America - The Official Thread

[prisonermonkeys]

You may well be the only person who believes the Russians when they say that they didn't do it.

 

[Chrunch Houston]

You [@Johnnypenso] may well be the only person who believes the Russians when they say that they didn't do it.

Nope. I'll have everything, no ketchup, on my nothing burger.

 

[Johnnypenso]

You may well be the only person who believes the Russians when they say that they didn't do it.

Wrong again. I believe indisputable evidence when it's presented. Rumours, innuendos and anonymous sources don't convict people. Present some actual evidence of collusion surrounding election tampering between Trump and Russian operatives and I'm sold. I'm quite certain some Russians were involved in the election, probably along with the Chicoms, the North Koreans and a few others. Standard operating procedure in the cloak and dagger world. Evidence that any Americans on any side of the political aisle were involved with them...so far...zero.

 

[DK]

Looks like there's a bit of meat in this so-called "Nothingburger".

"Buttizee" doesn't have the same ring to it as "buttery".

 

[Johnnypenso]

Looks like there's a bit of meat in this so-called "Nothingburger".

"Buttizee" doesn't have the same ring to it as "buttery".

What is the meat?

 

[Danoff]

You may well be the only person who believes the Russians when they say that they didn't do it.

Didn't do what exactly? You could be referring to a lot of things.

 

[Eh Team]

General thought being thrown out here as I put on a hat in the dark, can't tell if it's a thinking one or tin foil one. Anyway, I think Russia interfered, but not with the election directly because this wouldn't have come up if there wasn't evidence of something. Russia attacked both sides of US politics but in different ways with an intent to cause mass havoc that they can then sit back and point and laugh at the resulting antics. Tin foil or plausible? I'd be happy to discuss.

 

[Johnnypenso]

General thought being thrown out here as I put on a hat in the dark, can't tell if it's a thinking one or tin foil one. Anyway, I think Russia interfered, but not with the election directly because this wouldn't have come up if there wasn't evidence of something. Russia attacked both sides of US politics but in different ways with an intent to cause mass havoc that they can then sit back and point and laugh at the resulting antics. Tin foil or plausible? I'd be happy to discuss.

I wouldn't rule out Russia working with the Trump campaign yet, but so far there's no direct evidence of it. One would assume that if it was done it was pretty clandestine and on a need to know basis only, thus uncovering it wouldn't be easy. The number of people who might actually know something would likely be very small. It's also possible it was going on and The Donald didn't know about it. Another possibility that no one is looking into is that the Russians were also working with both campaigns. No one cares about working with Hilary because she lost. But so far there's no evidence that any information was exchanged with either side.

 

[BobK]

General thought being thrown out here as I put on a hat in the dark, can't tell if it's a thinking one or tin foil one. Anyway, I think Russia interfered, but not with the election directly because this wouldn't have come up if there wasn't evidence of something. Russia attacked both sides of US politics but in different ways with an intent to cause mass havoc that they can then sit back and point and laugh at the resulting antics. Tin foil or plausible? I'd be happy to discuss.

No disrespect, but I'd classify that more under "tinfoil".

I feel that a lot of people think Russia interfered in the election simply because they've heard it so much that "it must be true".

What happened is that in the days immediately after the election back in November the Democrats were casting about for explanations/excuses why Clinton lost an election that all the "smart money" said she was going to win easily and couldn't get anyone to buy any of them until somebody came up with "Russians must have done it".

I'm trying to figure out just what, precisely, the Russians are supposed to have done and what evidence (real, hard evidence) there is of it.

 

[Joey D]

I wouldn't rule out Russia working with the Trump campaign yet, but so far there's no direct evidence of it.

Looks like Trump the Junior released e-mails today which seems like pretty good direct evidence.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40574564

 

[Johnnypenso]

Looks like Trump the Junior released e-mails today which seems like pretty good direct evidence.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40574564

I'm on my phone right now and don't have time to read it. So you're saying that these emails have evidence that information was actually exchanged and that Trump jr. acknowledges that in an email? And the emails have been verified as authentic? So Trump jr. implicated himself?

 

[huskeR32]

 

[Joey D]

I'm on my phone right now and don't have time to read it. So you're saying that these emails have evidence that information was actually exchanged and that Trump jr. acknowledges that in an email? And the emails have been verified as authentic? So Trump jr. implicated himself?

Trump Jr. released them himself on his verified Twitter account so I'd imagine they are authentic.

And the e-mails talk about having information on Clinton and to quote the e-mail itself "obviously very high-level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government's support for Mr Trump".

Also this snippet from the article:

The email to Mr Trump Jr, which he released on Twitter, says "the crown prosecutor of Russia" (a role that does not exist) had "offered to provide the Trump campaign with some official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father".

Mr Trump Jr replies: "If it's what you say, I love it."

 

[Danoff]

Good idea for Jr. to take the wheel and release the email chain himself for all to see.

