Trump Admin Finally Admits election meddling: 'It was the Russians'
"A year and a day too late", but they finally admitted: At a cybersecurity summit, Homeland Security Secretary Kristen Nielsen said the Russian government was directly involved in U.S. election interference and warned that "America will not tolerate" such meddling.
This administration is one that has to "eat a whole cow to know that it has eaten beef". Where is they discernment? Where is common sense? CM
https://www.nbcnews.com/video/nielsen-on-election-meddling-it-was-the-russians-1289315395913
Comments
-
@C_M_ said:
"A year and a day too late", but they finally admitted: At a cybersecurity summit, Homeland Security Secretary Kristen Nielsen said the Russian government was directly involved in U.S. election interference and warned that "America will not tolerate" such meddling.This administration is one that has to "eat a whole cow to know that it has eaten beef". Where is they discernment? Where is common sense? CM
https://www.nbcnews.com/video/nielsen-on-election-meddling-it-was-the-russians-1289315395913
The secretary's comments report a curious change of direction in her thought. Just two weeks ago, in remarks that were widely panned for the lack of rudimentary awareness of history they betrayed, she said,
"I haven’t seen any evidence that the attempts to interfere in our election infrastructure was to favor a particular political party. I think what we’ve seen on the foreign influence side is they were attempting to intervene and cause chaos on both sides."
I guess it's a step in the right direction for her to have said what she said yesterday, but, as you rightly point out, CM, the Trump administration has been woefully remiss in giving proper recognition and response to the Russian intrusion into our 2016 election. That failure to respond adequately, of course, is principally the fault of the president, who to this day has yet to condemn Vladimir Putin for his role in the attack, and as recently as the aftermath of the recent Helsinki Summit, reported his belief that the hacking could have been done by actors in addition to Russia. How does the president know that to be true? "There's a lot of people out there," Mr Trump said solomonically.
As a result, America is three months out from its midterm elections, and the administration has basically done nothing to harden our election systems against future Russian meddling (you don't fight opponents you don't believe exist). And yesterday's announcement from Facebook of its fake news page deletions - deletions that most experts say look like the work of the Russians - was another indication that the Kremlin is still at it and we're not ready.
-
@C_M_ said:
"A year and a day too late", but they finally admitted: At a cybersecurity summit, Homeland Security Secretary Kristen Nielsen said the Russian government was directly involved in U.S. election interference and warned that "America will not tolerate" such meddling.This administration is one that has to "eat a whole cow to know that it has eaten beef". Where is they discernment? Where is common sense? CM
https://www.nbcnews.com/video/nielsen-on-election-meddling-it-was-the-russians-1289315395913
Of course they admitted it a long time ago.... More dishonesty from the Left.
-
@reformed said:
@C_M_ said:
"A year and a day too late", but they finally admitted: At a cybersecurity summit, Homeland Security Secretary Kristen Nielsen said the Russian government was directly involved in U.S. election interference and warned that "America will not tolerate" such meddling.This administration is one that has to "eat a whole cow to know that it has eaten beef". Where is they discernment? Where is common sense? CM
https://www.nbcnews.com/video/nielsen-on-election-meddling-it-was-the-russians-1289315395913
Of course they admitted it a long time ago.... More dishonesty from the Left.
No, prove it! CM
-
There we go with Bill and his proofs and facts. Isn’t that a fine display of his finest and best! Then C_M_ predictably leaps to defend (of course).
Make an absurd accusation and call it fact because no one can falsify it technically — because as soon as we pin something down then the dishonest politicos change the definition. Standard fallacy. Standard political dishonesty.
Of course the Russians meddled. They never didn’t and still do. As far as she me conspiratorial collusion—please give me flat earth over that. You don’t believe that and if you do it is self-inflicted blindness—a social-emotional game of self-deception (your personal choice—you are not a victim). -
@C_M_ said:
@reformed said:
@C_M_ said:
"A year and a day too late", but they finally admitted: At a cybersecurity summit, Homeland Security Secretary Kristen Nielsen said the Russian government was directly involved in U.S. election interference and warned that "America will not tolerate" such meddling.This administration is one that has to "eat a whole cow to know that it has eaten beef". Where is they discernment? Where is common sense? CM
https://www.nbcnews.com/video/nielsen-on-election-meddling-it-was-the-russians-1289315395913
Of course they admitted it a long time ago.... More dishonesty from the Left.
No, prove it! CM
HAHAHA let's look at two LIBERAL articles from 2017....
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/11/us/politics/trumps-press-conference-highlights-russia.html
The funny thing is this was before he even took office. So @C_M_ quit lying dude!
-
President Admits Trump Tower Meeting Was Meant to Get Dirt on Clinton
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/05/us/politics/trump-tower-meeting-donald-jr.html
WASHINGTON — President Trump said on Sunday that a Trump Tower meeting between top campaign aides and a Kremlin-connected lawyer was designed to “get information on an opponent” — the starkest acknowledgment yet that a statement he dictated last year about the encounter was misleading.
Mr. Trump made the comment in a tweet on Sunday morning that was intended to be a defense of the June 2016 meeting and the role his son Donald Trump Jr. played in hosting it. The president claimed that it was “totally legal” and of the sort “done all the time in politics.”
