Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
The Presidency of Donald J. Trump: No smocking guns. The Presidency of Donald J. Trump: No smocking guns.

07-10-2017 , 10:26 PM
Trump's distract-at-all-costs tweets tomorrow morning are gonna some whoppers
07-10-2017 , 10:26 PM
"Our campaign is screwed and our best longshot bet is help from the Russians, who say they have dirt on Hillary...but don't tell dad."
07-10-2017 , 10:26 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sighsalot
WASHINGTON — Before arranging a meeting with a Kremlin-connected Russian lawyer he believed would offer him compromising information about Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump Jr. was informed in an email that the material was part of a Russian government effort to aid his father’s candidacy, according to three people with knowledge of the email.

How is this not a smoking gun? Does this story appear as big to you guys as it does to me?

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/07/1...candidacy.html
this is definitely a smoking gun re: collusion between trump campaign and kremlin
07-10-2017 , 10:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chippa58
Wouldn't the treason part have more to do with the consideration provided in exchange for Russian assistance? Maybe getting dirt on Hillary isn't treasonous by itself, but lifting sanctions, changing platforms and essentially manipulating the U.S. government to align with Russian interests seems kinda shady.
yep, it would be. no black and white. treason.
07-10-2017 , 10:27 PM
Apparently Gore's campaign contacted the fbi after getting a heads up on Bush's debate briefing book.
07-10-2017 , 10:30 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by goofyballer
Trump's distract-at-all-costs tweets tomorrow morning are gonna some whoppers
OMG this will be amazing.
07-10-2017 , 10:31 PM
he pointedly didn't tweet about his son all day today
07-10-2017 , 10:34 PM
Lol at three sources on that email. These people are so bad at this.
07-10-2017 , 10:37 PM
If Mueller finds a way to take down Trump I'm guessing it's going to be something like money laundering and RICO.
07-10-2017 , 10:41 PM
07-10-2017 , 10:45 PM


https://twitter.com/yashar/status/884603087247245313

Sad if true.
07-10-2017 , 10:46 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DVaut1
For one, this is a classic Nuremberg Defense where the blame is "way at the top" (where? who at the top faced justice? What does McMullin think about bringing them to justice?). The fact that a person acted pursuant to order a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law and we all retain moral choices.

But two: you can't have it both ways, claiming "the whole thing was a cluster****" where blame goes all the way around and then up to the top, but then people who continue to defend the institution and work for the institution are blameless. If your institution is in gross violation of international law, ****ing the laws of nature, you admit the whole thing is a cluster****, what's the justification for continuing? Like when we **** up in my business, we might issue a client a credit and our **** ups don't involve war crimes. People who hold immense power and wield it should be held to high standards. If it was a huge cluster****, show me the recompense. Show me justice. Show me pleas for forgiveness.

I'd even be nice and give the guy an out! Can he come home and show contrition?

As I said, I'd hear McMullin out but from what I remember he was wishy washy, basically saying he didn't torture anyone, he was aware of things reported in the news but it's all classified so he can't talk about it, and when asked about waterboarding -- called it a grey area.

So: Not going to sing that guy's praises. I've been careful, I'm not going to call the guy a scumbag because obviously I don't and can't possess all the facts about scenarios which necessarily exist behind a big wall of classification but what I have heard from McMullin wasn't reassuring and I find the left's willingness to aggrandize him bordering on reckless.
You're right about McMullin to a certain extent -- just because he's anti-Trump doesn't make him a good guy -- I can agree with you on that. But as for the CIA then the alternative here is to have a full and complete investigation into ALL the conduct of the CIA and probably JSOC and find out who specifically did what specifically and fire and/or prosecute those who deserve it. Except that will never happen, because quite frankly nobody seems to really care -- or nobody important enough to make a difference anyways. I guess you can just add it to all of the depressing things about the world right now.
07-10-2017 , 10:46 PM
It was Jared, in the NYT, with a knife!

07-10-2017 , 10:49 PM
Lol Diaper Donnie is a great nickname.
07-10-2017 , 10:50 PM
The meeting probably went nowhere. The whole thing has the element of a farce.

I would be more concerned if the episodes themselves, the meetings turned out to be some substantive meeting in the sense they pointed in the direction that there were some cooperation and collusion going on. So far what we’ve seen doesn’t seem to do that. And it’s not hard for me to imagine people associated with the president’s campaign might have forgotten them. This meeting seems to be eminently forgettable, almost laughable.

