Russia and our election

[Dill]

(07-11-2017, 07:21 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Well, finally something legit and justifiable in this whole Russia collusion thing.

Though I still find it hypocritical that at least one Republican primary candidate (or their supporters) and a Hillary supporter - I'm sure completely separate and arms length in both cases - engaged an intermediary to pay Russian spies for dirt on Trump....and no story.

Most of them are shady/corrupt.  Trump is just less savvy and experienced about it (I mean, they are like the 3 Stooges with how they handle these accusations), as least as it relates to politics.  

The problem is this behavior will continue, and continue to produce results, so long as people only care when the other side does it and refuse to hold their side accountable.

I've had no luck finding any information about either a Hillary supporter or a Republican primary candidate's supporter paying or seeking to pay Russian spies for dirt on Trump.

There does seem to be "no story" as you say. So how did you learn of it. Is there a link somewhere? Perhaps I am using the wrong search terms"

[NATI BENGALS]

Man it feels good knowing the treasonous royal family is looking out for the American people. I am glad they are in charge of our greatest secrets and security. Just an awesome feeling knowing they will seek help from unfriendly foreign sources to gain power in our country.

We were so weak under Obama. Finally seeing what real leadership is like. Golly, America is going to break the greatness meter. I cant help but thank the people who gave us the kardashians, duck dynasty, and the apprentice. Cant leave out faux news either they did a lot to educate the masses.

Super job republicans. I knew you guys would get it right.

[Au165]

(07-11-2017, 06:18 PM)Dill Wrote: Imagine this. Putin orders a spy to break into Hillary's home looking for dirt. He does and finds a letter to Hillary's lesbian lover confessing that she killed Vince Foster because he stole money from the Clinton's child trafficking operation.  The spy gives the letter to Trump jr. who is caught by the CIA in the act of giving it to his father.

The courts would not set a monetary value on the spy's time burglarizing, and then assess both that and the letter as a "foreign campaign contribution."

I am not a lawyer, but I am pretty sure that illegal hacking would have about the same legal status as burglary in the above case. The courts would not assess crime as a "campaign contribution," and in any case would have no way of determining a number' of hours to value.


Rather, the "deliverable" in this case is alone the product of the hacking--Hillary dirt. It is not fungible against other items of campaign dirt (a pair of Bernie's underwear signed by Sarah Palin), nor could one assess its exchange value in money.  It does not free up campaign money for other purposes, as would donated items like restaurant meals and airline tickets.

For these reasons, I do not see how stolen information can be accorded the legal status of "contribution" as defined by law.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/11/politics/trump-jr-legal-problems/index.html

I know I know CNN, but In their a Harvard law professor talks about how while tough it would appear to be considered a contribution of value.

Hasen said earlier Federal Election Commission guidance would suggest such opposition research would be covered, but that he was not aware of any prosecutions that would be relevant to the new Trump controversy.


I'm telling you dont sleep on this, the number value may be "priceless" but there is still value.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(07-11-2017, 07:21 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Well, finally something legit and justifiable in this whole Russia collusion thing.

Though I still find it hypocritical that at least one Republican primary candidate (or their supporters) and a Hillary supporter - I'm sure completely separate and arms length in both cases - engaged an intermediary to pay Russian spies for dirt on Trump....and no story.

Most of them are shady/corrupt. Trump is just less savvy and experienced about it (I mean, they are like the 3 Stooges with how they handle these accusations), as least as it relates to politics.

The problem is this behavior will continue, and continue to produce results, so long as people only care when the other side does it and refuse to hold their side accountable.

Who are you holding accountable and how?

[Dill]

(07-12-2017, 12:25 AM)Au165 Wrote: http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/11/politics/trump-jr-legal-problems/index.html

I know I know CNN, but In their a Harvard law professor talks about how while tough it would appear to be considered a contribution of value.

Hasen said earlier Federal Election Commission guidance would suggest such opposition research would be covered, but that he was not aware of any prosecutions that would be relevant to the new Trump controversy.