But the## tweet also served as an admission that the Trump team had not been forthright when Donald Trump Jr. issued a statement in July 2017 saying that the meeting had been primarily about the adoption of Russian children.
That statement is being scrutinized by the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, who is examining a broad array of Mr. Trump’s tweets and public statements to determine whether he made them as part of an effort to deceive investigators.
Fake News reporting, a complete fabrication,
that I am concerned about the meeting my wonderful son, Donald, had in Trump Tower. This was a meeting to get information on an opponent, totally legal and done all the time in politics - and it went nowhere. I did not know about it!
"Confession is good for the soul." This is the same meeting that was called a "nothing Burger." Ha, Ha, Ha. Mr. Trump should spare the country and remove himself. CM
-
#nothingburger
-
@C_M_ said:
President Admits Trump Tower Meeting Was Meant to Get Dirt on Clinton
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/05/us/politics/trump-tower-meeting-donald-jr.html
WASHINGTON — President Trump said on Sunday that a Trump Tower meeting between top campaign aides and a Kremlin-connected lawyer was designed to “get information on an opponent” — the starkest acknowledgment yet that a statement he dictated last year about the encounter was misleading.
Mr. Trump made the comment in a tweet on Sunday morning that was intended to be a defense of the June 2016 meeting and the role his son Donald Trump Jr. played in hosting it. The president claimed that it was “totally legal” and of the sort “done all the time in politics.”
But the## tweet also served as an admission that the Trump team had not been forthright when Donald Trump Jr. issued a statement in July 2017 saying that the meeting had been primarily about the adoption of Russian children.
That statement is being scrutinized by the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, who is examining a broad array of Mr. Trump’s tweets and public statements to determine whether he made them as part of an effort to deceive investigators.
Fake News reporting, a complete fabrication,
that I am concerned about the meeting my wonderful son, Donald, had in Trump Tower. This was a meeting to get information on an opponent, totally legal and done all the time in politics - and it went nowhere. I did not know about it!
"Confession is good for the soul." This is the same meeting that was called a "nothing Burger." Ha, Ha, Ha. Mr. Trump should spare the country and remove himself. CM
It still is a nothing burger....
-
@reformed said:
It still is a nothing burger....
This is a typical response given your knowledge on the subject matter. You're excused. CM
-
I agree.
All the super-idiots can talk about since the president's weekend tweet is that it was a defacto confession that he lied to the nation last year when he dictated the content of the official White House statement which claimed the June 2016 Trump Tower meeting was about adoptions, a statement that made no mention of the fact that, as the president said in his tweet, it "was a meeting to get information on an opponent."
My question to the super-idiots: Since when is it breaking news that President Trump lies to the nation?
YES, the fact that high ranking Trump campaign officials took the June 2016 Trump Tower meeting was exhibit A of the campaign's willingness to coordinate/cooperate/collude/conspire with the Russian government - what 52 U.S. Code § 30121 calls a "foreign national" from which it would have been illegal for the campaign to ask for or receive "a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value." And YES, political campaigns pay lots of money for "opposition research," so what the campaign people went into the meeting expecting to receive may well have been "a thing of value," but another question to the super-idiots: Since when it is breaking news that the Trump campaign worked with the Russians in the 2016 campaign? Even the most super of super idiots know that!
A nothingburger indeed!!!
-
Billium = #Superburger
-
I'm obviously more knowledgeable than you.
@Bill_Coley said:
I agree.
All the super-idiots can talk about since the president's weekend tweet is that it was a defacto confession that he lied to the nation last year when he dictated the content of the official White House statement which claimed the June 2016 Trump Tower meeting was about adoptions, a statement that made no mention of the fact that, as the president said in his tweet, it "was a meeting to get information on an opponent."
My question to the super-idiots: Since when is it breaking news that President Trump lies to the nation?
YES, the fact that high ranking Trump campaign officials took the June 2016 Trump Tower meeting was exhibit A of the campaign's willingness to coordinate/cooperate/collude/conspire with the Russian government - what 52 U.S. Code § 30121 calls a "foreign national" from which it would have been illegal for the campaign to ask for or receive "a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value." And YES, political campaigns pay lots of money for "opposition research," so what the campaign people went into the meeting expecting to receive may well have been "a thing of value," but another question to the super-idiots: Since when it is breaking news that the Trump campaign worked with the Russians in the 2016 campaign? Even the most super of super idiots know that!
A nothingburger indeed!!!
This does not prove he lied. What exactly did he lie about? And was it a meeting with the Russian government? No. And if you want to peg him on that then you also need to peg every other politician INCLUDING CLINTON for the same thing.
Yes, your liberal idiocy is running down your sleeve. This IS A NOTHINGBURGER. You are just too blind (or too stupid) to know any better.
You are a rabid dog salivating at the chance to get the best president since Ronald Reagan. You are pathetic. You need help.
-
@reformed said:
This does not prove he lied. What exactly did he lie about?[NOTE: As a rule, when it comes to the president, an answer is much shorter and simpler to compile if the question is phrased, "What exactly did he NOT lie about?"]
At least some of the lies associated with the official White House statement regarding the June 2016 Trump Tower meeting are as follows:
- In July 2017, the White House responded to a NY Times story that the Tower meeting was about dirt on Hillary Clinton by saying the meeting discussed adoptions. The White House statement made no mention of the fact that the meeting was actually about dirt on Hillary Clinton. Call that a lie of omission.
