Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting!
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.
On November 14 2018 12:30 Womwomwom wrote: They've already indicted several people within Trump's inner circle so its already been more "productive" than all the Benghazi hearings put together. The only narrative that might get blown is that they can't figure if Trump made any direct effort to collude. That doesn't mean Donald Trump Jr can't get busted for talking to a foreign power about "adoptions".
I'm 99% sure they won't, but I hope the Dems don't make a huge fuss should the investigation not show collusion by Trump's campaign (I should clarify that I mean some of the more progressive Dems that just got elected). I feel like some people will try to say the investigation wasn't legitimate and we've already had enough attacks on institutions like the FBI and the Justice Department by the Republicans that having those allegation thrown by the Dems will make things worse
Just saw the above post, looks like I am missing that part about we knowing there being attempted colusion. What specifically has been revealed?
The answer depends on what level of ignorance you choose to operate at. If you want to go full Hannity, then it was actually HRC that was colluding with Russia because SOROS. You could go with a more motivated reasoning approach and try and say "but who hasn't colluded with wikileaks and Russian agents for dirt on HRC and hack the DNC?" Or maybe you play like a Republican legislator and try to argue it was okay since maybe it was legal since the Mueller investigation hasn't gotten a few of Trump's campaign to not plead out yet so there is still hope that Mueller won't reach Trump. If you want to go with the extent written record, go with this colossal report on each known point of interaction.
The big one remains the time that Trump's entire upper echelon of his campaign (Manafort, Kushner, DonJr, etc) met with Agalarov to get dirt on Hillary Clinton from the Russian government.
The June 3, 2016, email sent to Donald Trump Jr. could hardly have been more explicit: One of his father’s former Russian business partners had been contacted by a senior Russian government official and was offering to provide the Trump campaign with dirt on Hillary Clinton.
The documents “would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father,” read the email, written by a trusted intermediary, who added, “This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump.”
If the future president’s eldest son was surprised or disturbed by the provenance of the promised material — or the notion that it was part of a continuing effort by the Russian government to aid his father’s campaign — he gave no indication.
He replied within minutes: “If it’s what you say I love it especially later in the summer.”
Four days later, after a flurry of emails, the intermediary wrote back, proposing a meeting in New York on Thursday with a “Russian government attorney.”
Donald Trump Jr. agreed, adding that he would most likely bring along “Paul Manafort (campaign boss)” and “my brother-in-law,” Jared Kushner, now one of the president’s closest White House advisers.
On June 9, the Russian lawyer was sitting in the younger Mr. Trump’s office on the 25th floor of Trump Tower, just one level below the office of the future president.
Over the past several days, The New York Times has disclosed the existence of the meeting, whom it involved and what it was about. The story has unfolded as The Times has been able to confirm details of the meetings.
But the email exchanges, which were reviewed by The Times, offer a detailed unspooling of how the meeting with the Kremlin-connected Russian lawyer, Natalia Veselnitskaya, came about — and just how eager Donald Trump Jr. was to accept what he was explicitly told was the Russian government’s help.
On November 14 2018 12:30 Womwomwom wrote: They've already indicted several people within Trump's inner circle so its already been more "productive" than all the Benghazi hearings put together. The only narrative that might get blown is that they can't figure if Trump made any direct effort to collude. That doesn't mean Donald Trump Jr can't get busted for talking to a foreign power about "adoptions".
I'm 99% sure they won't, but I hope the Dems don't make a huge fuss should the investigation not show collusion by Trump's campaign (I should clarify that I mean some of the more progressive Dems that just got elected). I feel like some people will try to say the investigation wasn't legitimate and we've already had enough attacks on institutions like the FBI and the Justice Department by the Republicans that having those allegation thrown by the Dems will make things worse
Just saw the above post, looks like I am missing that part about we knowing there being attempted colusion. What specifically has been revealed?
Donald Trump Jr had a meeting with people connected with the Russian oligarchy to talk about the "adoption of Russian children" (in other words, the Magnitsky Act). Which turned into a meeting to see someone who "might have information helpful to the campaign." Which turned into this tweet:
Then into this tweet:
I think its pretty clear cut that someone in the campaign at least attempted to collude with a foreign power and there was some quid pro quo business going on. It doesn't take a genius to put two and two together, they were simultaneously talking about the Magnitsky Act and talking about obtaining negative information about a political opponent.
I cannot believe I forgot about this, I guess it just goes to show how many thoroughly crazy stories got reported that this still isn't a talking point, although I'm sure Mueller hasn't forgotten
I'm actually curious on the laws regarding this. Is it legal to get dirt on a political rival from someone not affiliated with any government? I assume if they were affiliated with any foreign government, even if they were an ally, it would be illegal
It is super fucking illegal to receive material support(money, or anything of value) from a foreign power to assist in winning an election. That includes dirt on your opponent.
