

Let me guess. The ones that don't are all politically motivated, denying what they learned in law school.

Back in the campaign days, Republicans absolutely insisted that it was plainly obvious to everyone who could read that Hillary Clinton had committed felonies and that "lock her up" was an appropriate response. They were sure of it. They knew it. It wasn't hard to understand.

And yet, those who made their living by evaluating whether or not felonies had been committed said that no felonies had been committed. Wel,, that's strange, isn't it? I mean, it was so easy to understand.....

When the majority of professionals start saying that this meeting is a crime, I'll buy into it. Right now, it looks like most professionals are either saying it wasn't, or withholding judgment. I'm going with the latter. It would not surprise me in the least to learn that crimes were committed either at that meeting or in connection with that meeting. However, the mere existence of the meeting doesn't seem like a crime to me, not even when the associated emails are included.
__________________
See you in 2018, maybe.
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th July 2017, 06:51 PM   #207
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 68,393
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
Seriously, then why doesn't every lawyer in the country agree?

Let me guess. The ones that don't are all politically motivated, denying what they learned in law school.

Back in the campaign days, Republicans absolutely insisted that it was plainly obvious to everyone who could read that Hillary Clinton had committed felonies and that "lock her up" was an appropriate response. They were sure of it. They knew it. It wasn't hard to understand.

And yet, those who made their living by evaluating whether or not felonies had been committed said that no felonies had been committed. Wel,, that's strange, isn't it? I mean, it was so easy to understand.....

When the majority of professionals start saying that this meeting is a crime, I'll buy into it. Right now, it looks like most professionals are either saying it wasn't, or withholding judgment. I'm going with the latter. It would not surprise me in the least to learn that crimes were committed either at that meeting or in connection with that meeting. However, the mere existence of the meeting doesn't seem like a crime to me, not even when the associated emails are included.
How about you answer the point rather than go on a tirade? Do people routinely buy information or not? Especially about political opponents.

I'm starting to think that your continued "neutrality" hides something else.
__________________
渦巻く暗雲天を殺し 現る凶事のうなりか

Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th July 2017, 07:06 PM   #208
skyeagle409
Master Poster
 
skyeagle409's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 2,248
Trump's lawyer, Jay Sekulow, is making it very difficult for me to believe he is a real lawyer.


Quote:
Secret Service: Donald Trump Jr. didn't have agency's protection at time of meeting

The Secret Service is pushing back on President Donald Trump's attorney's remarks Sunday that there was nothing questionable going on at a meeting last summer between Trump's eldest son, Donald Trump Jr., a Russian lawyer and top members of Trump's campaign.

"Well, I wonder why the Secret Service, if this was nefarious, why the Secret Service allowed these people in," Jay Sekulow said on ABC's "This Week." "The President had Secret Service protection at that point, and that raised a question with me."

After Sekulow's comments aired, the Secret Service responded that it wouldn't have checked out the participants of the meeting because Trump's eldest son wasn't in their charge.

"Donald Trump Jr. was not a protectee of the USSS in June, 2016," the agency told CNN in a statement. "Thus we would not have screened anyone he was meeting with at that time."

http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/16/politi...ice/index.html
skyeagle409 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th July 2017, 07:27 PM   #209
Cl1mh4224rd
Philosopher
 
Cl1mh4224rd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 9,426
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
Seriously, then why doesn't every lawyer in the country agree?

It's their job to argue the letter of the law when beneficial, or, when commenting, to point out that this is a strategy that will be used.

Again, I doubt the statute was intended to be so ridiculously naïve. Don't belittle yourself by clutching to such naïveté.

Last edited by Cl1mh4224rd; 16th July 2017 at 07:29 PM.
Cl1mh4224rd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th July 2017, 07:32 PM   #210
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 17,049
Originally Posted by Cl1mh4224rd View Post
It's their job to argue the letter of the law when beneficial, or, when commenting, to point out that this is a strategy that will be used.

Again, I doubt the statute was intended to be so ridiculously naïve. Don't belittle yourself by defending such naïveté.
The statute in question dealt with campaign finance. It doesn't seem odd to me in the least that they would limit the scope of the statute to financial things.


And, in all seriousness, the lawyers are saying something different than the laymen. When that happens, and the subject is law, go with the lawyers. They're the expert at this sort of thing.