- In July 2017, Jay Sekulow, one of the president's attorneys, declared to multiple news organizations that the president had had nothing to do with the creation of the White House's statement on the meeting. Sekulow now says he had bad information, that he "got that wrong." I contend that had the White House had wanted to correct Sekulow's falsehood, they would have done so in the four days between Sekulow's first false statement (July 12, 2017) and his second (July 16, 2017). Since the White House made no such correction, in my view, that means Sekulow's falsehoods were intentional - they were lies.
- In August 2017, White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said the President had "weighed in" on the statement, but "certainly" had not dictated it. She has offered no explanation for her falsehood, probably because it was simply a lie.
And was it a meeting with the Russian government? No.
I didn't claim that the Trump Tower meeting was "with the Russian government." I claimed that the fact that Trump campaign officials took the meeting was evidence of the campaign's willingness "to coordinate/cooperate/collude/conspire with the Russian government."
What's the basis of my claim? The June 3, 2016, email publicist Rob Goldstone sent to Donald Trump Jr alerting him to the information on Clinton the Russian government was willing to pass along: (emphasis added)
"Emin just called and asked me to contact you with something very interesting.
"The Crown prosecutor of Russia met with his father Aras this morning and in their meeting 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.
"This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump - helped along by Aras and Emin.
"What do you think is the best way to handle this information and would you be able to speak to Emin about it directly?
"I can also send this info to your father via Rhona, but it is ultra sensitive so wanted to send to you first."
After reading that email, Don Jr. had good reason to believe the information being offered to the Trump campaign would come from the Russian government. The fact that he did not reject the meeting, or even express concern about a foreign government's potential involvement in an American election - the fact that he responded to this email saying, (emphasis added) "Seems we have some time and if it's what you say I love it especially later in the summer," tells me that the Trump campaign was willing to cooperate/coordinate/etc with the Russian government.
And if you want to peg him on that then you also need to peg every other politician INCLUDING CLINTON for the same thing.
"The same thing"? Please provide links to fact-based information that the Clinton campaign - or the campaign of "every other politician" (!) - received information it/they had reason to believe was coming from a foreign government, and was part of that government's support for her/their campaigns. I am not aware that Clinton ever received such information from a foreign government. [Recall that the infamous "Steele dossier" was compiled by a foreign national, but did NOT come from a foreign government. Recall also that 52 U.S. Code § 30121 makes illegal the solicitation, receipt, or acceptance of donations and contributions from foreign nationals; it does NOT make illegal a campaign's payment of foreign nationals for their professional work product.]
Yes, your liberal idiocy is running down your sleeve. This IS A NOTHINGBURGER. You are just too blind (or too stupid) to know any better.
Please tell me I can be "too stupid" and a "super-idiot" at the same time! I'd hate it were my "too stupidity" to negate my "super idiocy." I know you've worked hard to develop the vocabulary you use to express your reflective and measured assessments of people who disagree with you. I just don't want all your work to go to waste.
You are a rabid dog salivating at the chance to get the best president since Ronald Reagan. You are pathetic. You need help.
The more you post, the more I know about myself, David. Thank you. ONLY because of you do I know that I'm a "pathetic" "super idiot" who's "too stupid" to be a "rabid dog."... No. That can't be right.
Because of you I know I'm a "pathetic" "super-dog" who's "too stupid" to be "rabid."... No. That can't be right either!
This is harder than I expected.
Anyway, I'll work on a better summary of your view of me, but this much is certain: Whatever the final result, it will be ONLY because of you.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@reformed said:
This does not prove he lied. What exactly did he lie about?[NOTE: As a rule, when it comes to the president, an answer is much shorter and simpler to compile if the question is phrased, "What exactly did he NOT lie about?"]
At least some of the lies associated with the official White House statement regarding the June 2016 Trump Tower meeting are as follows:
- In July 2017, the White House responded to a NY Times story that the Tower meeting was about dirt on Hillary Clinton by saying the meeting discussed adoptions. The White House statement made no mention of the fact that the meeting was actually about dirt on Hillary Clinton. Call that a lie of omission.
Not technically a lie. They did have a meeting about adoptions.
- In July 2017, Jay Sekulow, one of the president's attorneys, declared to multiple news organizations that the president had had nothing to do with the creation of the White House's statement on the meeting. Sekulow now says he had bad information, that he "got that wrong." I contend that had the White House had wanted to correct Sekulow's falsehood, they would have done so in the four days between Sekulow's first false statement (July 12, 2017) and his second (July 16, 2017). Since the White House made no such correction, in my view, that means Sekulow's falsehoods were intentional - they were lies.
- In August 2017, White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said the President had "weighed in" on the statement, but "certainly" had not dictated it. She has offered no explanation for her falsehood, probably because it was simply a lie.
And was it a meeting with the Russian government? No.
I didn't claim that the Trump Tower meeting was "with the Russian government." I claimed that the fact that Trump campaign officials took the meeting was evidence of the campaign's willingness "to coordinate/cooperate/collude/conspire with the Russian government."
No, see that is the problem. You add to it and twist it with things that are not there. That doesn't show willingness to coordinate, collude, conspire, etc. It shows they wanted the dirt on Clinton. Anyone else would do the same.