On November 14 2018 07:14 IgnE wrote: is acosta not a yellow journalist and a clown?
Even clowns deserve the base modicum of respect that the press corps requires to do its work. Being one of the particularly aggressive ones consistently hounded Trump during news conferences, it's impossible to not see this as retaliation.
Thing about it is that's how Acosta has been, he was that way under Obama only difference is it's not a headline because you didn't have a white house that responds with personal attacks. So a badgering reporter pressing a question wasn't a story because the white house just stonewalled the question instead of attacking the reporter. https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/31/409.1 It also may have been illegal to revoke his press pass security clearance without notice and without written cause and due process https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/31/409.2
To your point @Semantics maybe Obama should have revoked his credentials, could you link me some videos of Acosta acting the same way under Obama as he has under trump?
Another way to look at it might be, what would in your eyes be grounds for removal from the white house press core? keep in mind they are not removing the network , just a specific reporter.
On November 14 2018 15:26 Taelshin wrote: To your point @Semantics maybe Obama should have revoked his credentials, could you link me some videos of Acosta acting the same way under Obama as he has under trump?
Another way to look at it might be, what would in your eyes be grounds for removal from the white house press core? keep in mind they are not removing the network , just a specific reporter.
The burden of establishing a whataboutist defense of Trump is on the whataboutismer, not everyone else. Trump revoked Acosta's credential in a cheap stunt to distract from the midterm losses. As a bonus, the whitehouse even promoted a doctored video of the encounter. https://www.michigansthumb.com/politics/article/cnn-acosta-trump-how-video-edited-13374974.php There is no principled case for Trump's actions on the merits. So it is on you as the whataboutist to pony up the whataboutist distraction.
@Wulfey I do not believe what I said was whataboutist in anyway, unless the term has changed in the last 15 minutes. I was stating "maybe Obama should have revoked his credentials". I also think asking for evidence of this being " how Acosta has been, he was that way under Obama" isn't unreasonable, but if it is @Semantics can let me know.
I'm not sure where to go with your link, I've seen all the videos, I have not commented on them so i'm not sure where that's from. I do believe that Acosta acted inappropriately in that video with his refusal to relinquish the mic, To me that's enough to get removed from such a very very privileged position but maybe that's not the law, i'm not sure. So if you know that "There is no principled case for Trump's actions on the merits" does that make it wrong? could you possibly provide me with reading, videos, previous rulings ect(anything) or should I take your word for it?
On November 14 2018 12:30 Womwomwom wrote: They've already indicted several people within Trump's inner circle so its already been more "productive" than all the Benghazi hearings put together. The only narrative that might get blown is that they can't figure if Trump made any direct effort to collude. That doesn't mean Donald Trump Jr can't get busted for talking to a foreign power about "adoptions".
I'm 99% sure they won't, but I hope the Dems don't make a huge fuss should the investigation not show collusion by Trump's campaign (I should clarify that I mean some of the more progressive Dems that just got elected). I feel like some people will try to say the investigation wasn't legitimate and we've already had enough attacks on institutions like the FBI and the Justice Department by the Republicans that having those allegation thrown by the Dems will make things worse
Just saw the above post, looks like I am missing that part about we knowing there being attempted colusion. What specifically has been revealed?
Donald Trump Jr had a meeting with people connected with the Russian oligarchy to talk about the "adoption of Russian children" (in other words, the Magnitsky Act). Which turned into a meeting to see someone who "might have information helpful to the campaign." Which turned into this tweet:
I think its pretty clear cut that someone in the campaign at least attempted to collude with a foreign power and there was some quid pro quo business going on. It doesn't take a genius to put two and two together, they were simultaneously talking about the Magnitsky Act and talking about obtaining negative information about a political opponent.
I cannot believe I forgot about this, I guess it just goes to show how many thoroughly crazy stories got reported that this still isn't a talking point, although I'm sure Mueller hasn't forgotten
I'm actually curious on the laws regarding this. Is it legal to get dirt on a political rival from someone not affiliated with any government? I assume if they were affiliated with any foreign government, even if they were an ally, it would be illegal
It is super fucking illegal to receive material support(money, or anything of value) from a foreign power to assist in winning an election. That includes dirt on your opponent.
dirt on your opponent=material support? I don't see how those 2 are the same and what is definition of a foreign power,is that a foreign state? Its a very sketchy law I think if it is even illegal. Like what if English bbc comes with news about trump or whoever,then it would be illegal to make use of that news? Seems very difficult to correctly define this in a way that it only targets espionage and not normal journalism. As trump tweeted already,politicians do this all the time lol. As long as the material itself is not illegally obtained on instruction or with knowledge of the president himself (Nixon) then I don't see this going anywhere. And if Clinton has no dirt on her,then she had nothing to fear in the first place (to use an argument often used for increasing the surveillance powers of the government) It is overblown,its been going on for 2 years now. Will this keep hunting trump till the end of his presidency without ever becoming concrete? seems like a bit pointless to me.
