EPTA source close to Manafort told POLITICO on Tuesday that the campaign manager hadn’t read all the way to the bottom of the email exchanges on his phone and that he didn’t even know who he was meeting with when he attended the 20 to 30-minute session. Kushner’s attorney did not respond to a request for comment.
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 8061
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
Nevuk
United States16280 Posts
A source close to Manafort told POLITICO on Tuesday that the campaign manager hadn’t read all the way to the bottom of the email exchanges on his phone and that he didn’t even know who he was meeting with when he attended the 20 to 30-minute session. Kushner’s attorney did not respond to a request for comment. | ||
|
FueledUpAndReadyToGo
Netherlands30548 Posts
On July 12 2017 08:21 Nevuk wrote: Manafort's defense is one for the textbooks, btw : www.politico.com Unfortunately for the him title of the email was 'Russia - Clinton - private and confidential 'though ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/ssxCYvg.jpg) | ||
|
Wulfey_LA
932 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://static1.businessinsider.com/image/5964ea16d9fccd03708b50fb-1583/don%20jr%20email%204.jpg) | ||
|
mahrgell
Germany3943 Posts
On July 12 2017 08:19 zlefin wrote: so gh, what do you think bernie should do to improve his chances of winning if he goes for president again? Is this a possibility? I'm kinda puzzled by the idea of thinking of putting a then 78 years old one on the ballot. And no, Biden wouldn't be a better option in that regard either. Even the beginning 70s of Clinton/Trump 2016 were questionable age wise... But go even older? wtf... | ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
| ||
|
Dromar
United States2145 Posts
On July 12 2017 08:34 mahrgell wrote: Is this a possibility? I'm kinda puzzled by the idea of thinking of putting a then 78 years old one on the ballot. And no, Biden wouldn't be a better option in that regard either. Even the beginning 70s of Clinton/Trump 2016 were questionable age wise... But go even older? wtf... If he can satisfactorily show the American people that he is mentally and physically well, it could be an option. He's going to want to avoid having seizures in public, or demonstrating a Trump level of mental detachment. edit: regarding the Trump supporters' unwavering loyalty to the Trump brand in the face of all of these things slowly coming out, I believe it. As a poster earlier said, many of them simply don't care. All this proof of corruption/collusion/conspiracy, only serves to convince the people who already knew that Trump and his entire crew are dirtbags. Obviously it'll change some minds, but honestly, if they got this far on team Trump, they are largely invincible to having their mind changed in this topic. I think the best way to go about changing Trump supporters' minds about Trump is consistent, but not offensive, reporting of all the "swamp" stuff he does. All the golf outings, hiring friends and CEOs and doing favors for personal gain at the expense of the American government. One of the most common factors of Trump supporters (IMO) is a feeling that we need to "drain the swamp." Showing them consistently that he is not the solution, but is in fact the problem, is (IMO) the best way to erode the staunch support that still exists for him. To make it clear - they don't care about Trump cheating in the election. They don't care that he's stupid, or careless, or not doing his job. They probably don't even care about the nepotism. Remember, these people have been with Trump for 2 years now or possibly longer. I don't know how successful anything can be to persuade these people, but IMO the best bet is showing them that he is not draining the swamp, but is in fact the swamp king. | ||
|
FueledUpAndReadyToGo
Netherlands30548 Posts
https://www.axios.com/inside-the-white-house-scramble-on-the-trump-jr-emails-2457466929.html Inside the White House scramble on the Trump Jr. emails The general view of the Donald Trump Jr. email bombshell, according to sources within and close to the White House: no crime, all perception. They know it was politically awful, but have decided there was no real crime. Their main areas of focus: 1) Who leaked this? Who is the mole? 2) How do we deal with this? On the leaker: Many of our White House sources are playing amateur detective, some with whackier theories than others, and some of which turn on people within the White House. Suspicion spread between people who worked in campaign and in White House, and while no one we've spoken to has any evidence to support their theories, it's not stopping them from speculating. It's creating a very tense environment, and a number of administration officials can't believe the level of foolishness required for Don Jr. to not only do this but to have such a conversation over email. There's a lot of internal anger over who gave this information to the NYT, which cited three people with knowledge of the emails in its report last night. On the pushback: There's an emerging strategy to turn this back around on the Democrats. An extreme example of this approach is Roger Stone, who texted Axios: "The president can turn the tables and dominate the dialogue by ordering the indictment of [James] Clapper, [John] Brennan, [Susan] Rice and [former president Barack] Obama for the wholesale unconstitutional surveillance of Americans... I would seriously arrest [and] perp walk every one of these criminals, making as big a show of it as possible." Although Stone is a longtime confidant of Trump, this in no way reflects the strategy preferred by current White House staffers. With that said, there are already internal conversations about turning this into a conversation about Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, and the way they handled sensitive intelligence. | ||
|
Nevuk
United States16280 Posts