What's the basis of my claim? The June 3, 2016, email publicist Rob Goldstone sent to Donald Trump Jr alerting him to the information on Clinton the Russian government was willing to pass along: (emphasis added)
"Emin just called and asked me to contact you with something very interesting.
"The Crown prosecutor of Russia met with his father Aras this morning and in their meeting 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.
"This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump - helped along by Aras and Emin.
"What do you think is the best way to handle this information and would you be able to speak to Emin about it directly?
"I can also send this info to your father via Rhona, but it is ultra sensitive so wanted to send to you first."
After reading that email, Don Jr. had good reason to believe the information being offered to the Trump campaign would come from the Russian government. The fact that he did not reject the meeting, or even express concern about a foreign government's potential involvement in an American election - the fact that he responded to this email saying, (emphasis added) "Seems we have some time and if it's what you say I love it especially later in the summer," tells me that the Trump campaign was willing to cooperate/coordinate/etc with the Russian government.
Once again, you read into things. To me, that is opposition research and being in a hot battle just wanting the information on your opponent. I don't see any problem with that at all.
And if you want to peg him on that then you also need to peg every other politician INCLUDING CLINTON for the same thing.
"The same thing"? Please provide links to fact-based information that the Clinton campaign - or the campaign of "every other politician" (!) - received information it/they had reason to believe was coming from a foreign government, and was part of that government's support for her/their campaigns. I am not aware that Clinton ever received such information from a foreign government. [Recall that the infamous "Steele dossier" was compiled by a foreign national, but did NOT come from a foreign government. Recall also that 52 U.S. Code § 30121 makes illegal the solicitation, receipt, or acceptance of donations and contributions from foreign nationals; it does NOT make illegal a campaign's payment of foreign nationals for their professional work product.]
Dossier.
Yes, your liberal idiocy is running down your sleeve. This IS A NOTHINGBURGER. You are just too blind (or too stupid) to know any better.
Please tell me I can be "too stupid" and a "super-idiot" at the same time! I'd hate it were my "too stupidity" to negate my "super idiocy." I know you've worked hard to develop the vocabulary you use to express your reflective and measured assessments of people who disagree with you. I just don't want all your work to go to waste.
You are a rabid dog salivating at the chance to get the best president since Ronald Reagan. You are pathetic. You need help.
The more you post, the more I know about myself, David. Thank you. ONLY because of you do I know that I'm a "pathetic" "super idiot" who's "too stupid" to be a "rabid dog."... No. That can't be right.
For the last time Bill, I'm not David Taylor so stop it!
Because of you I know I'm a "pathetic" "super-dog" who's "too stupid" to be "rabid."... No. That can't be right either!
This is harder than I expected.
Anyway, I'll work on a better summary of your view of me, but this much is certain: Whatever the final result, it will be ONLY because of you.
You really need therapy.
-
@reformed said:
You are a rabid dog salivating at the chance to get the best president since Ronald Reagan. You are pathetic. You need help.The more you post, the more I know about myself, David. Thank you. ONLY because of you do I know that I'm a "pathetic" "super idiot" who's "too stupid" to be a "rabid dog."... No. That can't be right.
I thought you made a self-commitment to do better, Reformed, in these forums. Raise the standards.
For the last time Bill, I'm not David Taylor so stop it!
"Oh! What A Tangled Web We Weave When First We Practice To Deceive" CM
-
@C_M_ said:
@reformed said:
You are a rabid dog salivating at the chance to get the best president since Ronald Reagan. You are pathetic. You need help.The more you post, the more I know about myself, David. Thank you. ONLY because of you do I know that I'm a "pathetic" "super idiot" who's "too stupid" to be a "rabid dog."... No. That can't be right.
I thought you made a self-commitment to do better, Reformed, in these forums. Raise the standards.
Where did I do that? I think the ones that need to raise standars are:
- Liars and deceivers aka @Bill_Coley
- Those who encourage criminal behavior aka @C_M_
For the last time Bill, I'm not David Taylor so stop it!
"Oh! What A Tangled Web We Weave When First We Practice To Deceive" CM
Good grief.
-
@reformed said:
Not technically a lie. They did have a meeting about adoptions.According to the president, what Don Jr and other campaign officials attended in Trump Tower was "a meeting to get information on an opponent." The meeting apparently discussed adoptions (aka sanctions) but Trump campaign big shots didn't take the meeting because they wanted to talk about adoptions. They took the meeting because they thought they wanted to get dirt on Clinton. The initial White House statement did not disclose that fact, and thereby led us to believe it was a meeting about adoptions. We both know why the White House didn't tell us the real purpose of the meeting. That was a lie of omission.
When Bill Clinton said, "That depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is," were you convinced that he wasn't "technically" lying?
When the defense is "he didn't 'technically' lie," there isn't much of a defense.
No, see that is the problem. You add to it and twist it with things that are not there. That doesn't show willingness to coordinate, collude, conspire, etc. It shows they wanted the dirt on Clinton. Anyone else would do the same.
The Russians offered dirt on Clinton. The Trump campaign accepted a meeting with Russians to get the dirt the Russians offered. That's coordination. If anything about the Russian offer broke the law, and anyone in the Trump campaign contributed to or cooperated with the Russian efforts, then you have possible conspiracy. Even the chief legal analyst on FoxNews acknowledges the possibility of conspiracy:
"So if there was an agreement to receive dirt on Hillary, from the Russians, even if the dirt never came, if those who agreed, at least one of them, took some step in furtherance of the agreement, then there is the potential crime for conspiracy."