But fear not. They will find the dirt that's worth digging. The plot thickens:

http://www.philly.com/philly/columni...-20170717.html
__________________
See you in 2018, maybe.
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th July 2017, 07:35 PM   #211
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 17,049
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
How about you answer the point rather than go on a tirade? Do people routinely buy information or not? Especially about political opponents.
Equivocation. Look it up.

"Anything of value" has a meaning in a legal context, regardless of what the phrase might mean in some other context.
__________________
See you in 2018, maybe.
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th July 2017, 07:41 PM   #212
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 14,624
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
Equivocation. Look it up.

"Anything of value" has a meaning in a legal context, regardless of what the phrase might mean in some other context.
It does. I agree. But you never answered the question. Does negative information about competitors in business or political opponents have a financial value. Is it sellable?
__________________
“ A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence. ”
― David Hume
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th July 2017, 08:07 PM   #213
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 17,049
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
It does. I agree. But you never answered the question. Does negative information about competitors in business or political opponents have a financial value. Is it sellable?
If there are any lawyers here or anyone passingly familiar with constitutional law, please correct me if I am wrong, but here goes.


No. It is not sellable.


There may be occasions on which money changes hands in exchange for that information. However, that is not a sale. There are all sorts of corruption laws that might be violated when that cash changes hands, but an actual legal sale does not occur.

By the way, if the dirt on Hillary Clinton was obtained illegally, which it almost certainly was, given it was the result of hacking, trying to obtain it probably broke a law or two, quite apart from campaign financing.

These little petty differences really do matter. They are the stuff of which laws are made.
__________________
See you in 2018, maybe.
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th July 2017, 08:09 PM   #214
The Great Zaganza
Master Poster
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 2,894
Trump Jr did and said everything the Russians wanted to hear:
- he didn't report the overtures to the FBI
- he invited key campaign personnel to the meeting
- they didn't report to the FBI
- he made it clear that he was interested in more dirt than was provided, and that he didn't want to do the research himself

For whoever wanted to influence the election, these are clear green lights that the Trump campaign would welcome their efforts and keep their secrets.

Snowflake trumpistas need buzzwords like"nothingburger" as a security blanket to hide under. But just because you say there are no monsters under the bed doesn't make it so.
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th July 2017, 08:11 PM   #215
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 63,392
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
....

But fear not. They will find the dirt that's worth digging. The plot thickens:

http://www.philly.com/philly/columni...-20170717.html
So does this mean you are figuring it out now?

To the interestingly timed settled case with the fired AG, add the rest of the the Magnitsky Act and the Russia investigation
Quote:
Bill Browder, CEO of Hermitage Capital Management, sits down with Fareed Zakaria to discuss how the Magnitsky Act, a US law that punishes Russians who are seen as human rights abusers, may relate to the Russia investigation.
Not sure if there is a transcript but Zakaria's interview of Browder is well worth the time.

More Zakaria's unraveling of the case: why is Trump such a bro to Putin?
Quote:
CNN's Fareed Zakaria takes a closer look at President Donald Trump's rhetoric on Russia and President Vladimir Putin.
It's all about the financial ties.

WA Po got into the financial story as well.
Inside Trump’s financial ties to Russia and his unusual flattery of Vladimir Putin
Quote:
And Trump seemed energized by his interactions with Russia’s financial elite at the pageant and a glitzy after-party in a Moscow nightclub.

“Almost all of the oligarchs were in the room,” Trump bragged to Real Estate Weekly upon returning home....

“Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets,” Trump’s son, Donald Jr., told a real estate conference in 2008, according to an account posted on the website of eTurboNews, a trade publication. “We see a lot of money pouring in from Russia.”

Add all this to the timeline put together in this thread and you probably should quit repeating the "we don't know" mantra whether information on Clinton was traded and Trump Sr was out of the loop.

The default position is not to believe yet one more lie from these intransigents. To continue insisting that position in light of past lies, financial ties, suspicious timing of hacked email releases, Trump bragging he'd have Clinton dirt in a week, Carter Page revealing the Podesta email hack before it was public, and how many dozen denials now of meetings with Russians from Sessions and Pence to Donnie Jr, Manafort, Flynn, Kushner, is sadly akin to Lucy pulling the football away from Charlie Brown one more time.