What's the problem here? Was he under obligation to say "no, go pound sand"? I thought we already knew that the trump campaign received dirt on Hillary from Russia. I'm not trying to be dense here... seriously... was he obliged to tell them no?

Edit:

Are we trying to build a bridge to Russian hacking of the DNC directed by Trump? Is the idea here that we can find Trump encouraging illegal activity by Russia? Is that the end-goal?

 

[Johnnypenso]

Trump Jr. released them himself on his verified Twitter account so I'd imagine they are authentic.

And the e-mails talk about having information on Clinton and to quote the e-mail itself "obviously very high-level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government's support for Mr Trump".

Also this snippet from the article:

Apparently he went to the meeting and the Russian lawyer lobbied for something completely different. Which crime has been committed here?

 

[Joey D]

Good idea for Jr. to take the wheel and release the email chain himself for all to see.

What's the problem here? Was he under obligation to say "no, go pound sand"? I thought we already knew that the trump campaign received dirt on Hillary from Russia. I'm not trying to be dense here... seriously... was he obliged to tell them no?

Edit:

Are we trying to build a bridge to Russian hacking of the DNC directed by Trump? Is the idea here that we can find Trump encouraging illegal activity by Russia? Is that the end-goal?

I think the issue here is how campaign contributions would end up being defined as. The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act address this but it's not super clear if things other than money fit the bill. Also I guessing that if Russian officials gave or paid for anything for Trump Jr. then there could be a precedence for saying that the Trump campaigned received foreign money.

Here's a Politico article that talks about it: http://www.politifact.com/punditfac...ws-hosts-wrong-no-law-forbids-russia-trump-c/

Apparently he went to the meeting and the Russian lawyer lobbied for something completely different. Which crime has been committed here?

Collusion possibly. Also depending on what was given and how the law ends up seeing it, it could be in violation of campaign reform law. I feel like it's good enough evidence to continue the investigation and find out if any laws were broke.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Collusion possibly. Also depending on what was given and how the law ends up seeing it, it could be in violation of campaign reform law. I feel like it's good enough evidence to continue the investigation and find out if any laws were broke.

Conspiracy maybe. I'm not a lawyer but if Trump Jr's intent when he went to the meeting was to benefit from information illegally obtained that might qualify as conspiracy. However, I still don't see any evidence that any information or monies were exchanged.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Apparently he went to the meeting and the Russian lawyer lobbied for something completely different. Which crime has been committed here?

If the meeting was as he suggested then no laws were broken therein. However, he clearly states that he was going to be told by officials about information they'd received about Clinton ("I love it!"). That surely is a breach of the Logan act?

Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

Here's the real problem - there's a distinct possibility that if in fact Clinton information was discussed then the Russians have a recording of the session. What kind of leverage might this allow them to employ? Is that a position that Trump's family should sensibly be putting themselves in?

Ethically the best thing would have been to report the offer to authorities and tell them "no". Simple as. That would have been a boost for Trump & Co's public credibility. They must surely have known that any meetings could blow up in their faces.

 

[Tornado]

It is darkly hilarious just how much an idiot Trump Jr. is, though. He hears "dirt on Clinton from the Russian government himself" and he immediately responds "how high;" and a year later he basically talks like his biggest regret is that he didn't get anything good?

 

[Danoff]

I think the issue here is how campaign contributions would end up being defined as. The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act address this but it's not super clear if things other than money fit the bill. Also I guessing that if Russian officials gave or paid for anything for Trump Jr. then there could be a precedence for saying that the Trump campaigned received foreign money.

Here's a Politico article that talks about it: http://www.politifact.com/punditfac...ws-hosts-wrong-no-law-forbids-russia-trump-c/



Collusion possibly. Also depending on what was given and how the law ends up seeing it, it could be in violation of campaign reform law. I feel like it's good enough evidence to continue the investigation and find out if any laws were broke.

I don't see anything decent in that article. Russia may have broken our laws (I don't think they care), but so far we have no evidence that Trump Jr. did.

If the meeting was as he suggested then no laws were broken therein. However, he clearly states that he was going to be told by officials about information they'd received about Clinton ("I love it!"). That surely is a breach of the Logan act?

Not sure I see how it would be a breach of the logan act as you quoted it. I have to squint to even see why it might theoretically be relevant, but you have to apply a very broad interpretation of "measures".

Here's the real problem - there's a distinct possibility that if in fact Clinton information was discussed then the Russians have a recording of the session. What kind of leverage might this allow them to employ? Is that a position that Trump's family should sensibly be putting themselves in?

That's a different question, not really a legal one. I think that's more a question for voters.

It is darkly hilarious just how much an idiot Trump Jr. is, though. He hears "dirt on Clinton from the Russian government himself" and he immediately responds "how high;" and a year later he basically talks like his biggest regret is that he didn't get anything good?

I'm not entirely sure that's an improper response.

Let's pretend for just a moment that Russia had direct evidence that Hillary had murdered several people for political gain. This is purely hypothetical. Russia can't advertise that in the US because it would be against the law. You're saying that if they offered that to Donald Jr., he should turn it down because it would be unethical to accept that information from Russia. Aren't us citizen interests served by getting this information out into the public?