.
Once again, you read into things. To me, that is opposition research and being in a hot battle just wanting the information on your opponent. I don't see any problem with that at all.
The problem is that it's opposition research from a foreign government - that happens to be an adversary of the United States - and Federal law makes it a crime to receive donations or contributions of "(things) of value" from foreign nationals. Many, many campaigns pay money for opposition research. There are companies whose entire business is political opposition research (e.g. Fusion GPS, the company connected to the Steele Dossier). The fact that opposition research is something campaigns pay money for makes it a "thing of value."
Dossier.
Read the federal statute to which I linked. The language is clear: The Steele Dossier did NOT violate the law because it was a paid for work product, NOT a donation or a contribution.
For the last time Bill, I'm not David Taylor so stop it!
I say I'm not "pathetic," or "stupid," or a "super-idiot," or a "rabid dog," but that doesn't stop you from calling me those things! Why can't I call you by a name you say is not yours?!
Let's make a deal: You stop calling me those juvenile names, and I'll stop calling you "David." And when you slip up and call me a juvenile name, I'll let you know you did by calling you "David" in my reply. Sound fair?
You really need therapy.
Ya see?! I say I don't "really need therapy." So if you agree to my proposal, this is the type of juvenile remark, if offered in your future posts, to which I would respond by calling you "David." But if you chose NOT to include this kind of juvenile remark in your posts, I wouldn't call you "David."
And why would I tie your posting juvenile names and remarks to my calling you "David"? Because David Taylor regularly used juvenile names and remarks to describe people who disagreed with him. So when YOU use juvenile names and remarks to describe people who disagree with you, your posts remind me of "David."
Let me know if we have a deal.
-
@reformed said:
Where did I do that? I think the ones that need to raise standars are:
How dare anyone think that YOU would ever commit "to do better" or "raise the standards" in your posts, reformed.
- Liars and deceivers aka @Bill_Coley
Here's another one of those juvenile names that would prompt me to call you "David," reformed.
-
@reformed said:
No, see that is the problem. You add to it and twist it with things that are not there. That doesn't show willingness to coordinate, collude, conspire, etc. It shows they wanted the dirt on Clinton. Anyone else would do the same.In my reply to your post, I should have included the chronology of events I offered in a previous post to you earlier, in a different thread, a chronology to which you chose not to respond:
- Friday, June 3, 2016: Donald Trump, Jr. receives an email from Rob Goldstone saying that he can help the campaign connect with a Russian government rep who possesses dirt on Hillary Clinton. Don Jr says, "If it’s what you say, I love it."
- Tuesday, June 7, 2016: Candidate Trump announces the following:
"I'm going to give a major speech on probably Monday of next week and we’re going to be discussing all of the things that have taken place with the Clintons. I think you’re going to find it very informative and very, very interesting. I wonder if the press will want to attend, who knows."
- Thursday, June 9, 2016: As a follow-up to the offering of dirt the Goldstone email had promised, Trump, Jr., Paul Manafort, and Jared Kushner meet with a Russian attorney at Trump Tower. Trump Jr. later claims the meeting was a "big nothing."
That "major speech" candidate Trump promised to give, "probably" on June 13, in which he would discuss "all of the things that have taken place with the Clintons," never happened.
Isn't it reasonable to interpret that chronology this way: The email Don Jr. received about Russian-offered dirt on Hillary Clinton prompted candidate Trump to say he was going to offer "a major speech" on her. But when the Trump Tower meeting didn't produce the dirt he expected, candidate Trump canceled the speech. (And of course he never announced why he canceled the speech because he didn't want to say that his campaign had sought campaign dirt from Russia.)
And if that's a reasonable interpretation of the chronology, then why isn't reasonable to conclude the Trump campaign was willing to cooperate/coordinate/collude/etc with Russians in order to get dirt on Clinton? If the interpretation is correct, candidate Trump planned his "major speech" around his campaign's meeting with the Russians - a textbook example of coordination.
If you don't think my interpretation of the chronology is reasonable, please offer what you believe is the most reasonable interpretation of that sequence of events.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@reformed said:
Not technically a lie. They did have a meeting about adoptions.According to the president, what Don Jr and other campaign officials attended in Trump Tower was "a meeting to get information on an opponent." The meeting apparently discussed adoptions (aka sanctions) but Trump campaign big shots didn't take the meeting because they wanted to talk about adoptions. They took the meeting because they thought they wanted to get dirt on Clinton. The initial White House statement did not disclose that fact, and thereby led us to believe it was a meeting about adoptions. We both know why the White House didn't tell us the real purpose of the meeting. That was a lie of omission.
When Bill Clinton said, "That depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is," were you convinced that he wasn't "technically" lying?
When the defense is "he didn't 'technically' lie," there isn't much of a defense.
No, see that is the problem. You add to it and twist it with things that are not there. That doesn't show willingness to coordinate, collude, conspire, etc. It shows they wanted the dirt on Clinton. Anyone else would do the same.