Last edited by Skeptic Ginger; 16th July 2017 at 08:13 PM.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th July 2017, 08:12 PM   #216
The Great Zaganza
Master Poster
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 2,894
Actually, according to Trump himself, yes, such Information has monetary value: when he called upon Russia to hack Clinton to find the missing emails, he explicitly said that the press would pay them well for their efforts.
Plenty of networks pay for such dirt all the time.
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th July 2017, 02:31 AM   #217
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 68,393
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
Equivocation. Look it up.
What? How was that equivocation? You are arguing against the idea that "thing of value" may be information. I'm pointing out that information is routinely purchased, making it a thing of value by definition. You're ignoring this.

Quote:
No. It is not sellable.
Wow, those idiots who have been buying dirt on their opponents with large sums of money for thousands of years really got had!
__________________
渦巻く暗雲天を殺し 現る凶事のうなりか

Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th July 2017, 04:11 AM   #218
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 17,049
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
Actually, according to Trump himself, yes, such Information has monetary value: when he called upon Russia to hack Clinton to find the missing emails, he explicitly said that the press would pay them well for their efforts.
Plenty of networks pay for such dirt all the time.
When they do so, do they pay sales tax?

That's a serious question.

Don't get me wrong. I am absolutely certain that Trump is corrupt from his head to his toe. I would be very surprised if he has not committed some sort of crime in the course of all this. I just don't know which one.

When I see a bunch of lawyers going on TV saying "this one", I'll believe it. That isn't happening yet.
__________________
See you in 2018, maybe.
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th July 2017, 04:20 AM   #219
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 68,393
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
When they do so, do they pay sales tax?

That's a serious question.
Oh, so now it IS sellable?
__________________
渦巻く暗雲天を殺し 現る凶事のうなりか

Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th July 2017, 04:23 AM   #220
C_Felix
Master Poster
 
C_Felix's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Just outside Raleigh, NC
Posts: 2,527
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
Seriously, then why doesn't every lawyer in the country agree?

Let me guess. The ones that don't are all politically motivated, denying what they learned in law school.

Back in the campaign days, Republicans absolutely insisted that it was plainly obvious to everyone who could read that Hillary Clinton had committed felonies and that "lock her up" was an appropriate response. They were sure of it. They knew it. It wasn't hard to understand.

And yet, those who made their living by evaluating whether or not felonies had been committed said that no felonies had been committed. Wel,, that's strange, isn't it? I mean, it was so easy to understand.....

When the majority of professionals start saying that this meeting is a crime, I'll buy into it. Right now, it looks like most professionals are either saying it wasn't, or withholding judgment. I'm going with the latter. It would not surprise me in the least to learn that crimes were committed either at that meeting or in connection with that meeting. However, the mere existence of the meeting doesn't seem like a crime to me, not even when the associated emails are included.
I asked my friend Art if you polled him; his being a lawyer and all.
He said you didn't.
__________________
Eqinsu Ocha!
Eqinsu Ocha!
C_Felix is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th July 2017, 04:26 AM   #221
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 17,049
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Oh, so now it IS sellable?
Whoosh!
__________________
See you in 2018, maybe.
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th July 2017, 04:27 AM   #222
C_Felix
Master Poster
 
C_Felix's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Just outside Raleigh, NC
Posts: 2,527
A few pages back - maybe in the mid 70's of part 1 - wasn't there the citing of election law with references to "things of value"?

A little Googling lead (led?) me to this:

https://transition.fec.gov/pages/bro.../foreign.shtml

And I'm reading it now.

Have errands to run...dog to the vet, son to the doctor...
__________________
Eqinsu Ocha!
Eqinsu Ocha!

Last edited by C_Felix; 17th July 2017 at 04:40 AM.
C_Felix is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th July 2017, 04:44 AM   #223
jimbob
Uncritical "thinker"
 
jimbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 15,760
Originally Posted by C_Felix View Post
A few pages back - maybe in the mid 70's of part 1 - wasn't there the citing of election law with references to "things of value"?

A little Googling lead (led?) me to this:

https://transition.fec.gov/pages/bro.../foreign.shtml

And I'm reading it now.

Have errands to run...dog to the vet, son to the doctor...
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...0#post11918980
__________________
OECD healthcare spending
Expenditure on healthcare
http://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/health-data.htm
link is 2015 data (2013 Data below):
UK 8.5% of GDP of which 83.3% is public expenditure - 7.1% of GDP is public spending
US 16.4% of GDP of which 48.2% is public expenditure - 7.9% of GDP is public spending
jimbob is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th July 2017, 04:51 AM   #224
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 68,393
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
Whoosh!
Do you have ANY sort of response to my questions and points? You brushed it off the first time around by calling it "equivocation", which makes no sense, and now you're wooshing me. Both times avoiding the actual point and discussion.
__________________
渦巻く暗雲天を殺し 現る凶事のうなりか

Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th July 2017, 06:11 AM   #225
phiwum
Philosopher
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 8,808
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
When they do so, do they pay sales tax?

