[barmar]

jogs, on 2017-July-11, 08:05, said:

The lie of the century comes from the European progressive left. The left claims this world is ready for globalism and open borders. Trump says if Europe wants open borders why do we need NATO? Let the Russians invade and occupy. Obviously Europe doesn't want open borders.

What a leap. Equating immigration with invasion?

Quote

The Russians aren't the main threat. Islamic terrorists is only a minor inconvenience. The main threat is ordinary Muslims who don't assimilate and want to live under Sharia from the Kuran.

There's very little indication that the Muslims who immigrate to the west wish to do that.

Do you have a similar concern about Hassidic Jews and the Amish? They also want to live according to their traditional, archaic practices.

[RedSpawn]

awm, on 2017-July-11, 08:17, said:

In any case, no one is suggesting Trump be impeached because of his history of sexual assault, much less because of cheating on his wife (which is basically what Clinton was impeached for -- lying to congress about having cheated on his wife; senators, including some Republicans, did not feel this rose to the level of "high crimes"). If Trump is impeached it will be for treason -- colluding with a foreign power to illegally obtain information which would then be used to win a US election. Treason (and covering it up) is a different and far more serious issue than lying about an extra-marital affair. Note that the breach of the DNC data is quite similar to Watergate, if the burglars had been Soviet spies and with the addition of modern technology. There is certainly precedent for impeachment and the case seems to grow stronger by the day. Of course politics enters into the equation and Republicans in congress are unlikely to impeach as long as their voters (who already forgave Trump for sexual assault and a scam university and any number of other things) still support the president.

http://www.nytimes.c...ted-states.html

I don't think receiving sensitive, compromising information about Hillary Clinton (his opposition) from Russia qualifies as treason per the Constitution. See link.

It's a dumb move if the campaign had received the intelligence because what was the legal consideration Russia expected in return? If money, the Trump campaign would be in direct violation of federal campaign financing laws. If a quid pro quo act, the Trump campaign might be in violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act or a future bribery charge if it could be proven why he granted Russia favorable treatment on a particular issue.

See http://www.huffingto...g_n_897189.html

We need a whole lot more linkages to solidify the collusion angle especially with the DNC server hacking still a mystery.

[Winstonm]

RedSpawn, on 2017-July-11, 14:14, said:

http://www.nytimes.c...ted-states.html

I don't think receiving sensitive, compromising information about Hillary Clinton (his opposition) from Russia qualifies as treason per the Constitution. See link.

It's a dumb move if the campaign had received the intelligence because what was the legal consideration Russia expected in return? If money, the Trump campaign would be in direct violation of federal campaign financing laws. If a quid pro quo act, the Trump campaign might be in violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act or a future bribery charge if it could be proven why he granted Russia favorable treatment on a particular issue.

See http://www.huffingto...g_n_897189.html

We need a whole lot more linkages to solidify the collusion angle especially with the DNC server hacking still a mystery.

It doesn't have to be money to be in violation of campaign laws - accepting anything of value is illegal.

[MrAce]

Ann Coulter the author of"In Trump we trust" said:

Ann Coulter has admitted that, four months into the Trump presidency, she's worried that her favorite candidate's administration is a bust.

Coulter - who last year published the book In Trump We Trust - has told The Daily Caller that she is beginning to doubt Trump's ability to pull off his promised changes.

Likening his presidency to a man who promised to drive to LA, but then started heading to New York, she says there is still a chance for him to 'turn the car around'.

But if he doesn't, she said, 'I'll say we had no choice, but the Trump-haters were right… It's a nightmare. I can't even contemplate that. Right now I'm still rooting for him to turn around.'

[kenberg]

I went to the Daily Caller site Ace cited. Early on in the article there is a quote from the book

Quote

She wrote "In Trump We Trust" and proclaimed that she worships him like the "people of North Korea worship their Dear Leader – blind loyalty."

Out of the mouths of babes...