The Russians offered dirt on Clinton. The Trump campaign accepted a meeting with Russians to get the dirt the Russians offered. That's coordination. If anything about the Russian offer broke the law, and anyone in the Trump campaign contributed to or cooperated with the Russian efforts, then you have possible conspiracy. Even the chief legal analyst on FoxNews acknowledges the possibility of conspiracy:
"So if there was an agreement to receive dirt on Hillary, from the Russians, even if the dirt never came, if those who agreed, at least one of them, took some step in furtherance of the agreement, then there is the potential crime for conspiracy."
.
Once again, you read into things. To me, that is opposition research and being in a hot battle just wanting the information on your opponent. I don't see any problem with that at all.
The problem is that it's opposition research from a foreign government - that happens to be an adversary of the United States - and Federal law makes it a crime to receive donations or contributions of "(things) of value" from foreign nationals. Many, many campaigns pay money for opposition research. There are companies whose entire business is political opposition research (e.g. Fusion GPS, the company connected to the Steele Dossier). The fact that opposition research is something campaigns pay money for makes it a "thing of value."
Russia is not technically an adversary for purposes of the justice system.
Dossier.
Read the federal statute to which I linked. The language is clear: The Steele Dossier did NOT violate the law because it was a paid for work product, NOT a donation or a contribution.
And no transaction was made in this case so I guess they are in the clear.
For the last time Bill, I'm not David Taylor so stop it!
I say I'm not "pathetic," or "stupid," or a "super-idiot," or a "rabid dog," but that doesn't stop you from calling me those things! Why can't I call you by a name you say is not yours?!
Let's make a deal: You stop calling me those juvenile names, and I'll stop calling you "David." And when you slip up and call me a juvenile name, I'll let you know you did by calling you "David" in my reply. Sound fair?
No, that's not the same thing. I'm labelling you, (factually by the way) you are accusing me of being another poster.
You really need therapy.
Ya see?! I say I don't "really need therapy." So if you agree to my proposal, this is the type of juvenile remark, if offered in your future posts, to which I would respond by calling you "David." But if you chose NOT to include this kind of juvenile remark in your posts, I wouldn't call you "David."
You really do need therapy. Apparently you suffer from crazed liberal syndrome.
And why would I tie your posting juvenile names and remarks to my calling you "David"? Because David Taylor regularly used juvenile names and remarks to describe people who disagreed with him. So when YOU use juvenile names and remarks to describe people who disagree with you, your posts remind me of "David."
Let me know if we have a deal.
Once again, it's not a fair deal. You are accusing me of lying by going under a name and saying I am someone else, which isn't the case. I'm labelling you based on clear observations.
-
@reformed said:
Russia is not technically an adversary for purposes of the justice system.Again with the "technically"!
Russia's "adversary" status matters only as a matter of policy, not justice. I agree with you if you're contending that the applicable statute here grants no special position to "adversary" nations.
But what the statute DOES do is outlaw campaign donations and contributions of "(things) of value" from "foreign nationals."
What's the argument that opposition research - which is routinely paid for by campaigns around the country - is NOT a "thing of value"?
Dossier.
Read the federal statute to which I linked. The language is clear: The Steele Dossier did NOT violate the law because it was a paid for work product, NOT a donation or a contribution.
And no transaction was made in this case so I guess they are in the clear.
Conspiracy laws do NOT require completed transactions; they require agreement between the conspiring parties. Whether the Trump campaign's nearly seven dozen meetings with Russians during the campaign reflected agreement(s) is something the Mueller team will decide. From my layperson's perspective, it sure LOOKS like there was an agreement to commit one or more crimes between the Trump campaign and the Russians. (Remember: It's actually true that ignorance of the law is no excuse!)
No, that's not the same thing. I'm labelling you, (factually by the way) you are accusing me of being another poster.
"(factually, by the way)" - Good one.
Revisit my post. I think you'll discover that I did NOT accuse you of being David Taylor. Here's the relevant paragraph: (emphasis added)
"And why would I tie your posting juvenile names and remarks to my calling you "David"? Because David Taylor regularly used juvenile names and remarks to describe people who disagreed with him. So when YOU use juvenile names and remarks to describe people who disagree with you, your posts remind me of 'David.'"
I didn't accuse you of being David Taylor. I said "your posts remind me of David Taylor."
But I think I've made my point, so I will no longer refer to you as "David" in my forum posts (unless we come to find out that you ARE David!
)You really do need therapy. Apparently you suffer from crazed liberal syndrome.
More juvenile stuff. I hope there comes a day when you will express your disagreements with people in more constructive, mature, and dialogue-inviting ways.
Once again, it's not a fair deal. You are accusing me of lying by going under a name and saying I am someone else, which isn't the case. I'm labelling you based on clear observations.
More basically, I'm accusing you of using middle school playground terms to describe people who disagree with you, and I'm hoping there comes a day when you will find and employ a vocabulary toward such folks that's in line with the CD expectation that we will "criticize ideas, not people."
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@reformed said:
Russia is not technically an adversary for purposes of the justice system.Again with the "technically"!
Russia's "adversary" status matters only as a matter of policy, not justice. I agree with you if you're contending that the applicable statute here grants no special position to "adversary" nations.
But what the statute DOES do is outlaw campaign donations and contributions of "(things) of value" from "foreign nationals."