On July 12 2017 06:40 ticklishmusic wrote: didn't someone predict that conservatives would argue "ah yes but it's not illegal/ criminal?" I think the "narcissist's prayer" accurately describes Trump's defense progression on most issues : A Narcissist's Prayer That didn't happen. And if it did, it wasn't that bad. And if it was, that's not a big deal. And if it is, that's not my fault. And if it was, I didn't mean it. And if I did... You deserved it. | ||
|
mahrgell
Germany3943 Posts
On July 12 2017 08:39 Dromar wrote: If he can satisfactorily show the American people that he is mentally and physically well, it could be an option. He's going to want to avoid having seizures in public, or demonstrating a Trump level of mental detachment. Uhm, show me the person of that age, which can show with confidence that he will keep that status for the next 8 years. Once you have found that person, look how much a B. Clinton, GWB or Obama have shown clear signs of wear at the end terms compared to their inaugurations. And now again apply this additional wear on your example person... The presidents job (unless mostly spent at the golf court) clearly is the opposite of a fountain of youth. And even ignoring all that, I indeed believe that being a tad closer to large majority of the population is a general plus. Not even talking about advances in society and technical fields (lets talk about cyber?). | ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
On July 12 2017 08:39 Dangermousecatdog wrote: Hey guys, remember when certain forum members were saying look at how these dumb these people were, thinking that Russia interfered with the election? And now that it's been blatantly demonstrated to be the case, they just stopped caring. Because if you act like it doesn't exist, then you can just do whatever you want. | ||
|
Nevuk
United States16280 Posts
Not exactly massive news, but Scarborough is leaving the GOP. It doesn't sound like it was in reaction to Trump jr's tweets or anything, but so far there's just the small clip released. A former GOP congressman leaving the party is somewhat unusual, but not terribly. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24342 Posts
On July 12 2017 08:55 NewSunshine wrote: And now that it's been blatantly demonstrated to be the case, they just stopped caring. Because if you act like it doesn't exist, then you can just do whatever you want. Not sure anyone said that Russia didn't interfere with the election though? | ||
|
m4ini
4215 Posts
On July 12 2017 09:01 GreenHorizons wrote: Not sure anyone said that Russia didn't interfere with the election though? .. what? | ||
KwarK
United States44286 Posts
It could have been China, or an 8 year old boy doing cyber, nobody really knows. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24342 Posts
I'm not sure how you're confused, but if I had to guess it's that you aren't appreciating the work "interfere with" is doing in a sentence like that. EDIT: Maybe it was missed, but I was responding in context to the members of this thread. | ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
On July 12 2017 09:01 GreenHorizons wrote: Not sure anyone said that Russia didn't interfere with the election though? Maybe interference wasn't the point under dispute, I don't care enough to spool back through the thread and frankly it's moot at this point, but collusion and intent surely were an argument. Let us put those preposterous ideas to bed. | ||
|
Wulfey_LA
932 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24342 Posts
On July 12 2017 09:07 NewSunshine wrote: Maybe interference wasn't the point under dispute, but collusion and intent surely were. Let us put those preposterous ideas to bed. "Collusion" has been a loosely used term as well. Depending on what one means I'm not sure that's really been in dispute either. Nor do I think what we know really amounts to much more than is to be expected, albeit far more sloppy than it would typically be done and with modern flair. As has been mentioned more times than I'd care to count at this time, the idea that "Trump/Family guilty of crime = impeachment" and that's not how any of this works. The idea that there was something here that would turn the political wheels needed (that no one will address) is, was, and has always been an extreme long shot from the start. I don't know people are acting like this is new though, pretty common for politicians to deny, detour, diminish, ask forgiveness/move on. You can't name a politician on the national scene where you can't find that cycle in their past. It's like a pre-req for tenure or something. | ||
|
KwarK
United States44286 Posts
On July 12 2017 09:18 GreenHorizons wrote: "Collusion" has been a loosely used term as well. Depending on what one means I'm not sure that's really been in dispute either. Nor do I think what we know really amounts to much more than is to be expected, albeit far more sloppy than it would typically be done and with modern flair. As has been mentioned more times than I'd care to count at this time, the idea that "Trump/Family guilty of crime = impeachment" and that's not how any of this works. The idea that there was something here that would turn the political wheels needed (that no one will address) is, was, and has always been an extreme long shot from the start. I don't know people are acting like this is new though, pretty common for politicians to deny, detour, diminish, ask forgiveness/move on. You can't name a politician on the national scene where you can't find that cycle in their past. It's like a pre-req for tenure or something. Gore received a packet of Bush debate prep materials. He contacted the FBI, as he should have, rather than take advantage of the material without knowing its provenance. What Trump did is pretty new. | ||
|
Nevuk
United States16280 Posts
On July 12 2017 09:21 KwarK wrote: Not entirely. Reagan's Iran Contra deal where he negotiated to have the hostages held until after the election was similar in some waysGore received a packet of Bush debate prep materials. He contacted the FBI, as he should have, rather than take advantage of the material without knowing its provenance. What Trump did is pretty new. | ||
| ||