On November 14 2018 12:30 Womwomwom wrote: They've already indicted several people within Trump's inner circle so its already been more "productive" than all the Benghazi hearings put together. The only narrative that might get blown is that they can't figure if Trump made any direct effort to collude. That doesn't mean Donald Trump Jr can't get busted for talking to a foreign power about "adoptions".
I'm 99% sure they won't, but I hope the Dems don't make a huge fuss should the investigation not show collusion by Trump's campaign (I should clarify that I mean some of the more progressive Dems that just got elected). I feel like some people will try to say the investigation wasn't legitimate and we've already had enough attacks on institutions like the FBI and the Justice Department by the Republicans that having those allegation thrown by the Dems will make things worse
Just saw the above post, looks like I am missing that part about we knowing there being attempted colusion. What specifically has been revealed?
Donald Trump Jr had a meeting with people connected with the Russian oligarchy to talk about the "adoption of Russian children" (in other words, the Magnitsky Act). Which turned into a meeting to see someone who "might have information helpful to the campaign." Which turned into this tweet:
I think its pretty clear cut that someone in the campaign at least attempted to collude with a foreign power and there was some quid pro quo business going on. It doesn't take a genius to put two and two together, they were simultaneously talking about the Magnitsky Act and talking about obtaining negative information about a political opponent.
I cannot believe I forgot about this, I guess it just goes to show how many thoroughly crazy stories got reported that this still isn't a talking point, although I'm sure Mueller hasn't forgotten
I'm actually curious on the laws regarding this. Is it legal to get dirt on a political rival from someone not affiliated with any government? I assume if they were affiliated with any foreign government, even if they were an ally, it would be illegal
It is super fucking illegal to receive material support(money, or anything of value) from a foreign power to assist in winning an election.
Sure is. Which is why it is interesting that no one on the left seemed to mind Hillary Clinton's campaign using British intelligence assets to hunt down dirt on Donald Trump. Intelligence assets that worked closely with Russian sources to gather said dirt and put it into a dossier that was then illegally leaked to the media. No, it is much easier just to memory hole all that with a media blackout and straw-manning it all as "because SOROS". Anyway let's look at the fruits of the Mueller "investigation":
*Indictments on Russian companies that were never supposed to be brought to court. When one of those companies actually shows up, Mueller is completely blown away and immediately backpedals and refuses to go to court where he would have to actually provide evidence and go through discovery. He was all fire and brimstone when he laid down the indictment, it was pretty hilarious to see him turn into a wet blanket as soon as his target could legally defend themselves.
*Forced a guilty plea out of Mike Flynn for "lying to the FBI" when the head of the FBI, a man who despises Donald Trump, admitted that he never thought Mike Flynn was being dishonest. Was later proven to have illegally withheld this information from the defense, which will probably result in the conviction being overturned.
*Forced guilty plea of George Papadapolous, which was meant to cover up the fact that the FBI used multiple foreign and domestic intelligence sources and agencies to plant the "evidence" needed to justify a spying operation on a political campaign, but ultimately failed to cover said entrapment and illegal spying.
*Convictions of Michael Cohen and Paul Manafort for crimes that were committed long before the Trump campaign even began and had nothing to do with Russian collusion.
Ultimately, we are left at a stalemate. Trump could declassify everything and bring down the FBI and the CIA and probably British intelligence also (remember when he threatened to declassify and the British freaked out? interesting that. why would they care? unless, of course, they helped engineer the evidence-planting that led to the illegal campaign spying). As it stands he's got Mueller between a rock and a hard place. Mueller pushes too far and Trump presses the nuke button and shreds the entire US intelligence community by exposing them as widely complicit in a highly illegal political spying operation, potentially exposing many of Mueller's friends and colleagues, and possibly Mueller himself, to criminal charges. Mueller doesn't push hard enough and Trump stays in and the slow, drip-drip-drip of leaks continues to expose what happened and does near irreparable damage to the credibility of intelligence community.
It's beautiful how this whole thing played out. The Obama admin and the Deep State were so blinded by their hatred of Trump that they ended up handcuffing themselves to him. Now they gotta tread water with him, because if Trump goes down he drags them all down with him.
On November 14 2018 12:30 Womwomwom wrote: They've already indicted several people within Trump's inner circle so its already been more "productive" than all the Benghazi hearings put together. The only narrative that might get blown is that they can't figure if Trump made any direct effort to collude. That doesn't mean Donald Trump Jr can't get busted for talking to a foreign power about "adoptions".