We’re having a conflation being made here between this woman whom the Kremlin, perhaps not truthfully, but the Kremlin is saying they don’t know anything about it. Putin doesn’t know this woman. You can’t be a prominent lawyer in Moscow without in some way being connected to the Kremlin because the Kremlin is connected to nearly everything in Russia. But that doesn’t make her a Russian agent, certainly doesn’t make her a Russian official as she is being characterized by some of the president’s critics. My own view of this is it’s kind of an interesting story. It speaks to a certain Keystone Cops quality among the Trump people who seem to not to know what makes sense and are easily lured into a meeting that goes nowhere. But it doesn’t add up to some kind of cooperation between the campaign and an actual Russian official. It just doesn’t get us there.
07-10-2017 , 10:50 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeuceKicker
I cringed, too, but what was she supposed to say? Imagine you're running for Prez. You know you're going to get the "say something nice about your opponent" question. What would you say? You can't say "nothing" or you come across like a total dick. So either you have to say he has decent taste in very severe- and/or slightly masculine-looking eastern European woman with a side of "chooses good plastic surgeons", or you compliment his kids.

Don't forget Ivanka had just given a speech at the RNC that had people in this forum saying "Ivanka for President."
Anything she could imagine bro. Call him a ****ing pedophile because of the miss teen usa pageants or something. Never forget all the crazy **** trump said to get to this debate. There's no reason to keep the gloves on at this point. She should've been bashing Chris Wallace for even allowing a certifiable lunatic on the debate stage with her. He was just denying sexually assaulting a dozen women like 90 minutes ago and flip flopping on his climate change Chinese hoax theory because he's a lying little *****, but now it's time to compliment him? JFC just spit in his racist face! Break that glass ceiling by accepting reality...
07-10-2017 , 10:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fatkid
Lol Diaper Donnie is a great nickname.
Jeez, i feel a little bad for
him if that story is true. That could explain why Melania is so protective of Barron.
07-10-2017 , 11:06 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by markksman
The meeting probably went nowhere. The whole thing has the element of a farce.

I would be more concerned if the episodes themselves, the meetings turned out to be some substantive meeting in the sense they pointed in the direction that there were some cooperation and collusion going on. So far what we’ve seen doesn’t seem to do that. And it’s not hard for me to imagine people associated with the president’s campaign might have forgotten them. This meeting seems to be eminently forgettable, almost laughable.

We’re having a conflation being made here between this woman whom the Kremlin, perhaps not truthfully, but the Kremlin is saying they don’t know anything about it. Putin doesn’t know this woman. You can’t be a prominent lawyer in Moscow without in some way being connected to the Kremlin because the Kremlin is connected to nearly everything in Russia. But that doesn’t make her a Russian agent, certainly doesn’t make her a Russian official as she is being characterized by some of the president’s critics. My own view of this is it’s kind of an interesting story. It speaks to a certain Keystone Cops quality among the Trump people who seem to not to know what makes sense and are easily lured into a meeting that goes nowhere. But it doesn’t add up to some kind of cooperation between the campaign and an actual Russian official. It just doesn’t get us there.
what does the russian government have access to that american republican donors and political operatives don't?
Spoiler:
espionage
07-10-2017 , 11:07 PM
Sorry I stole all that from Brit Hume. ��
07-10-2017 , 11:08 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by crimedopay420
Anything she could imagine bro...
She was dominating him in the debates, but if she goes snarky for that softball question, then all anyone talks about the next day is "that ***** couldn't even say one nice thing," every other answer she gave is forgotten, and Trump becomes the victim. It's a ridiculous question, but you have to play along.
07-10-2017 , 11:11 PM
Thinking about the apocalyptic climate change New York Magazine article, what's the O/U on the number of people who are going to die in the next hundred years or so because of Trump?
07-10-2017 , 11:18 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by iron81
When I read the wiki on treason, almost all of the cases were either cooperating with states we were in armed conflict against or waging armed insurrection against the government. There were no cases where cooperating with states we dislike was deemed treason. It seems that cooperating with foreign powers to win an an election isn't illegal, maybe a campaign finance violation with the hacked emails and trolls constituting unreported in kind donations.
It would I think depend on whether the Russians trying to influence the election is deemed as a 'hostile act', which I believe it already has been.

Which makes sense, like if the Russians invaded the US and defeated the army, then installed their own man as President, anyone who assisted with that effort would rightly be called a traitor. The only difference here is that in this instance they didn't use an army, they used computers and potentially money. But the result is the same.
07-10-2017 , 11:23 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScreaminAsian
what does the russian government have access to that american republican donors and political operatives don't?
Spoiler:
espionage
Yeah, this, this, and more this.
07-10-2017 , 11:32 PM
*light* treason
07-10-2017 , 11:40 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by mw828
*light* treason
All the flavor of regular treason with none of the guilt.

      
m