Odd things, trivia, sometimes stick in my mind. I saw The Caine Mutiny outside of Duluth on a rode trip with my friend Roger in 1954. [In a recent conversation he remembered the road trip had no memory of the movie, but I am positive.] The problem with Captain Queeg (Humprey Bogart) was not that he made some bad decisions, the problem was that there was something wrong with his head. So it is here.

[Winstonm]

In his interview with Sean Hannity, Donald Trump Jr. said, "I considered it opposition research..." about the information that the Russian government lawyer was to provide.

This, by his own admission, means that he was willing and hopeful of receiving "something of value" from a foreign government.

Quote

How much does an opposition research book for political campaigns cost?

Arun Baheti, Managed operations for many campaigns, former managing director of California Democratic Party
Answered Nov 13, 2013
Depends on the race, but don't be surprised by anywhere from $10,000 and up, I've seen $50,000+, and I've also seen opposition researchers just being put on payroll by the candidate committee or the consultant's firm.

If I am correct about opposition research being "anything of value" in the statute, then Trump Jr., with the help of Sean Hannity, has now admitted on national t.v. to conspiracy to violate campaign finance laws. That ought to be good for ratings!

[Winstonm]

From The Atlantic:

Quote

Trump Jr. invited his father’s campaign manager, Paul Manafort, and his brother-in-law, Jared Kushner, to the meeting, forwarding them an email with the subject, “Russia - Clinton - Private and Confidential.” Both Manafort and Kushner attended.

Perhaps Donald Trump knew that all this was going on, which would make his statement at the press conference last spring a particularly shameless lie, even by his standards. Only a fool would ever again trust a politician who they caught in a lie like that.

Then again, maybe Trump was oblivious to the meeting that took place in Trump Tower. But if it’s the latter, that means that Trump was so ignorant about what happened inside his own campaign that he didn’t even know about a meeting his own son scheduled for the purpose of colluding with the Russian government, even though both his campaign manager and his son-in-law were also in attendance. That would mean his closest advisers were actively keeping him in the dark.

Both possibilities, though, point to the same conclusion: The president cannot be believed. Either Trump’s denials about campaign collusion with Russia cannot be believed because he is a shameless liar; or Trump’s denials about campaign collusion with Russia cannot be believed because he was utterly clueless about at least one major effort to collude, and thus cannot credibly attest that there were not other efforts to which he wasn’t privy.

I would think even marginal Trump supporters now have to agree that when it comes to Russian collusion, Donald Trump's denials are meaningless.

[y66]

From the NYT's California Today edition:

Quote

In some ways, they could not be more different.

On one coast, there is Jerry Brown, the governor and a California fixture, a leader of the Democratic opposition to the Trump White House.

On the other side of the country is Michael Bloomberg, the former Republican New York mayor, a billionaire businessman and philanthropist who has arguably been as active outside of Gracie Mansion (or more precisely City Hall; Mr. Bloomberg declined to live in Gracie Mansion) as he was when he was in political power.

In combining forces on climate change, these two men have sought to present themselves as a high-profile team in opposition to President Trump on this issue. On Tuesday, Mr. Brown and Mr. Bloomberg announced they would lead a group of states, cities and businesses in pledging to adhere to standards set by the Paris climate pact — after Mr. Trump announced that the United States would withdraw from the agreement.

In truth, these two men are not as dissimilar as they might appear. Mr. Brown is 79; Mr. Bloomberg is 75. Both can be, shall we say, irascible. And both won considerable support by being viewed as something of a free spirit: playing by some rules of politics, while happily flaunting others. Mr. Bloomberg, who doesn’t exactly fit the profile of what most people might consider a Republican, left the party to become an independent as he thought about running for president.

“It’s an interesting character study,” said Kevin Sheekey, Mr. Bloomberg’s top political adviser. “One guy is Jerry Brown — a California leftist. The other is the global king of capitalism. That doesn’t make sense. "But when you think about it they are remarkably similar and their success has come from their similarities.”