What's the argument that opposition research - which is routinely paid for by campaigns around the country - is NOT a "thing of value"?
Dossier.
Read the federal statute to which I linked. The language is clear: The Steele Dossier did NOT violate the law because it was a paid for work product, NOT a donation or a contribution.
And no transaction was made in this case so I guess they are in the clear.
Conspiracy laws do NOT require completed transactions; they require agreement between the conspiring parties. Whether the Trump campaign's nearly seven dozen meetings with Russians during the campaign reflected agreement(s) is something the Mueller team will decide. From my layperson's perspective, it sure LOOKS like there was an agreement to commit one or more crimes between the Trump campaign and the Russians. (Remember: It's actually true that ignorance of the law is no excuse!)
No, that's not the same thing. I'm labelling you, (factually by the way) you are accusing me of being another poster.
"(factually, by the way)" - Good one.
Revisit my post. I think you'll discover that I did NOT accuse you of being David Taylor. Here's the relevant paragraph: (emphasis added)
"And why would I tie your posting juvenile names and remarks to my calling you "David"? Because David Taylor regularly used juvenile names and remarks to describe people who disagreed with him. So when YOU use juvenile names and remarks to describe people who disagree with you, your posts remind me of 'David.'"
I didn't accuse you of being David Taylor. I said "your posts remind me of David Taylor."
But I think I've made my point, so I will no longer refer to you as "David" in my forum posts (unless we come to find out that you ARE David!
)You really do need therapy. Apparently you suffer from crazed liberal syndrome.
More juvenile stuff. I hope there comes a day when you will express your disagreements with people in more constructive, mature, and dialogue-inviting ways.
Once again, it's not a fair deal. You are accusing me of lying by going under a name and saying I am someone else, which isn't the case. I'm labelling you based on clear observations.
More basically, I'm accusing you of using middle school playground terms to describe people who disagree with you, and I'm hoping there comes a day when you will find and employ a vocabulary toward such folks that's in line with the CD expectation that we will "criticize ideas, not people."
You are one with your ideas. Criticizing you is criticizing your ideas.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
But what the statute DOES do is outlaw campaign donations and contributions of "(things) of value" from "foreign nationals."Hmn .... would that be equally true for any candidate's campaign? It seems that Hillary Clinton accepted via the Clinton foundation and perhaps some other ways donations of rather high amounts from foreign nationals ...
But then, perhaps reports about foreign donations to campaign funds are "fake news" and "conspiracy theories" in all fronts? :-) -
Billium? How many people have you been?
Cross your heart, hope to die—never mind, that won’t make any difference. -
@Wolfgang said:
But what the statute DOES do is outlaw campaign donations and contributions of "(things) of value" from "foreign nationals."
Hmn .... would that be equally true for any candidate's campaign? It seems that Hillary Clinton accepted via the Clinton foundation and perhaps some other ways donations of rather high amounts from foreign nationals ...
But then, perhaps reports about foreign donations to campaign funds are "fake news" and "conspiracy theories" in all fronts? :-)A critical distinction is in play here, Wolfgang. 52 U.S. Code § 30121 is election law; it has NOTHING to do with donations made to non-profit foundations such as the Clinton Foundation. Notice the language of the statute's first section: (emphasis added)
"(a) Prohibition: It shall be unlawful for—
(1) a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make—
(A) a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election;
(B) a contribution or donation to a committee of a political party; or
(C) an expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication (within the meaning of section 30104(f)(3) of this title)"There certainly ARE federal laws that govern donations to non-profit organizations. But 52 U.S. Code § 30121 is not one of them.
And if you're talking about the accusations against the Foundation, remember those were about access to Clinton in her role as secretary of state, NOT in her role as a presidential candidate.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@Wolfgang said:
But what the statute DOES do is outlaw campaign donations and contributions of "(things) of value" from "foreign nationals."
Hmn .... would that be equally true for any candidate's campaign? It seems that Hillary Clinton accepted via the Clinton foundation and perhaps some other ways donations of rather high amounts from foreign nationals ...
But then, perhaps reports about foreign donations to campaign funds are "fake news" and "conspiracy theories" in all fronts? :-)A critical distinction is in play here, Wolfgang. 52 U.S. Code § 30121 is election law; it has NOTHING to do with donations made to non-profit foundations such as the Clinton Foundation. Notice the language of the statute's first section: (emphasis added)
"(a) Prohibition: It shall be unlawful for—
(1) a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make—
(A) a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election;
(B) a contribution or donation to a committee of a political party; or
(C) an expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication (within the meaning of section 30104(f)(3) of this title)"There certainly ARE federal laws that govern donations to non-profit organizations. But 52 U.S. Code § 30121 is not one of them.
And if you're talking about the accusations against the Foundation, remember those were about access to Clinton in her role as secretary of state, NOT in her role as a presidential candidate.
Hmmmm I don't think you can separate the two.
-
@reformed said:
Hmmmm I don't think you can separate the two.Where in the text of 52 U.S. Code § 30121 do you find support for your view that the two can't be separated? Where in the text of the statute do you see any reference to donations to anything other than elections, campaigns, and political organizations?
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@reformed said:
Hmmmm I don't think you can separate the two.Where in the text of 52 U.S. Code § 30121 do you find support for your view that the two can't be separated? Where in the text of the statute do you see any reference to donations to anything other than elections, campaigns, and political organizations?