I'm telling you dont sleep on this, the number value may be "priceless" but there is still value.

Thanks for the link. It gives us a range of legal opinion in this case.

If it is true that no information was actually passed to T jr., then there may be nothing "of value" to assess at all.

I understand that opposition research could be a value item--e.g. if the Russians hired a British firm to get dirt, which they did legally, then paid for it and gave it to the Trump campaign. But in this case the "opposition research" was achieved by illegal activity, a kind of breaking and entering online. 

[NATI BENGALS]

I walked in and told repeated flagrant lies about a bunch of different things to my employer today including the one about how i didnt secretly work with our opposition to seize power and they fired me....

Wtf i thought this was America.

[JustWinBaby]

(07-11-2017, 09:45 PM)Dill Wrote: I've had no luck finding any information about either a Hillary supporter or a Republican primary candidate's supporter paying or seeking to pay Russian spies for dirt on Trump.

You have to search a lot harder...This has been "widely" reported in multiple sources months ago.

Not to upset your world order, but maybe you're a whole lot more ignorant than you think you are.

[JustWinBaby]

(07-12-2017, 01:24 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Who are you holding accountable and how?

I've been critical of Trump.

When have you been critical of Democrats?


Next...

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(07-13-2017, 03:32 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: I've been critical of Trump.

When have you been critical of Democrats?


Next...

So insulting Trump's intelligence is holding him accountable?

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(07-13-2017, 03:29 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: You have to search a lot harder...This has been "widely" reported in multiple sources months ago.

Not to upset your world order, but maybe you're a whole lot more ignorant than you think you are.

Let me guess, you're not going to waste you're time proving a negative by supplying a single source of your information IAW your past MO?

[Belsnickel]

(07-13-2017, 03:29 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: You have to search a lot harder...This has been "widely" reported in multiple sources months ago.

Not to upset your world order, but maybe you're a whole lot more ignorant than you think you are.

For those unaware, it was back in January when it was revealed that a DNC staffer had been pushing for the DNC and/or the Clinton campaign to get in touch with a Ukrainian official. The story, as far as it stands right now, is that this staffer had ties to Ukraine and had been told that the Ukrainian government had concerns over the Trump campaign's connections to Russia, and Ukraine wanted to pass along the information. As of right now, there is no evidence that anyone from the campaign actually took any meeting or information and there are many denials. The staffer (I can't remember his name right now) hasn't been able to be reached for contact as of late.

That's the tl;dr version without any sort of spin on it.

[Dill]

(07-13-2017, 08:59 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: For those unaware, it was back in January when it was revealed that a DNC staffer had been pushing for the DNC and/or the Clinton campaign to get in touch with a Ukrainian official. The story, as far as it stands right now, is that this staffer had ties to Ukraine and had been told that the Ukrainian government had concerns over the Trump campaign's connections to Russia, and Ukraine wanted to pass along the information. As of right now, there is no evidence that anyone from the campaign actually took any meeting or information and there are many denials. The staffer (I can't remember his name right now) hasn't been able to be reached for contact as of late.

That's the tl;dr version without any sort of spin on it.

I'm quite aware of that "scandal" Bels.

Justwin's claim was that at least one Republican primary candidate (or their supporters) and a Hillary supporter ... engaged an intermediary to pay RUSSIAN spies for dirt on Trump....and no story.

As you know, a DNC staffer who might have connected to Urkainian embassy staff who claim no meeting ever took place is not the equivalent of someone in Hillary's campaign "engaging" Russian spies. Until Justwin can supply some convincing links, this looks like fake news, a false story planted to mislead, or Justwin just garbled the DNC/Ukraine story to produce an equivalence.

[Belsnickel]

(07-13-2017, 01:39 PM)Dill Wrote: I'm quite aware of that "scandal" Bels.

