Rippounet Posted July 10, 2017 Share Posted July 10, 2017 9 hours ago, Altherion said: Also, I think you are mixing up the European definition of liberalism and the American one. I'm showing that they have the same core definition and that even in the current sense(s) of the word they're supposed to be about the same things. 9 hours ago, Altherion said: It is difficult to fight both at the same time: what do you use as a power base? That's the million dollar question. You can't really fight both at the same time, which is our problem right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mexal Posted July 10, 2017 Share Posted July 10, 2017 4 hours ago, Tywin et al. said: This story is picking up a lot of steam. Methinks that Mueller will want a word. Yup. Doesn't look good for Donald Jr or Kushner. These people are idiots. The one thing I'm wondering about is that the leaks came from the WH. Is there something worse that's coming and they wanted to put this out first? I don't know. It's just weird this isn't from the investigation. This is what, the 3rd or 4th time Kushner failed to report a contact with Russians on his SF-86? I can't see how he gets out of going to jail other than pardon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maithanet Posted July 10, 2017 Share Posted July 10, 2017 24 minutes ago, Mexal said: Yup. Doesn't look good for Donald Jr or Kushner. These people are idiots. The one thing I'm wondering about is that the leaks came from the WH. Is there something worse that's coming and they wanted to put this out first? I don't know. It's just weird this isn't from the investigation. Anytime something like this comes out of the WH, I just assume it is some sort of internal fight. So, who benefits from DTJ and Kushner being on the outs? Bannon, McMaster, Pence, Tillerson, etc. I can come up with a semi-plausible reason for any one of them to do it (in roughly the order I gave for most to least likely). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mexal Posted July 10, 2017 Share Posted July 10, 2017 6 minutes ago, Maithanet said: Anytime something like this comes out of the WH, I just assume it is some sort of internal fight. So, who benefits from DTJ and Kushner being on the outs? Bannon, McMaster, Pence, Tillerson, etc. I can come up with a semi-plausible reason for any one of them to do it (in roughly the order I gave for most to least likely). Yea maybe. Three officials confirmed the story. And I wonder how many actually knew about it. Not something I'm sure was common knowledge around the WH. We'll see I guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted July 10, 2017 Share Posted July 10, 2017 6 minutes ago, Maithanet said: Anytime something like this comes out of the WH, I just assume it is some sort of internal fight. So, who benefits from DTJ and Kushner being on the outs? Bannon, McMaster, Pence, Tillerson, etc. I can come up with a semi-plausible reason for any one of them to do it (in roughly the order I gave for most to least likely). Alternately, Kushner putting it out there that this meeting wasn't his idea, didn't have anything nefarious to do with him and isn't his fault is kind of a reasonable thing given how much pressure there had been with Kushner with respect to him and Flynn previously. Vox had a good article on this take - why the leakers matter more than the leak. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueMetis Posted July 10, 2017 Share Posted July 10, 2017 18 hours ago, OldGimletEye said: If I recall correctly the German Social Democratic Party was the only party to vote entirely against the enabling act which granted Hitler complete power. Yep, though the Communist party also probably would have had they not all been arrested or otherwise prevented from voting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted July 10, 2017 Author Share Posted July 10, 2017 31 minutes ago, Maithanet said: Anytime something like this comes out of the WH, I just assume it is some sort of internal fight. So, who benefits from DTJ and Kushner being on the outs? Bannon, McMaster, Pence, Tillerson, etc. I can come up with a semi-plausible reason for any one of them to do it (in roughly the order I gave for most to least likely). Hello, Hello, Hello....HELLO! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Chatywin et al. Posted July 10, 2017 Share Posted July 10, 2017 7 hours ago, Maithanet said: I am repeatedly astonished at how bad Trump and Associates are at managing scandals. It's like they have a playbook that consists of: 1. Damaging stories that come out which rely on "unnamed sources" 2. Attack story as illegitimate due to unnamed sources. 3. Confirm story is true in your own statement. It happened again yesterday. In his own statement, DTJ says: Does he think this is ok? Because he just admitted that he is willing to play ball with a Russian agent to gain potentially damaging political information. Is he totally unaware of how that would (at the very least) expose him to blackmail by the Russians? I don't think it's all that surprising to be honest. They don't have a lot of experience handling them, and the Trumps have lived a life of extreme privilege where they can typically act like they're above the law. They just haven't caught up to the realities of political life, and they probably never will considering how arrogant and reckless they are. Another interesting aspect of this is how it proves they were lying the entire time about not having connects with people associated with Russia and the hacking of Clinton. Many of us knew that, but we're at a point now where Republicans cannot pretend like they weren't and many are acting accordingly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Chatywin et al. Posted July 10, 2017 Share Posted July 10, 2017 3 hours ago, Maithanet said: Anytime something