Many really will sellout this country and its most valued right and do it mostly out of spite. Amazing.

I would imagine that this isn't enforced very often because it doesn't happen very often.

Anyway, I think it's very likely Jr. will face charges. I could be wrong, who knows? The argument is fairly clear cut, but we'll see how it goes. As far as this having any political repercussions I'm not the least bit surprised that you guys don't think it matters :P

You do know the difference between Top Secret and Classified, right? No? Ok. Anyway, WaPo is propaganda, so let's try something a little more reliable shall we?

http://thehill.com/policy/national-s...ned-classified

Oh sweet, naive JiggyMac. Did you read this part in the Yahoo article above?

No, you didn't, did you? LOL

I do think this kind of goes to using a snake to catch a snake. Obviously Hillary was corrupted by her Saudi, Russian, Chinese and British (let's not forget the fake dossier, shall we?) connections - that taking her down was and is the only patriotic thing TO do.

The odds are that Jr. never faces charges - and to be fair, I think that would work out VERY badly for Hillary and crew. Their crimes are far worse and I doubt the statute of limitations has expired yet.

I honestly don't know where I come down, though I suspect I'll come down as not caring. inb4, bias, blah blah.

I am thinking about it in terms of future actions. Do we want opposition research going forward to include investigating every connection a campaign has to foreign nationals? It's a very parochial way of thinking. You can't solicit advice from foreigners? Very non-cosmopolitan. Very non-liberal.

I vaguely remember something about Obama talking with Iran during a campaign, but I don't remember where I came down on it then. We should all be asking ourselves (myself included), do I just side with my party? What position did I take when my party did this, or when the other party did this?

You know what I really want?

1) Candidates to be barred from setting up "charitable" foundations to funnel foreign national money for the purposes of quid-pro quo and pay for play shenanigans with taxpayer dollars.. Note, this would not preclude businessmen from running for office. I would no more bar a Trump than a Warren Buffett.
2) Candidates to not receiving debate questions in advance from politically motivated operatives in "news" organizations.
3) Candidates not secretly colluding with Party Committees to disadvantage certain candidates. If parties want to draw straws to choose their candidate, fine - but do it in public.
4) Candidates who do not destroy government property to hide evidence. Once your emails reside next to classified information on the same server, that is government property. It's not up to you personally to decide.
5) Candidates who believe crimes were committed to turn over such evidence to the FBI.


I think Trumpers have been pretty consistent here.

There's an interesting article which I can't find right now - but the reasoning is simple. There was no reason to 'collude' with Russia because everything was out in the open between Trump and Russia (the "maybe Russia can find her emails"). They didn't need to collude - Hillary's corruption was in plain sight and they were just pointing it all out. This feigned 'but, but, duh for-in influenz' is quite disingenuous coming from the Left.

Four days after Donnie Jr.'s email exchange and two days before the meeting happened, Donnie Sr. (you know, the president) said in a campaign speech that he expected damaging information about Hillary to drop on June 13th

lol these idiots are just so bad at hiding it

Shamelessly stealing this from Alpha. Breitbart yesterday: New York Times Has Neither Seen Nor Read ‘Russia Email’ to Donald Trump, Jr.

LOL WHOOPS

Not sure if I'm being leveled here or something but are exiles part of the forum software? I thought it was just an unofficial promise to ban if you posted there again.

Yeah, they claimed to have knowledge of sources. Good thing Don Jr. came to their rescue today to let everyone see their emails.


The Clinton Method of handling information:
1) bleach-bit emails
2) hammer phone to pieces
3) deny

The Trump method:

1) Tweet emails for transparency

It's possible via the software, as long as you are logged in. A person who has been exiled from a forum can always log out and see it, afaik. But since you can't see it while logged in, you can't post in it.

wil, as is often the case, your response here is only tangentially related to the post it is replying to (hint: goofy was not addressing you in his post)

LITERALLY IT'S IN THE SAME ****ING POST

Yes, they are, afaik.

Hahahahaha the posters in Alpha who wil always says are wrong predicted exactly this too. 3 hours ago:

You guys keep proving them right about you!

(Don Jr. posted them because the NYT got the email and were going to publish, LOL at that too)

As in - nothing to see here. But if you want to see it, here it is. Otherwise, it's really nobody's business. Kind of like Trump's tax returns, which you'll never get to see either.

"Nothing to see here" except Donnie Jr. saying he'd love to get damaging Hillary info from the Russian government to help his father's campaign, aka what conservatives have spent the last several months telling us didn't happen LOLOLOL

My prediction of another nothingburger still stands.

Yes. Specifically someone connected to a hostile foreign government, not just a foreigner.

Luckily for us, your feelings on what the law should be have little impact on what it actually is.

Again, it's not just some rando from another country it's an agent of a hostile foreign power.

What.. how does this work? Like, Hillary is not involved here (I'm not sure if you noticed but she lost the election 9 months ago). Why would she get prosecuted if Trump does? Like, what?

I find you to be the most reasonable conservative poster so I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt here that you are not deliberately arguing in bad faith. You are of course biased but so is everyone else, myself included.

I assume this already mostly happens; oppo research is focused on what will be politically damaging, not specifically illegal things.

Also, it's agent of a hostile foreign government, not foreign national.

Agent of hostile foreign power.

Get advice from your Canadian friend all day. Hell, get advice from your Russian friend. Don't try to get "damaging information" from an agent of a hostile foreign power.

I think you are going to have to provide details on this if you want to hold it forward as equivalent (I've never heard about it before).

This is very fair, and I agree that we all should be careful not to be too partisan, but if you are claiming that there has been similar conduct by Democrats you need to demonstrate that:

1) It happened.
2) Liberals didn't care.

I haven't seen evidence for either.

Ah okay.

I've never understood why bans prevent people from reading the forum. Seems like a lazy implementation to me.

This doesn't appear to be true for the law I cited. There may be other laws, I don't know. But see (a)(3)(ii)

Another great point from alpha: after all the "fake NYT" and "failing NYT" stuff from Trump, Donnie Jr. is like "oh yeah let me conclusively prove that all your reporting in last 3 days about crimes I may have committed is 100% accurate"

What is this "agent of a hostile foreign power"?

Are we at war with Russia?

Are there non-hostile agents of foreign powers?

Did Don Jr. receive any damaging information?

Yeah, I just mean that in this case specifically we are talking about an agent of a hostile foreign power.

You might be right as far as a the law goes but if it was just like "hired someone from Canada as a campaign adviser" or something I don't think I would even give a ****, much less have a hope that conservatives would.

It's not a "what", it's a "who", specifically the lawyer Trump Jr. met with who purported to be connected with the Russian government.

Kind of.

Yes, and there are also agents of non-hostile foreign powers.

Not that we know of at this time, but it's not particularly relevant.

Allow me to point you to the exact, relevant line in the email:

"information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia"

As in, this person may have evidence that Hillary colluded with Russia. I suppose exposing her corruption even further would be quite interesting, even though it turned out to be a nothingburger.

Is that like "half-pregnant"? Either we are or we are not.


Listening to people is now illegal in this country. Do tell...