Justwin's claim was that at least one Republican primary candidate (or their supporters) and a Hillary supporter ... engaged an intermediary to pay RUSSIAN spies for dirt on Trump....and no story.

As you know, a DNC staffer who might have connected to Urkainian embassy staff who claim no meeting ever took place is not the equivalent of someone in Hillary's campaign "engaging" Russian spies. Until Justwin can supply some convincing links, this looks like fake news, a false story planted to mislead, or Justwin just garbled the DNC/Ukraine story to produce an equivalence.

I'm aware it is, to use a term all over the news lately, a nothingburger. But the most fair thing to present the information.

[Dill]

(07-13-2017, 03:29 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: You have to search a lot harder...This has been "widely" reported in multiple sources months ago.

Not to upset your world order, but maybe you're a whole lot more ignorant than you think you are.

No, I don't think a story about a Hillary supporter "paying Russian spies" has ever been reported, at least by any legitimate news organization. Perhaps on 10news.one? And you are not going to provide any support for the claim.

Have you perhaps unconsciously conflated an alleged incident involving a DNC staffer and a Ukrainian embassy staffer with Trump jr's actual meeting with a Russian operative, all to produce your very own false equivalence?

"Both sides" cooperated with a hostile foreign government attacking the US elections . . . somehow?

[Dill]

(07-13-2017, 03:32 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: I've been critical of Trump.
When have you been critical of Democrats?

Even Kellyann Conway has "been critical of Trump."

It is now hard to talke about "Russia and our Election" without also talking about about the counter narratives and false equivalences which normalize Trump's incompetent policy making and vulgarly aberrant behavior. Defending him by claiming "both sides do it" lowers standards of political and journalistic integrity.

Even people who claim they don't support Trump nevertheless contribute to lowering standards by continually juxtaposing Trump's near daily missteps with the Fox News version of Obama and Clinton "scandals" to construct a system of false equivalences, like the first 6 months of trump is really no different from any other president's--hyped up Dems just want to see it that way.

Right after the election, in the "Draining the Swamp" thread, you claimed no one could predict Trump would be utterly incompetent. The office would change him as it does every president. "Its different when you actually sit in the chair." "There's no real evidence he' ll be any different," you said.  Remember how "career staffers" were going to guide foreign policy?

Do you still hold to these claims? Trump not all that different from OBamaBushClinton?

[JustWinBaby]

(07-13-2017, 02:07 PM)Dill Wrote: No, I don't think a story about a Hillary supporter "paying Russian spies" has ever been reported, at least by any legitimate news organization. Perhaps on 10news.one? And you are not going to provide any support for the claim.

It absolutely has and was.  Where do you think all this came from, in part?  Do you honestly think the FBI just out of the blue decided to investigate the Trump campaign?!?

It was opposition research.  And it would seem not credible enough to have been used, but perhaps credible enough for McCain [and others] to pass to the FBI.

I read in more than one article, months ago, related to the Dossier, that the Dossier was opposition research originally funded by Republican primary supporters and then taken over by Clinton supporters.  I'm not sure why that wasn't a bigger story (until now), but I'm also not sure why it's so objectionable.  It's not a fact that appeared to be disputed, at all, in related stories.

Now I don't know if it is 100% truth, since the media so clearly sucks these days, but it was reported that this Dossier was compiled, in part, by paying Russian spies for intel.  It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand people wanting to get paid had to justify their pay day.

Here's a google search that - holy shit - took me 10 seconds.  If this is news to you, then, well, you must be intellectually lazy at best and maybe in need of a class on searching google:
https://nypost.com/2017/06/24/inside-the-shadowy-intelligence-firm-behind-the-trump-dossier/
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/11/trump-russia-report-opposition-research-john-mccain
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/11/us/politics/donald-trump-russia-intelligence.html
http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/03/how-the-explosive-russian-dossier-was-compiled-christopher-steele

Maybe get off your ass and out our your bubble and actually start reading the news.