That's a serious question.

Don't get me wrong. I am absolutely certain that Trump is corrupt from his head to his toe. I would be very surprised if he has not committed some sort of crime in the course of all this. I just don't know which one.

When I see a bunch of lawyers going on TV saying "this one", I'll believe it. That isn't happening yet.
I get paid for my labor. It is obviously[1] a thing of value.

My employer doesn't pay sales tax and that is irrelevant.

[1] Okay, I get paid to teach philosophy, so this point is debatable.
phiwum is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th July 2017, 06:45 AM   #226
Cabbage
Thinker
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 212
Originally Posted by jimbob View Post
Thank you!
Cabbage is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th July 2017, 08:06 AM   #227
magellan
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 670
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
“Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets,” Trump’s son, Donald Jr., told a real estate conference in 2008, according to an account posted on the website of eTurboNews, a trade publication. “We see a lot of money pouring in from Russia.”
This one always stuck me as very odd.
First that was back in 2008, 4 years before Obama would laugh Romney out of the room with that "the 80ies called" line. Putin didn't become the new new Hitler(tm) before 2013.

Also rich russians buying real estate in foreign countries? Why I never heard of such a thing! What's next? The swiss somehow involved in banking?
magellan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th July 2017, 08:23 AM   #228
C_Felix
Master Poster
 
C_Felix's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Just outside Raleigh, NC
Posts: 2,527
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
Equivocation. Look it up.

"Anything of value" has a meaning in a legal context, regardless of what the phrase might mean in some other context.


Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
What? How was that equivocation? You are arguing against the idea that "thing of value" may be information. I'm pointing out that information is routinely purchased, making it a thing of value by definition. You're ignoring this.



Wow, those idiots who have been buying dirt on their opponents with large sums of money for thousands of years really got had!
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.
Originally Posted by jimbob View Post
THANKS!
__________________
Eqinsu Ocha!
Eqinsu Ocha!

Last edited by C_Felix; 17th July 2017 at 08:25 AM.
C_Felix is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th July 2017, 08:23 AM   #229
d4m10n
Master Poster
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 2,683
Another theory of legal culpability of the Trump family/campaign, wrt hacking their political opponents.

https://www.lawfareblog.com/it-crime...-and-abuse-act


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
__________________
I'm a happy SINner on the Skeptic Ink Network!
Background Probability: Against Irrationality, Innumeracy, and Ignobility
http://skepticink.com/backgroundprobability/
d4m10n is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th July 2017, 10:15 AM   #230
jimbob
Uncritical "thinker"
 
jimbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 15,760
Ah, but because it was stolen information, it could not legally be sold, so therefore it was valueless?
__________________
OECD healthcare spending
Expenditure on healthcare
http://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/health-data.htm
link is 2015 data (2013 Data below):
UK 8.5% of GDP of which 83.3% is public expenditure - 7.1% of GDP is public spending
US 16.4% of GDP of which 48.2% is public expenditure - 7.9% of GDP is public spending
jimbob is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th July 2017, 10:31 AM   #231
Stacko
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 8,826
Originally Posted by jimbob View Post
Ah, but because it was stolen information, it could not legally be sold, so therefore it was valueless?
Stolen items still have value you just can't have a legally enforceable contract regarding them.
Stacko is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th July 2017, 11:06 AM   #232
jimbob
Uncritical "thinker"
 
jimbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 15,760
Originally Posted by Stacko View Post
Stolen items still have value you just can't have a legally enforceable contract regarding them.
I was being facetious

But the argument that information is not "of value" is ridiculous, and contradicted by case law.
__________________
OECD healthcare spending
Expenditure on healthcare
http://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/health-data.htm
link is 2015 data (2013 Data below):
UK 8.5% of GDP of which 83.3% is public expenditure - 7.1% of GDP is public spending
US 16.4% of GDP of which 48.2% is public expenditure - 7.9% of GDP is public spending
jimbob is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th July 2017, 11:13 AM   #233
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 63,392
Originally Posted by magellan View Post
This one always stuck me as very odd.
First that was back in 2008, 4 years before Obama would laugh Romney out of the room with that "the 80ies called" line. Putin didn't become the new new Hitler(tm) before 2013.