I'm 99% sure they won't, but I hope the Dems don't make a huge fuss should the investigation not show collusion by Trump's campaign (I should clarify that I mean some of the more progressive Dems that just got elected). I feel like some people will try to say the investigation wasn't legitimate and we've already had enough attacks on institutions like the FBI and the Justice Department by the Republicans that having those allegation thrown by the Dems will make things worse
Just saw the above post, looks like I am missing that part about we knowing there being attempted colusion. What specifically has been revealed?
Donald Trump Jr had a meeting with people connected with the Russian oligarchy to talk about the "adoption of Russian children" (in other words, the Magnitsky Act). Which turned into a meeting to see someone who "might have information helpful to the campaign." Which turned into this tweet:
I think its pretty clear cut that someone in the campaign at least attempted to collude with a foreign power and there was some quid pro quo business going on. It doesn't take a genius to put two and two together, they were simultaneously talking about the Magnitsky Act and talking about obtaining negative information about a political opponent.
I cannot believe I forgot about this, I guess it just goes to show how many thoroughly crazy stories got reported that this still isn't a talking point, although I'm sure Mueller hasn't forgotten
I'm actually curious on the laws regarding this. Is it legal to get dirt on a political rival from someone not affiliated with any government? I assume if they were affiliated with any foreign government, even if they were an ally, it would be illegal
It is super fucking illegal to receive material support(money, or anything of value) from a foreign power to assist in winning an election.
Sure is. Which is why it is interesting that no one on the left seemed to mind Hillary Clinton's campaign using British intelligence assets to hunt down dirt on Donald Trump. Intelligence assets that worked closely with Russian sources to gather said dirt and put it into a dossier that was then illegally leaked to the media. No, it is much easier just to memory hole all that with a media blackout and straw-manning it all as "because SOROS". Anyway let's look at the fruits of the Mueller "investigation":
Because the Democrats hired a US company that has employees, not all of who are US citizens.
Its almost like the two situations are very different, and one is illegal and the other is not. But hey, who cares about actual facts right.
e. hello fellow humans, the following video hosted on an internet hosting site stars reporter Jim Acosta performing his job, his white house privilege has since been taken away from him the point of this video is to show that the decision to rewoke his media pass was probably not based on a single incident
personally, I'm not one to take away one's right to screeching in a way that is not completely unlike someone diagnosed on the autistic spectrum might in a horrible misunderstood and misrepresented way as seen on numerous media, however at some point one becomes disrespectful to one's colleagues
I hope this clears things up and the context of the video is now clear to everyone without having to watch said video
On November 14 2018 12:30 Womwomwom wrote: They've already indicted several people within Trump's inner circle so its already been more "productive" than all the Benghazi hearings put together. The only narrative that might get blown is that they can't figure if Trump made any direct effort to collude. That doesn't mean Donald Trump Jr can't get busted for talking to a foreign power about "adoptions".
I'm 99% sure they won't, but I hope the Dems don't make a huge fuss should the investigation not show collusion by Trump's campaign (I should clarify that I mean some of the more progressive Dems that just got elected). I feel like some people will try to say the investigation wasn't legitimate and we've already had enough attacks on institutions like the FBI and the Justice Department by the Republicans that having those allegation thrown by the Dems will make things worse
Just saw the above post, looks like I am missing that part about we knowing there being attempted colusion. What specifically has been revealed?
Donald Trump Jr had a meeting with people connected with the Russian oligarchy to talk about the "adoption of Russian children" (in other words, the Magnitsky Act). Which turned into a meeting to see someone who "might have information helpful to the campaign." Which turned into this tweet:
I think its pretty clear cut that someone in the campaign at least attempted to collude with a foreign power and there was some quid pro quo business going on. It doesn't take a genius to put two and two together, they were simultaneously talking about the Magnitsky Act and talking about obtaining negative information about a political opponent.
I cannot believe I forgot about this, I guess it just goes to show how many thoroughly crazy stories got reported that this still isn't a talking point, although I'm sure Mueller hasn't forgotten
I'm actually curious on the laws regarding this. Is it legal to get dirt on a political rival from someone not affiliated with any government? I assume if they were affiliated with any foreign government, even if they were an ally, it would be illegal
It is super fucking illegal to receive material support(money, or anything of value) from a foreign power to assist in winning an election.
Sure is. Which is why it is interesting that no one on the left seemed to mind Hillary Clinton's campaign using British intelligence assets to hunt down dirt on Donald Trump. Intelligence assets that worked closely with Russian sources to gather said dirt and put it into a dossier that was then illegally leaked to the media. No, it is much easier just to memory hole all that with a media blackout and straw-manning it all as "because SOROS". Anyway let's look at the fruits of the Mueller "investigation":
*Indictments on Russian companies that were never supposed to be brought to court. When one of those companies actually shows up, Mueller is completely blown away and immediately backpedals and refuses to go to court where he would have to actually provide evidence and go through discovery. He was all fire and brimstone when he laid down the indictment, it was pretty hilarious to see him turn into a wet blanket as soon as his target could legally defend themselves.