Might this cross-country lineup make a difference? Well, at the very least two big names from the two coasts guarantees that what might otherwise have been just another new release gets a bit of notice. That is no small matter in these hectic days.

“They have a remarkable power to coordinate U.S. forces — business, environmental, state, local, corporate — in a way no two other individuals could,” Mr. Sheekey said. “That really is the game at this point.”

[mike777]

Dont know if what trump jr did rises to the level of a federal crime and the time and millions spent but at the very least his actions were wrong, very wrong.

I suppose if the ind. counsel wants to bring down the full weight of its heavy hammer things will get unpleasant for him, trump jr., at this point it seems like a waste of public money but who knows perhaps they will find more, much more.

[mike777]

y66, on 2017-July-12, 14:35, said:

From the NYT's California Today edition:

again I think market forces at least here in America will bring good results regarding this subject....see the growth of solar in regards to generating electricity.

[Winstonm]

mike777, on 2017-July-12, 16:26, said:

Dont know if what trump jr did rises to the level of a federal crime and the time and millions spent but at the very least his actions were wrong, very wrong.

I suppose if the ind. counsel wants to bring down the full weight of its heavy hammer things will get unpleasant for him, trump jr., at this point it seems like a waste of public money but who knows perhaps they will find more, much more.

The one in real trouble is Kushner.

[Zelandakh]

Winstonm, on 2017-July-12, 17:30, said:

The one in real trouble is Kushner.

He's not really in trouble yet but between digiworld, Qatar, the Russian backchannel (and Kislyak's sudden return to Russia), his security clearance and the rapidly changing list of foreign contacts he is certainly placing himself firmly on the radar. It seems unlikely that the end of the story is coming any time soon so plenty of time yet for a direct hit to land.

[Winstonm]

Zelandakh, on 2017-July-13, 10:24, said:

He's not really in trouble yet but between digiworld, Qatar, the Russian backchannel (and Kislyak's sudden return to Russia), his security clearance and the rapidly changing list of foreign contacts he is certainly placing himself firmly on the radar. It seems unlikely that the end of the story is coming any time soon so plenty of time yet for a direct hit to land.

Kushner has already had to revise his SF86 security clearance form 3 times. For each time he signed the form without disclosing a foreign contact, he could be charged with a felony - it says so on the form right above the signature line. This is the same type of legal predicament in which Flynn and Manafort find themselves - failure to disclose. So Kushner is already more vulnerable to a felony charge than Donald Jr. Junior, not being in the government, never had to sign that kind of form and has never been under oath so his risk is a charge of conspiracy to accept foreign government campaign contributions in the form of opposition research from Russia.

Quote

When filling out the Questionnaire for National Security Positions (SF-86) there is a section right after the instructions you have to acknowledge as having read. It states “I have read the instructions and I understand that if I withhold, misrepresent, or falsify information on this form, I am subject to the penalties for inaccurate or false statement (per U.S. Criminal Code, Title 18, section 1001), denial or revocation of a security clearance, and/or removal and debarment from Federal service.”

This is the hammer that can be help over Kushner's head - although rarely enforced, the threat of use is still there.

[billw55]

Winstonm, on 2017-July-12, 12:06, said:

I would think even marginal Trump supporters now have to agree that when it comes to Russian collusion, Donald Trump's denials are meaningless.

You are understating your case. Almost everything he says is meaningless.

[billw55]

jogs, on 2017-July-11, 08:05, said:

The real danger is the devout Muslim who believes in the Kuran and Sharia Law. They want to take humanity back to the 7th century.

Or the devout Christian who believes in Biblical law. They want to backtrack humanity as well. And they are much closer to doing it than Muslims are (in the USA at least).