Also rich russians buying real estate in foreign countries? Why I never heard of such a thing! What's next? The swiss somehow involved in banking?
Not sure what your point is.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th July 2017, 12:34 PM   #234
magellan
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 670
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
Not sure what your point is.
It's two points actually.
We haven't been always been at war with eastasia back in 2008, so it's a bit unfair. Like posting pictures of kerry and assad dining or rumsfeld meeting hussein.

Second is that I would be very suprised if somebody who is in buisness in international real estate hadn't had significant contact with the russian elite.
magellan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th July 2017, 12:49 PM   #235
Minoosh
Philosopher
 
Minoosh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 6,380
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
And you couldn't be more desperate. You were literally dancing last Novembre and now your side is about to lose big time.
But is it losing if we end up with President Mike Pence? From the perspective of the Trump supporters here, Pence could easily be seen as an improvement.

Even I think that and I share none of Pence's agenda.
Minoosh is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th July 2017, 01:29 PM   #236
CapelDodger
Penultimate Amazing
 
CapelDodger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Cardiff, South Wales
Posts: 22,630
Originally Posted by magellan View Post
It's two points actually.
We haven't been always been at war with eastasia back in 2008, so it's a bit unfair.
It's entirely fair to quote what Donald Jr said quite openly in 2008.

Quote:
Second is that I would be very suprised if somebody who is in buisness in international real estate hadn't had significant contact with the russian elite.
And yet Donald Sr has claimed not to have had much in the way of business dealings with Russians. He clearly has.

Given that Russia has been subject to a kleptocracy since the 90's a lot of that money is being washed.
__________________
It's a poor sort of memory that only works backward - Lewis Carroll (1832-1898)

God can make a cow out of a tree, but has He ever done so? Therefore show some reason why a thing is so, or cease to hold that it is so - William of Conches, c1150
CapelDodger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th July 2017, 01:33 PM   #237
logger
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 8,564
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
If there are any lawyers here or anyone passingly familiar with constitutional law, please correct me if I am wrong, but here goes.


No. It is not sellable.


There may be occasions on which money changes hands in exchange for that information. However, that is not a sale. There are all sorts of corruption laws that might be violated when that cash changes hands, but an actual legal sale does not occur.

By the way, if the dirt on Hillary Clinton was obtained illegally, which it almost certainly was, given it was the result of hacking, trying to obtain it probably broke a law or two, quite apart from campaign financing.

These little petty differences really do matter. They are the stuff of which laws are made.
Its amazing where this has gone. He never paid for the NON information, so the left wants to assign value to it. Even though there is no standard that can put a value on it. This once again shows the left is so invested in this they'll do anything to be able to construct their narrative. Sadly for them, courts don't work that way, maybe they ought to try Venezuela.
logger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th July 2017, 01:37 PM   #238
logger
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 8,564
Originally Posted by Minoosh View Post
But is it losing if we end up with President Mike Pence? From the perspective of the Trump supporters here, Pence could easily be seen as an improvement.

Even I think that and I share none of Pence's agenda.
Its worse than that. Removing Trump for such a ridiculous narrative is only going to harden the right and our new found blue collar voters.
logger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th July 2017, 01:38 PM   #239
WilliamSeger
Master Poster
 
WilliamSeger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,295
Originally Posted by magellan View Post
This one always stuck me as very odd.
First that was back in 2008, 4 years before Obama would laugh Romney out of the room with that "the 80ies called" line. Putin didn't become the new new Hitler(tm) before 2013.

Also rich russians buying real estate in foreign countries? Why I never heard of such a thing! What's next? The swiss somehow involved in banking?
I think the point of that was, not that he simply had business dealings with Russians back then, but that Russians might still have some sort of financial hold over him today. That's something suspicious minds think of when they are trying to figure out why Trump refuses to criticize Putin and has persisted in doing things Putin must be loving. Hopefully, Mueller will sort it out.

Last edited by WilliamSeger; 17th July 2017 at 01:40 PM.
WilliamSeger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th July 2017, 01:39 PM   #240
logger
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 8,564
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
Greater than 1 dollar.
Interesting, I'm sure a court will be intrigued by that. Lol
logger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:24 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.