*Forced a guilty plea out of Mike Flynn for "lying to the FBI" when the head of the FBI, a man who despises Donald Trump, admitted that he never thought Mike Flynn was being dishonest. Was later proven to have illegally withheld this information from the defense, which will probably result in the conviction being overturned.
*Forced guilty plea of George Papadapolous, which was meant to cover up the fact that the FBI used multiple foreign and domestic intelligence sources and agencies to plant the "evidence" needed to justify a spying operation on a political campaign, but ultimately failed to cover said entrapment and illegal spying.
*Convictions of Michael Cohen and Paul Manafort for crimes that were committed long before the Trump campaign even began and had nothing to do with Russian collusion.
Ultimately, we are left at a stalemate. Trump could declassify everything and bring down the FBI and the CIA and probably British intelligence also (remember when he threatened to declassify and the British freaked out? interesting that. why would they care? unless, of course, they helped engineer the evidence-planting that led to the illegal campaign spying). As it stands he's got Mueller between a rock and a hard place. Mueller pushes too far and Trump presses the nuke button and shreds the entire US intelligence community by exposing them as widely complicit in a highly illegal political spying operation, potentially exposing many of Mueller's friends and colleagues, and possibly Mueller himself, to criminal charges. Mueller doesn't push hard enough and Trump stays in and the slow, drip-drip-drip of leaks continues to expose what happened and does near irreparable damage to the credibility of intelligence community.
It's beautiful how this whole thing played out. The Obama admin and the Deep State were so blinded by their hatred of Trump that they ended up handcuffing themselves to him. Now they gotta tread water with him, because if Trump goes down he drags them all down with him.
A bloodless coup.
Fusion GPS or whatever it’s name was a private firm. The British intelligence services were not involved. They employed a former member of the British intelligence services, but that is completely differed than what you are claiming.
On November 14 2018 12:30 Womwomwom wrote: They've already indicted several people within Trump's inner circle so its already been more "productive" than all the Benghazi hearings put together. The only narrative that might get blown is that they can't figure if Trump made any direct effort to collude. That doesn't mean Donald Trump Jr can't get busted for talking to a foreign power about "adoptions".
I'm 99% sure they won't, but I hope the Dems don't make a huge fuss should the investigation not show collusion by Trump's campaign (I should clarify that I mean some of the more progressive Dems that just got elected). I feel like some people will try to say the investigation wasn't legitimate and we've already had enough attacks on institutions like the FBI and the Justice Department by the Republicans that having those allegation thrown by the Dems will make things worse
Just saw the above post, looks like I am missing that part about we knowing there being attempted colusion. What specifically has been revealed?
Donald Trump Jr had a meeting with people connected with the Russian oligarchy to talk about the "adoption of Russian children" (in other words, the Magnitsky Act). Which turned into a meeting to see someone who "might have information helpful to the campaign." Which turned into this tweet:
I think its pretty clear cut that someone in the campaign at least attempted to collude with a foreign power and there was some quid pro quo business going on. It doesn't take a genius to put two and two together, they were simultaneously talking about the Magnitsky Act and talking about obtaining negative information about a political opponent.
I cannot believe I forgot about this, I guess it just goes to show how many thoroughly crazy stories got reported that this still isn't a talking point, although I'm sure Mueller hasn't forgotten
I'm actually curious on the laws regarding this. Is it legal to get dirt on a political rival from someone not affiliated with any government? I assume if they were affiliated with any foreign government, even if they were an ally, it would be illegal
It is super fucking illegal to receive material support(money, or anything of value) from a foreign power to assist in winning an election. That includes dirt on your opponent.
dirt on your opponent=material support? I don't see how those 2 are the same and what is definition of a foreign power,is that a foreign state? Its a very sketchy law I think if it is even illegal. Like what if English bbc comes with news about trump or whoever,then it would be illegal to make use of that news? Seems very difficult to correctly define this in a way that it only targets espionage and not normal journalism. As trump tweeted already,politicians do this all the time lol. As long as the material itself is not illegally obtained on instruction or with knowledge of the president himself (Nixon) then I don't see this going anywhere. And if Clinton has no dirt on her,then she had nothing to fear in the first place (to use an argument often used for increasing the surveillance powers of the government) It is overblown,its been going on for 2 years now. Will this keep hunting trump till the end of his presidency without ever becoming concrete? seems like a bit pointless to me.
Opposition research has materially value and is entirely different from a report by the BBC. In the case of Trumps team, they met with the express purpose of receiving information about Clinton from the Russian government. That is material support. The Russian government was seeking a promise to have sanctions lifted.
You man think this is being blown out of proportion, but you also think that Obama gave up a Supreme Court seat. The latter is demonstrably incorrectly.