[JustWinBaby]

(07-13-2017, 03:00 PM)Dill Wrote: Defending him by claiming "both sides do it" lowers standards of political and journalistic integrity.

No, I'm not defending him...but rather I'm impugning the media.

Dill Wrote:Right after the election, in the "Draining the Swamp" thread, you claimed no one could predict Trump would be utterly incompetent. The office would change him as it does every president. "Its different when you actually sit in the chair." "There's no real evidence he' ll be any different," you said.  Remember how "career staffers" were going to guide foreign policy?

What evidence would you present that anything I claimed here is wrong?  Bozo words don't prove that career staffers don't run anything  (and, actually, it kind of makes my point).

[Dill]

(07-14-2017, 07:09 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: No, I'm not defending him...but rather I'm impugning the media.
What evidence would you present that anything I claimed here is wrong?  Bozo words don't prove that career staffers don't run anything  (and, actually, it kind of makes my point).

One of the points I have explicitly made on this thread (#155) is that uncritically impugning the media, at least the MSM, is supporting Trump, helping to maintain his legitimacy. Even people who are not pro Trump do this when they continue to "equalize" the parties and party leaders, contributing to a mediascape in which standards remain muddied, professional journalism no better than propaganda.

As far as your moderate views of Trump's presidency, including foreign policy, of course I didn't "disprove" your claims in a short post--though I have discussed Trump's foreign policy in some detail in other posts, as well as his paralysis of the Executive. The point was to recall those claims and ask if you stood by them now.  And I was assuming you have been following Trump news over the last six months. Are you unable to think of six or seven unforced errors Trump has made over the last 6 months owing to lack of knowledge of how government works? The recent tweet about "Low IQ Mika" and her face bleeding from a facelift gives us some indication of how he has "grown into his office." Do you maintain EITHER that he is behaving no differently from other presidents OR that there was no evidence before the election that he would be like this?

The issue about career staffers was not whether they "run anything." The original question was whether an incompetent leader who had no knowledge of history or foreign policy could damage foreign policy. Your answer was that foreign policy was largely controlled by "career staffers"--hence Trump wouldn't do much damage, not to worry. My point, which you disputed, was that such staffers have no directive power. A new president brings in new people at senior positions whose job is to implement the president's policy. "Normal" presidents recognize disruption is bad and so much is continued as before. But Trump is not a normal president. He appears to be undoing Obama policies wherever he can, especially in the State Department. Career staffers don't have the power to make policy or stop Trump's.

For example:
1. "Career staffers" cannot cut the budget of and reorganize the state department.
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/341923-trumps-war-on-the-state-department
President Trump is seeking to radically remodel the State Department in an unprecedented way, according to former officials from administrations of both political parties. 
The administration’s efforts, which include a proposed budget cut of nearly 30 percent, a hiring freeze and a potential reshuffling of offices within the State Department, have left scores of positions unfilled, demoralizing the staff that remain....efforts to remake the State Department include a March 13 executive order that set forth a branch-wide reorganization review that could result in a reshuffling or elimination of agencies and offices.
The administration is mulling a proposal that would relocate the State Department’s bureaus of Consular Affairs and Population, Refugees, and Migration to the Department of Homeland Security, according to CNN.

2. "Career staffers" cannot appoint senior department officials, who communicate policy goals set by Trump/Tillerson.
http://thehill.com/policy/international/334327-worries-mount-about-vacancies-in-trumps-state-department
Concerns are growing about a short-staffed State Department dealing with a host of international crises.

As President Trump begins his first foreign trip, seven of the nine senior State Department roles under Secretary Rex Tillerson remain vacant, including his top deputy. ...

While the Trump administration has put the blame on Senate Democrats and the slow confirmation process, others say Trump has been slow to issue nominations.

There are roughly 200 positions at the State Department that require Senate confirmation, including key ambassadorships, the vast majority of which remain unfilled more than 100 days into the new administration.