[RedSpawn]

Winstonm, on 2017-July-12, 12:06, said:

Quote

From The Atlantic:
Trump Jr. invited his father’s campaign manager, Paul Manafort, and his brother-in-law, Jared Kushner, to the meeting, forwarding them an email with the subject, “Russia - Clinton - Private and Confidential.” Both Manafort and Kushner attended.

Perhaps Donald Trump knew that all this was going on, which would make his statement at the press conference last spring a particularly shameless lie, even by his standards. Only a fool would ever again trust a politician who they caught in a lie like that.

Then again, maybe Trump was oblivious to the meeting that took place in Trump Tower. But if it’s the latter, that means that Trump was so ignorant about what happened inside his own campaign that he didn’t even know about a meeting his own son scheduled for the purpose of colluding with the Russian government, even though both his campaign manager and his son-in-law were also in attendance. That would mean his closest advisers were actively keeping him in the dark.

Both possibilities, though, point to the same conclusion: The president cannot be believed. Either Trump’s denials about campaign collusion with Russia cannot be believed because he is a shameless liar; or Trump’s denials about campaign collusion with Russia cannot be believed because he was utterly clueless about at least one major effort to collude, and thus cannot credibly attest that there were not other efforts to which he wasn’t privy. (bold & italics mine)

I would think even marginal Trump supporters now have to agree that when it comes to Russian collusion, Donald Trump's denials are meaningless.

With politicians, it's rarely ever a question of do they lie. Deep down we all know politicians tell lies to keep their constituents happy and to protect themselves; it's usually a matter of which lie you catch them in that determines if you ever will believe them again.

Let's look at the facts here:

According to the Federal Election Commission,

Quote

"Contributions are the most common source of campaign support.

A contribution is anything of value given, loaned or advanced to influence a federal election. It is important to understand which receipts are considered contributions because:

Contributions count toward the threshold that determines whether an individual has qualified as a candidate under the Federal Election Campaign Act.
Contributions are subject to the Act’s prohibitions against contributions from certain sources.
Contributions are subject to the Act’s limits on the amount of contributions.
Like all receipts, contributions are also subject to the Act’s recordkeeping and reporting requirements. (bold and italics mine)

See https://www.fec.gov/...ribution-types/ for additional information

I want you to note that contributions include a THING OF VALUE GIVEN, LOANED, OR ADVANCED!

So, let's look what happened. . .

• Rob Goldstone, an intermediary, sent an e-mail to Donald Trump, Jr and told him that a Russian government official might have some salacious, compromising information on Hillary Clinton.
  
• Donald Trump e-mails back and says he would love to hear it.
  
• Rob Goldstone and Donald Trump, Jr. coordinate a mutually convenient time to meet this Russian lawyer. They coordinate a time to meet her and eventually do.
  
• Donald Trump, Jr. finds out that the Russian lawyer has absolutely nothing of value (no intelligence) to offer as she switches the conversation to other matters.
  
• Since the Russian lawyer is denying that she is connected to the Kremlin, can our government provide explicit PROOF that this lawyer is in the employ of the Kremlin? Obviously we can't go to Putin to verify that considering the source and if the woman has a Russian passport, that does not mean that she works for the Russian government. It means she is a Russian citizen and is a foreign national who is prohibited from making a contibution to influence federal elections.

Here's the rub:

THE RUSSIAN LAYWER HASN'T GIVEN, LOANED, OR ADVANCED A THING OF VALUE TO INFLUENCE THE FEDERAL ELECTION. She didn't have $hit to offer. She hasn't made a contribution to influence a federal election, though she appears to be a part of a solicitation scheme coordinated by Rob Goldstone.

You could say indirectly that Donald Trump Jr. is guilty of solicitation since he didn't initially seek this damaging information out; the OFFER to meet the Russian lawyer came through Rob Goldstone, an intermediary (who should also be pulled in any solicitation charges under the Federal Election Commission). However, Donald Trump Jr. (and others) agreed to meet with her because she allegedly promised a thing of value she didn't have.