On November 14 2018 12:30 Womwomwom wrote: They've already indicted several people within Trump's inner circle so its already been more "productive" than all the Benghazi hearings put together. The only narrative that might get blown is that they can't figure if Trump made any direct effort to collude. That doesn't mean Donald Trump Jr can't get busted for talking to a foreign power about "adoptions".
I'm 99% sure they won't, but I hope the Dems don't make a huge fuss should the investigation not show collusion by Trump's campaign (I should clarify that I mean some of the more progressive Dems that just got elected). I feel like some people will try to say the investigation wasn't legitimate and we've already had enough attacks on institutions like the FBI and the Justice Department by the Republicans that having those allegation thrown by the Dems will make things worse
Just saw the above post, looks like I am missing that part about we knowing there being attempted colusion. What specifically has been revealed?
Donald Trump Jr had a meeting with people connected with the Russian oligarchy to talk about the "adoption of Russian children" (in other words, the Magnitsky Act). Which turned into a meeting to see someone who "might have information helpful to the campaign." Which turned into this tweet:
I think its pretty clear cut that someone in the campaign at least attempted to collude with a foreign power and there was some quid pro quo business going on. It doesn't take a genius to put two and two together, they were simultaneously talking about the Magnitsky Act and talking about obtaining negative information about a political opponent.
I cannot believe I forgot about this, I guess it just goes to show how many thoroughly crazy stories got reported that this still isn't a talking point, although I'm sure Mueller hasn't forgotten
I'm actually curious on the laws regarding this. Is it legal to get dirt on a political rival from someone not affiliated with any government? I assume if they were affiliated with any foreign government, even if they were an ally, it would be illegal
It is super fucking illegal to receive material support(money, or anything of value) from a foreign power to assist in winning an election. That includes dirt on your opponent.
dirt on your opponent=material support? I don't see how those 2 are the same and what is definition of a foreign power,is that a foreign state? Its a very sketchy law I think if it is even illegal. Like what if English bbc comes with news about trump or whoever,then it would be illegal to make use of that news? Seems very difficult to correctly define this in a way that it only targets espionage and not normal journalism. As trump tweeted already,politicians do this all the time lol. As long as the material itself is not illegally obtained on instruction or with knowledge of the president himself (Nixon) then I don't see this going anywhere. And if Clinton has no dirt on her,then she had nothing to fear in the first place (to use an argument often used for increasing the surveillance powers of the government) It is overblown,its been going on for 2 years now. Will this keep hunting trump till the end of his presidency without ever becoming concrete? seems like a bit pointless to me.
How long did the Birther Conspiracy last? How much actual truth was there to any of the central claims there?
How long did Benghaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaazi last?
The examples of those two things should inform you when it comes to Trump collusion's longevity.
On November 14 2018 12:30 Womwomwom wrote: They've already indicted several people within Trump's inner circle so its already been more "productive" than all the Benghazi hearings put together. The only narrative that might get blown is that they can't figure if Trump made any direct effort to collude. That doesn't mean Donald Trump Jr can't get busted for talking to a foreign power about "adoptions".
I'm 99% sure they won't, but I hope the Dems don't make a huge fuss should the investigation not show collusion by Trump's campaign (I should clarify that I mean some of the more progressive Dems that just got elected). I feel like some people will try to say the investigation wasn't legitimate and we've already had enough attacks on institutions like the FBI and the Justice Department by the Republicans that having those allegation thrown by the Dems will make things worse
Just saw the above post, looks like I am missing that part about we knowing there being attempted colusion. What specifically has been revealed?
Donald Trump Jr had a meeting with people connected with the Russian oligarchy to talk about the "adoption of Russian children" (in other words, the Magnitsky Act). Which turned into a meeting to see someone who "might have information helpful to the campaign." Which turned into this tweet:
I think its pretty clear cut that someone in the campaign at least attempted to collude with a foreign power and there was some quid pro quo business going on. It doesn't take a genius to put two and two together, they were simultaneously talking about the Magnitsky Act and talking about obtaining negative information about a political opponent.
I cannot believe I forgot about this, I guess it just goes to show how many thoroughly crazy stories got reported that this still isn't a talking point, although I'm sure Mueller hasn't forgotten
I'm actually curious on the laws regarding this. Is it legal to get dirt on a political rival from someone not affiliated with any government? I assume if they were affiliated with any foreign government, even if they were an ally, it would be illegal
It is super fucking illegal to receive material support(money, or anything of value) from a foreign power to assist in winning an election. That includes dirt on your opponent.
dirt on your opponent=material support? I don't see how those 2 are the same and what is definition of a foreign power,is that a foreign state? Its a very sketchy law I think if it is even illegal. Like what if English bbc comes with news about trump or whoever,then it would be illegal to make use of that news? Seems very difficult to correctly define this in a way that it only targets espionage and not normal journalism. As trump tweeted already,politicians do this all the time lol. As long as the material itself is not illegally obtained on instruction or with knowledge of the president himself (Nixon) then I don't see this going anywhere. And if Clinton has no dirt on her,then she had nothing to fear in the first place (to use an argument often used for increasing the surveillance powers of the government) It is overblown,its been going on for 2 years now. Will this keep hunting trump till the end of his presidency without ever becoming concrete? seems like a bit pointless to me.