I was talking about Clinton as SoS vs Presidential candidate.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@reformed said:
Russia is not technically an adversary for purposes of the justice system.Again with the "technically"!
Russia's "adversary" status matters only as a matter of policy, not justice. I agree with you if you're contending that the applicable statute here grants no special position to "adversary" nations.
But what the statute DOES do is outlaw campaign donations and contributions of "(things) of value" from "foreign nationals."
What's the argument that opposition research - which is routinely paid for by campaigns around the country - is NOT a "thing of value"?
Dossier.
Read the federal statute to which I linked. The language is clear: The Steele Dossier did NOT violate the law because it was a paid for work product, NOT a donation or a contribution.
And no transaction was made in this case so I guess they are in the clear.
Conspiracy laws do NOT require completed transactions; they require agreement between the conspiring parties. Whether the Trump campaign's nearly seven dozen meetings with Russians during the campaign reflected agreement(s) is something the Mueller team will decide. From my layperson's perspective, it sure LOOKS like there was an agreement to commit one or more crimes between the Trump campaign and the Russians. (Remember: It's actually true that ignorance of the law is no excuse!)
No, that's not the same thing. I'm labelling you, (factually by the way) you are accusing me of being another poster.
"(factually, by the way)" - Good one.
Revisit my post. I think you'll discover that I did NOT accuse you of being David Taylor. Here's the relevant paragraph: (emphasis added)
"And why would I tie your posting juvenile names and remarks to my calling you "David"? Because David Taylor regularly used juvenile names and remarks to describe people who disagreed with him. So when YOU use juvenile names and remarks to describe people who disagree with you, your posts remind me of 'David.'"
I didn't accuse you of being David Taylor. I said "your posts remind me of David Taylor."
But I think I've made my point, so I will no longer refer to you as "David" in my forum posts (unless we come to find out that you ARE David!
)You really do need therapy. Apparently you suffer from crazed liberal syndrome.
More juvenile stuff. I hope there comes a day when you will express your disagreements with people in more constructive, mature, and dialogue-inviting ways.
Once again, it's not a fair deal. You are accusing me of lying by going under a name and saying I am someone else, which isn't the case. I'm labelling you based on clear observations.
More basically, I'm accusing you of using middle school playground terms to describe people who disagree with you, and I'm hoping there comes a day when you will find and employ a vocabulary toward such folks that's in line with the CD expectation that we will "criticize ideas, not people."
Bill/Reformed,
Recess is over! Men, back to being men, please! CM -
@C_M_ said:
@Bill_Coley said:
@reformed said:
Russia is not technically an adversary for purposes of the justice system.Again with the "technically"!
Russia's "adversary" status matters only as a matter of policy, not justice. I agree with you if you're contending that the applicable statute here grants no special position to "adversary" nations.
But what the statute DOES do is outlaw campaign donations and contributions of "(things) of value" from "foreign nationals."
What's the argument that opposition research - which is routinely paid for by campaigns around the country - is NOT a "thing of value"?
Dossier.
Read the federal statute to which I linked. The language is clear: The Steele Dossier did NOT violate the law because it was a paid for work product, NOT a donation or a contribution.
And no transaction was made in this case so I guess they are in the clear.
Conspiracy laws do NOT require completed transactions; they require agreement between the conspiring parties. Whether the Trump campaign's nearly seven dozen meetings with Russians during the campaign reflected agreement(s) is something the Mueller team will decide. From my layperson's perspective, it sure LOOKS like there was an agreement to commit one or more crimes between the Trump campaign and the Russians. (Remember: It's actually true that ignorance of the law is no excuse!)
No, that's not the same thing. I'm labelling you, (factually by the way) you are accusing me of being another poster.
"(factually, by the way)" - Good one.
Revisit my post. I think you'll discover that I did NOT accuse you of being David Taylor. Here's the relevant paragraph: (emphasis added)
"And why would I tie your posting juvenile names and remarks to my calling you "David"? Because David Taylor regularly used juvenile names and remarks to describe people who disagreed with him. So when YOU use juvenile names and remarks to describe people who disagree with you, your posts remind me of 'David.'"
I didn't accuse you of being David Taylor. I said "your posts remind me of David Taylor."
But I think I've made my point, so I will no longer refer to you as "David" in my forum posts (unless we come to find out that you ARE David!
)You really do need therapy. Apparently you suffer from crazed liberal syndrome.
More juvenile stuff. I hope there comes a day when you will express your disagreements with people in more constructive, mature, and dialogue-inviting ways.
Once again, it's not a fair deal. You are accusing me of lying by going under a name and saying I am someone else, which isn't the case. I'm labelling you based on clear observations.
More basically, I'm accusing you of using middle school playground terms to describe people who disagree with you, and I'm hoping there comes a day when you will find and employ a vocabulary toward such folks that's in line with the CD expectation that we will "criticize ideas, not people."
Bill/Reformed,
Recess is over! Men, back to being men, please! CMSays the guy who compares what is going on at the border to abortion...
![[Deleted User]](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/fcddec765be35f238a0844bd23f54b59/?default=https%3A%2F%2Fvanillicon.com%2F8ce8323767a20f0f45db140c4cd2cea1_200.png&rating=g&size=200)