The Trump campaign did not CONSTRUCTIVELY ACCEPT OR RECEIVE intelligence or a thing of value which is prohibited by the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA). A promise to deliver intelligence is not a thing of value or a reportable contribution under FECA.

The Federal Election Committee should investigate the matter for potential solicitation violations and affix a fine, but since the Trump campaign didn't constructively receive or accept A THING OF VALUE, I can't imagine an imprisonment coming out of this. There just isn't enough fire. The Trump campaign needed to have accepted or received A THING OF VALUE and then fail to report it to federal government.

And while my interest is piqued, I still do not understand who masterminded the hack of the Democratic National Convention server and then released the trove of e-mails on Wikileaks. There are some missing pieces that need to be made before we employ terms like treason or dark money espionage.

[Winstonm]

RedSpawn, on 2017-July-13, 13:39, said:

With politicians, it's rarely ever a question of do they lie. Deep down we all know politicians tell lies to keep their constituents happy and to protect themselves; it's usually a matter of which lie you catch them in that determines if you ever will believe them again.

Let's look at the facts here:

According to the Federal Election Commission,

See https://www.fec.gov/...ribution-types/ for additional information

I want you to note that contributions include a THING OF VALUE GIVEN, LOANED, OR ADVANCED!

So, let's look what happened. . .

• Rob Goldstone, an intermediary, sent an e-mail to Donald Trump, Jr and told him that a Russian government official might have some salacious, compromising information on Hillary Clinton.
  
• Donald Trump e-mails back and says he would love to hear it.
  
• Rob Goldstone and Donald Trump, Jr. coordinate a mutually convenient time to meet this Russian lawyer. They coordinate a time to meet her and eventually do.
  
• Donald Trump, Jr. finds out that the Russian lawyer has absolutely nothing of value (no intelligence) to offer as she switches the conversation to other matters.
  
• Since the Russian lawyer is denying that she is connected to the Kremlin, can our government provide explicit PROOF that this lawyer is in the employ of the Kremlin? Obviously we can't go to Putin to verify that considering the source and if the woman has a Russian passport, that does not mean that she works for the Russian government. It means she is a Russian citizen and is a foreign national who is prohibited from making a contibution to influence federal elections.

Here's the rub:

THE RUSSIAN LAYWER HASN'T GIVEN, LOANED, OR ADVANCED A THING OF VALUE TO INFLUENCE THE FEDERAL ELECTION. She didn't have $hit to offer. She hasn't made a contribution to influence a federal election, though she appears to be a part of a solicitation scheme coordinated by Rob Goldstone.

You could say indirectly that Donald Trump Jr. is guilty of solicitation since he didn't initially seek this damaging information out; the OFFER to meet the Russian lawyer came through Rob Goldstone, an intermediary (who should also be pulled in any solicitation charges under the Federal Election Commission). However, Donald Trump Jr. (and others) agreed to meet with her because she allegedly promised a thing of value she didn't have.

The Trump campaign did not CONSTRUCTIVELY ACCEPT OR RECEIVE intelligence or a thing of value which is prohibited by the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA). A promise to deliver intelligence is not a thing of value or a reportable contribution under FECA.

The Federal Election Committee should investigate the matter for potential solicitation violations and affix a fine, but since the Trump campaign didn't constructively receive or accept A THING OF VALUE, I can't imagine an imprisonment coming out of this. There just isn't enough fire. The Trump campaign needed to have accepted or received A THING OF VALUE and then fail to report it to federal government.

And while my interest is piqued, I still do not understand who masterminded the hack of the Democratic National Convention server and then released the trove of e-mails on Wikileaks. There are some missing pieces that need to be made before we employ terms like treason or dark money espionage.

The issue is regardless if Trump Sr. knew or did not know, either way he cannot be believed.

As to collusion, all we know is that Trump Jr. denied anything of value was received - we have no idea if that is true or not.