How long did the Birther Conspiracy last? How much actual truth was there to any of the central claims there?
How long did Benghaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaazi last?
The examples of those two things should inform you when it comes to Trump collusion's longevity.
Pretty sure "but her emails" is still pulled out when it's politically convenient.
On November 14 2018 12:30 Womwomwom wrote: They've already indicted several people within Trump's inner circle so its already been more "productive" than all the Benghazi hearings put together. The only narrative that might get blown is that they can't figure if Trump made any direct effort to collude. That doesn't mean Donald Trump Jr can't get busted for talking to a foreign power about "adoptions".
I'm 99% sure they won't, but I hope the Dems don't make a huge fuss should the investigation not show collusion by Trump's campaign (I should clarify that I mean some of the more progressive Dems that just got elected). I feel like some people will try to say the investigation wasn't legitimate and we've already had enough attacks on institutions like the FBI and the Justice Department by the Republicans that having those allegation thrown by the Dems will make things worse
Just saw the above post, looks like I am missing that part about we knowing there being attempted colusion. What specifically has been revealed?
Donald Trump Jr had a meeting with people connected with the Russian oligarchy to talk about the "adoption of Russian children" (in other words, the Magnitsky Act). Which turned into a meeting to see someone who "might have information helpful to the campaign." Which turned into this tweet:
I think its pretty clear cut that someone in the campaign at least attempted to collude with a foreign power and there was some quid pro quo business going on. It doesn't take a genius to put two and two together, they were simultaneously talking about the Magnitsky Act and talking about obtaining negative information about a political opponent.
I cannot believe I forgot about this, I guess it just goes to show how many thoroughly crazy stories got reported that this still isn't a talking point, although I'm sure Mueller hasn't forgotten
I'm actually curious on the laws regarding this. Is it legal to get dirt on a political rival from someone not affiliated with any government? I assume if they were affiliated with any foreign government, even if they were an ally, it would be illegal
It is super fucking illegal to receive material support(money, or anything of value) from a foreign power to assist in winning an election. That includes dirt on your opponent.
dirt on your opponent=material support? I don't see how those 2 are the same and what is definition of a foreign power,is that a foreign state? Its a very sketchy law I think if it is even illegal. Like what if English bbc comes with news about trump or whoever,then it would be illegal to make use of that news? Seems very difficult to correctly define this in a way that it only targets espionage and not normal journalism. As trump tweeted already,politicians do this all the time lol. As long as the material itself is not illegally obtained on instruction or with knowledge of the president himself (Nixon) then I don't see this going anywhere. And if Clinton has no dirt on her,then she had nothing to fear in the first place (to use an argument often used for increasing the surveillance powers of the government) It is overblown,its been going on for 2 years now. Will this keep hunting trump till the end of his presidency without ever becoming concrete? seems like a bit pointless to me.
How long did the Birther Conspiracy last? How much actual truth was there to any of the central claims there?
How long did Benghaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaazi last?
The examples of those two things should inform you when it comes to Trump collusion's longevity.
Pretty sure "but her emails" is still pulled out when it's politically convenient.
XDaunt was saying she should be prosecuted over them, and was enthusiastic about the idea, less than a week ago over on the mega-blog. Don't know if that means its still a Conservative talking point, but it certainly suggests that it is.
On November 14 2018 12:30 Womwomwom wrote: They've already indicted several people within Trump's inner circle so its already been more "productive" than all the Benghazi hearings put together. The only narrative that might get blown is that they can't figure if Trump made any direct effort to collude. That doesn't mean Donald Trump Jr can't get busted for talking to a foreign power about "adoptions".
I'm 99% sure they won't, but I hope the Dems don't make a huge fuss should the investigation not show collusion by Trump's campaign (I should clarify that I mean some of the more progressive Dems that just got elected). I feel like some people will try to say the investigation wasn't legitimate and we've already had enough attacks on institutions like the FBI and the Justice Department by the Republicans that having those allegation thrown by the Dems will make things worse
Just saw the above post, looks like I am missing that part about we knowing there being attempted colusion. What specifically has been revealed?
Donald Trump Jr had a meeting with people connected with the Russian oligarchy to talk about the "adoption of Russian children" (in other words, the Magnitsky Act). Which turned into a meeting to see someone who "might have information helpful to the campaign." Which turned into this tweet:
I think its pretty clear cut that someone in the campaign at least attempted to collude with a foreign power and there was some quid pro quo business going on. It doesn't take a genius to put two and two together, they were simultaneously talking about the Magnitsky Act and talking about obtaining negative information about a political opponent.