If the information was obtained illegally, it may not be admissible in court, but the Russian agents are the ones taking the risk. This is basically wikileaks... someone takes a risk by obtaining information illegally, the rest of the world kinda says "thanks".

 

[Tornado]

You're saying

Nope.

 

[Danoff]

Nope.

K, cool. What did you mean by this then?

It is darkly hilarious just how much an idiot Trump Jr. is, though. He hears "dirt on Clinton from the Russian government himself" and he immediately responds "how high;" and a year later he basically talks like his biggest regret is that he didn't get anything good?

He should have waited a few minutes?

 

[Tornado]

I meant that Trump Jr. is an idiot.

It is darkly hilarious just how much an idiot Trump Jr. is, though.

See?




Apply whatever logical leap of faith from that that you wish. Don't act as if I'm saying it when you do so.

 

[Danoff]

I meant that Trump Jr. is an idiot.

Why? Specifically. What action would a non-idiot have taken in his position?

 

[TenEightyOne]

Not sure I see how it would be a breach of the logan act as you quoted it. I have to squint to even see why it might theoretically be relevant, but you have to apply a very broad interpretation of "measures".

intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States

Influencing the measures would be a tacit approval or acceptance of their revelations, that's far from requiring theoretical thinking.

 

[Danoff]

Influencing the measures would be a tacit approval or acceptance of their revelations, that's far from requiring theoretical thinking.

What?

Are you claiming that Jr. was attempting to influence Russian government in relation to a dispute that the Russian government has with the US?

 

[Eh Team]

I wouldn't rule out Russia working with the Trump campaign yet, but so far there's no direct evidence of it. One would assume that if it was done it was pretty clandestine and on a need to know basis only, thus uncovering it wouldn't be easy. The number of people who might actually know something would likely be very small. It's also possible it was going on and The Donald didn't know about it. Another possibility that no one is looking into is that the Russians were also working with both campaigns. No one cares about working with Hilary because she lost. But so far there's no evidence that any information was exchanged with either side.

I'm not ruling it out, it certainly still seems possible, I just think the election wasn't the direct target. The states and Russia have disliked each other for quite a long time and I suspect Vlad didn't really like either candidate and so set about messing with the country. Obviously there is no real evidence to substantiate this whole Russia thing yet but if this is anything more than the Dem side crying wolf (I give it a 50/50 chance) then I get the feeling it'll be a lot more than it's expected to be.

No disrespect, but I'd classify that more under "tinfoil".

None taken, I sort of think it is as well but it all seems too neat right now.

I feel that a lot of people think Russia interfered in the election simply because they've heard it so much that "it must be true".

What happened is that in the days immediately after the election back in November the Democrats were casting about for explanations/excuses why Clinton lost an election that all the "smart money" said she was going to win easily and couldn't get anyone to buy any of them until somebody came up with "Russians must have done it".

I'm trying to figure out just what, precisely, the Russians are supposed to have done and what evidence (real, hard evidence) there is of it.

That is the thing that makes me think it's all a load of unicorns and pixies. Excuses to give her time to get the 🤬 out of dodge and then hope the whole thing blows past her. Which seems to kind of be working, I don't remember so much as a peep about her since that hiking thing the day after the election or whenever it was.

As for what Russia could actually do to the election, the best I can come up with is pay other people to pay to runs ads for Trump? That's all I really can think of that way.

 

[TenEightyOne]

What?

Are you claiming that Jr. was attempting to influence Russian government in relation to a dispute that the Russian government has with the US?

There's the word "controversy" that you could have pulled out, more appropriate than "dispute" in this context. If an agent of the Russian government wants to set up meetings with election-sensitive information then you're definitely courting obvious controversy. The fact that the head of the campaign and Jared Kushner were CCed in the whole chain makes it worse.

 

[Danoff]

There's the word "controversy" that you could have pulled out, more appropriate than "dispute" in this context. If an agent of the Russian government wants to set up meetings with election-sensitive information then you're definitely courting obvious controversy. The fact that the head of the campaign and Jared Kushner were CCed in the whole chain makes it worse.

You're claiming that Jr. is attempting to influence the Russian government in relation to a controversy created by that influence?

I don't see anything with teeth (in regard to this situation) in what you cited from the logan act.

Edit:

The part that I was squinting at was here:

Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

At best, and I'm squinting hard, this could be interpreted as attempting to defeat the measure put forth that Hillary Clinton should be president.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Collusion possibly. Also depending on what was given and how the law ends up seeing it, it could be in violation of campaign reform law. I feel like it's good enough evidence to continue the investigation and find out if any laws were broke.

The issue is the line about the e-mails being part of Russia's support for the Trump campaign. That suggests that there was more going on and that it was ongoing. If it can be tied to the DNC leaks and if the information released by the leaks was obtained illegally, it becomes a conspiracy.