[mike777]

My local crack dealer told me he had a really hot ten year old girl who wants to give me free sex and crack if I show up at his hotel room. I told him I LOVE IT
I show up and the rotten dealer had no girl...no drugs he just wanted me to do him a favor in regards to my famous Dad. rats////

for the record my brother in law showed up but left after 7 minutes...and my manager just played with his phone the whole meeting.

I want to make clear for the record this meeting was a complete waste of all of our precious time.

[RedSpawn]

GO TO THE SOURCE:

https://www.law.corn.../text/11/110.20

11 CFR 110.20 - Prohibition on contributions, donations, expenditures, independent expenditures, and disbursements by foreign nationals (52 U.S.C. 30121, 36 U.S.C. 510).

Quote

11 CFR §110.20(b)Contributions and donations by foreign nationals in connection with elections. A foreign national shall not, directly or indirectly, make a contribution or a donation of money or other thing of value, or expressly or impliedly promise to make a contribution or a donation, in connection with any Federal, State, or local election.

Where did the Russian lawyer, a foreign national, expressly or impliedly promise to make a contribution or thing of value? We don't have any of her e-mails. Also, there appears to be a misunderstanding as to what the nature of the meeting with the Russian lawyer was. Donald Trump, Jr wanted one thing and the lawyer was there for a different reason.

http://www.nbcnews.c...-t-have-n781631

She denied having any intelligence for Donald Trump Jr. and she was there to discuss the removal of U.S. economic sanctions against Russia (been in place against Russia since at least 2014).

[RedSpawn]

mike777, on 2017-July-13, 14:04, said:

My local crack dealer told me he had a really hot ten year old girl who wants to give me free sex and crack if I show up at his hotel room. I told him I LOVE IT
I show up and the rotten dealer had no girl...no drugs he just wanted me to do him a favor in regards to my famous Dad. rats////

Nice example, but I don't discuss hypothetical false comparisons, I discuss FEDERAL LAW and FEDERAL CODES.

Quote

As noted earlier, the [Federal Election Campaign Act] prohibits knowingly soliciting, accepting or receiving contributions or donations from foreign nationals. In this context, "knowingly" means that a person:

• Has actual knowledge that the funds solicited, accepted, or received are from a foreign national;
  
• Is aware of facts that would lead a reasonable person to believe that the funds solicited, accepted, or received are likely to be from a foreign national;
  
• Is aware of facts that would lead a reasonable person to inquire whether the source of the funds solicited, accepted or received is a foreign national.

https://transition.f...s/foreign.shtml

I said Trump Jr. might be guilty of solicitation since an intermediary he knows offered for him to meet a Russian lawyer who promised damaging information on Hillary Clinton. Trump Jr. accepted the offer from his intermediary and then coordinated to meet the Russian lawyer through his intermediary. The Russian lawyer and Trump Jr. met and nothing of value was exchanged.

• Solicitation of political contribution -- indirectly, yes.
  
  Who made the solicitation to offer damaging information on Hillary Clinton? The Russian lawyer? Rob Goldstone, the intermediary who e-mailed Trump, Jr.? Or did Donald Trump solicit the Russian lawyer directly in another e-mail string we don't have? The e-mail string shows he accepted an offer of solicitation from his intermediary without having his lawyers review the Federal Election Campaign Act for this.
  
  The Russian lawyer is also on record saying that she never promised Trump Jr. any damaging information on Hillary Clinton, though Trump Jr. may have desired such information from her. http://www.nbcnews.c...-t-have-n781631 . So, if she didn't promise damaging information on Hillary Clinton, who promised Rob Goldstone that they had damaging information on Hillary Clinton? One must KNOW the solicitor for the act to be prosecutable.
  
  
• Acceptance of political contribution -- Ummm, no. He can't accept a thing of value the Russian lawyer doesn't have.
  
• Receipt of political contribution --- Ummm, no. He can't receive a thing of value the Russian lawyer didn't give.