I cannot believe I forgot about this, I guess it just goes to show how many thoroughly crazy stories got reported that this still isn't a talking point, although I'm sure Mueller hasn't forgotten
I'm actually curious on the laws regarding this. Is it legal to get dirt on a political rival from someone not affiliated with any government? I assume if they were affiliated with any foreign government, even if they were an ally, it would be illegal
And let's not forget that the Don Jr meeting started at 4 pm, and trump tweeted about hillarys missing emails for the first time at 4:40 pm.
On November 14 2018 12:30 Womwomwom wrote: They've already indicted several people within Trump's inner circle so its already been more "productive" than all the Benghazi hearings put together. The only narrative that might get blown is that they can't figure if Trump made any direct effort to collude. That doesn't mean Donald Trump Jr can't get busted for talking to a foreign power about "adoptions".
I'm 99% sure they won't, but I hope the Dems don't make a huge fuss should the investigation not show collusion by Trump's campaign (I should clarify that I mean some of the more progressive Dems that just got elected). I feel like some people will try to say the investigation wasn't legitimate and we've already had enough attacks on institutions like the FBI and the Justice Department by the Republicans that having those allegation thrown by the Dems will make things worse
Just saw the above post, looks like I am missing that part about we knowing there being attempted colusion. What specifically has been revealed?
Donald Trump Jr had a meeting with people connected with the Russian oligarchy to talk about the "adoption of Russian children" (in other words, the Magnitsky Act). Which turned into a meeting to see someone who "might have information helpful to the campaign." Which turned into this tweet:
I think its pretty clear cut that someone in the campaign at least attempted to collude with a foreign power and there was some quid pro quo business going on. It doesn't take a genius to put two and two together, they were simultaneously talking about the Magnitsky Act and talking about obtaining negative information about a political opponent.
I cannot believe I forgot about this, I guess it just goes to show how many thoroughly crazy stories got reported that this still isn't a talking point, although I'm sure Mueller hasn't forgotten
I'm actually curious on the laws regarding this. Is it legal to get dirt on a political rival from someone not affiliated with any government? I assume if they were affiliated with any foreign government, even if they were an ally, it would be illegal
And let's not forget that the Don Jr meeting started at 4 pm, and trump tweeted about hillarys missing emails for the first time at 4:40 pm.
If Don Jr. gets charged, his text logs to his father are going to be very interesting.
On November 14 2018 12:30 Womwomwom wrote: They've already indicted several people within Trump's inner circle so its already been more "productive" than all the Benghazi hearings put together. The only narrative that might get blown is that they can't figure if Trump made any direct effort to collude. That doesn't mean Donald Trump Jr can't get busted for talking to a foreign power about "adoptions".
I'm 99% sure they won't, but I hope the Dems don't make a huge fuss should the investigation not show collusion by Trump's campaign (I should clarify that I mean some of the more progressive Dems that just got elected). I feel like some people will try to say the investigation wasn't legitimate and we've already had enough attacks on institutions like the FBI and the Justice Department by the Republicans that having those allegation thrown by the Dems will make things worse
Just saw the above post, looks like I am missing that part about we knowing there being attempted colusion. What specifically has been revealed?
Donald Trump Jr had a meeting with people connected with the Russian oligarchy to talk about the "adoption of Russian children" (in other words, the Magnitsky Act). Which turned into a meeting to see someone who "might have information helpful to the campaign." Which turned into this tweet:
I think its pretty clear cut that someone in the campaign at least attempted to collude with a foreign power and there was some quid pro quo business going on. It doesn't take a genius to put two and two together, they were simultaneously talking about the Magnitsky Act and talking about obtaining negative information about a political opponent.
I cannot believe I forgot about this, I guess it just goes to show how many thoroughly crazy stories got reported that this still isn't a talking point, although I'm sure Mueller hasn't forgotten
I'm actually curious on the laws regarding this. Is it legal to get dirt on a political rival from someone not affiliated with any government? I assume if they were affiliated with any foreign government, even if they were an ally, it would be illegal
And let's not forget that the Don Jr meeting started at 4 pm, and trump tweeted about hillarys missing emails for the first time at 4:40 pm.
If Don Jr. gets charged, his text logs to his father are going to be very interesting.
I hope that they get released to the public. Surely there's no reason for them not to be, right? i.e. they wouldn't fall under any classified system since this was before Trump was president
They are not classified. They would be made public during a trial as well. They also might be included in any final report to congress.
But this all assumes those texts exist and the team can obtain them. Going after Trump Jr. and his records is going all in and forcing Trump to respond or let his kid get charged.
EPT