3. Most of all, career staffers cannot re-organize regional alliances, as Trump is doing. They cannot ignore our Intel agencies reports of Russian interference in our elections and "de-prioritize" the Russian threat. They cannot reshuffle power arrangements in the Gulf simply be tweeting that Qatar has funded terrorism, this in support of Saudi Arabia, the world's #1 funder. They cannot set our NATO partners on an independent course away from US support.
 
Or do you say no? Foreign policy will continue from Obama/Hillary/Kerry without significant change because lower level Bureaucrats just continue their jobs?  

[Dill]

(07-14-2017, 07:05 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Now I don't know if it is 100% truth, since the media so clearly sucks these days, but it was reported that this Dossier was compiled, in part, by paying Russian spies for intel.  It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand people wanting to get paid had to justify their pay day.

Here's a google search that - holy shit -  took me 10 seconds.  If this is news to you, then, well, you must be intellectually lazy at best and maybe in need of a class on searching google:
https://nypost.com/2017/06/24/inside-the-shadowy-intelligence-firm-behind-the-trump-dossier/
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/11/trump-russia-report-opposition-research-john-mccain
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/11/us/politics/donald-trump-russia-intelligence.html
http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/03/how-the-explosive-russian-dossier-was-compiled-christopher-steele

Maybe get off your ass and out our your bubble and actually start reading the news.

I am quite aware of the so-called Trump dossier.

This is a false equivalence to the Trump jr. scandal on a number of counts.

1. The issue for Junior is whether there was direct "collusion" with the Russian state, directed by Putin, to undermine the US election. Anyone who so colluded would in effect be acting as a Russian agent.

2. The dossier was not a "campaign contribution" from a foreign government interfering in the US election. Compiled by a US firm, it was simply paid opposition research.

3. Your claim was that Hillary supporters "paid Russian spies."  None of your links establishes that, only that Steele contacted some Russian sources--third hand, apparently.  The New York Post article, of course, repeats the word "Hillary" a number of times, refering to "allies" and "supporters" at some distance to both the DNC and Campaign, and it supports the Trump claim the Russian investigation is simply a personal attack on Trump, not a legitimate pursuit of national interest.

With the exception of the NYPost, the reporting of this news is not "sucky."

Final point. I started another thread just to talk about DESIGNED counter-narratives constructed in part by false equivalences systematically posited to match each Trump scandal as it emerges. We are only talking about this AGAIN and here because the WH and Fox are up to their old whataboutery. It was they who proffered the false equivalence on July 10, and you, so ready to believe "both sides do it," bought it.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(07-14-2017, 07:05 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: It absolutely has and was.  Where do you think all this came from, in part?  Do you honestly think the FBI just out of the blue decided to investigate the Trump campaign?!?

It was opposition research.  And it would seem not credible enough to have been used, but perhaps credible enough for McCain [and others] to pass to the FBI.

I read in more than one article, months ago, related to the Dossier, that the Dossier was opposition research originally funded by Republican primary supporters and then taken over by Clinton supporters.  I'm not sure why that wasn't a bigger story (until now), but I'm also not sure why it's so objectionable.  It's not a fact that appeared to be disputed, at all, in related stories.

Now I don't know if it is 100% truth, since the media so clearly sucks these days, but it was reported that this Dossier was compiled, in part, by paying Russian spies for intel.  It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand people wanting to get paid had to justify their pay day.

Here's a google search that - holy shit - took me 10 seconds.  If this is news to you, then, well, you must be intellectually lazy at best and maybe in need of a class on searching google:
https://nypost.com/2017/06/24/inside-the-shadowy-intelligence-firm-behind-the-trump-dossier/
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/11/trump-russia-report-opposition-research-john-mccain
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/11/us/politics/donald-trump-russia-intelligence.html
http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/03/how-the-explosive-russian-dossier-was-compiled-christopher-steele

Maybe get off your ass and out our your bubble and actually start reading the news.

Strong words from someone who is too lazy to provide a single link to a single climate change article you read. Still. But, at least we now know you can use Google.