like this comes out of the WH, I just assume it is some sort of internal fight. So, who benefits from DTJ and Kushner being on the outs? Bannon, McMaster, Pence, Tillerson, etc. I can come up with a semi-plausible reason for any one of them to do it (in roughly the order I gave for most to least likely). I agree, but I don't think the people you listed other than Bannon would be behind this. I don't see how it benefits any of them. Bannon on the other hand has something to gain by making Kushner look bad, and only Trump's family is above Bannon in the WH hierarchy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cas Stark Posted July 10, 2017 Share Posted July 10, 2017 8 hours ago, Tywin et al. said: This story is picking up a lot of steam. Methinks that Mueller will want a word. I'm sure he will. But, it's not illegal to meet with people to get dirt on your opponent, opposition research is a well known niche; I don't see it as much different as the ex British spook who was digging up Russian dirt on Trump for the Clintons/Democrats, by....meeting with Russians. Or, any different actually, except that this lawyer didn't provide any dirt on Clinton unlike the dirt that was provided by the British spook's Russian connections. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted July 10, 2017 Share Posted July 10, 2017 Just now, Cas Stark said: I'm sure he will. But, it's not illegal to meet with people to get dirt on your opponent, opposition research is a well known niche; I don't see it as much different as the ex British spook who was digging up Russian dirt on Trump for the Clintons/Democrats, by....meeting with Russians. Or, any different actually, except that this lawyer didn't provide any dirt on Clinton unlike the dirt that was provided by the British spook's Russian connections. It is, however, illegal to exempt this contact from your security disclosure form (as Kushner did). It is also highly suspicious when confronted with this information to openly lie about the nature of the conversation or the purpose of the conversation. That, itself, is not illegal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Week Posted July 10, 2017 Share Posted July 10, 2017 6 minutes ago, Cas Stark said: I'm sure he will. But, it's not illegal to meet with people to get dirt on your opponent, opposition research is a well known niche; I don't see it as much different as the ex British spook who was digging up Russian dirt on Trump for the Clintons/Democrats, by....meeting with Russians. Or, any different actually, except that this lawyer didn't provide any dirt on Clinton unlike the dirt that was provided by the British spook's Russian connections. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5NNOrp_83RU I never would have expected anything else. Excuses, "whataboutism", and counter-allegations. No concern or comment on the falsified statements, inconsistent responses, or generally lying about the incident. If it was a nothing-burger, then why the [bumbling] coat and dagger? (note: incompetence is NOT an excuse -- it is merely a potential explanation because the intent is pretty clear) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martell Spy Posted July 10, 2017 Share Posted July 10, 2017 Interesting that Cruz feels the need to lie about his amendment, saying it doesn't fuck over sick people. He seems to realize his position is indefensible if he openly states it. Senate GOP aims to release new health bill by week’s end A key disagreement within the caucus centers on a conservative proposal from Mike Lee and Ted Cruz to slash Obamacare regulations. http://www.politico.com/story/2017/07/10/senate-republican-health-care-bill-july-schedule-240363 GOP Senators Return From Recess to Find Even Worse Prospects for Their Health Care Bill http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2017/07/10/where_the_gop_health_care_bill_stands_after_recess.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fez Posted July 10, 2017 Share Posted July 10, 2017 31 minutes ago, Cas Stark said: I'm sure he will. But, it's not illegal to meet with people to get dirt on your opponent, opposition research is a well known niche; I don't see it as much different as the ex British spook who was digging up Russian dirt on Trump for the Clintons/Democrats, by....meeting with Russians. Or, any different actually, except that this lawyer didn't provide any dirt on Clinton unlike the dirt that was provided by the British spook's Russian connections. It is illegal though if said people are foreign agents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cas Stark Posted July 10, 2017 Share Posted July 10, 2017 3 minutes ago, Fez said: It is illegal though if said people are foreign agents. Is it? If I meet with someone who is a "foreign agent" and I don't know they are a foreign agent, how would it be illegal? Eh, we'll see, I still think this is a huge reach that isn't going to net anything beyond 'people failed to disclose meetings they say they forgot about or didn't think met the threshold of 'meeting'...like I saw them at an event'. More than anything it shows that the Trump people are rank amateurs when it comes to politics and that 6 months into his term there is no sign they've brought anyone on board who can stop these unforced errors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted July 10, 2017 Share Posted July 10, 2017 Just now, Cas Stark said: Is it? If I meet with someone who is a "foreign agent" and I don't know they are a foreign agent, how would it be illegal? If they are from another country, you list them. If it turns out they're not, no harm done. You assume anyone from another country representing foreign business interests is a foreign agent. They don't have to be part of the government (though she was), they simply have to be representing that country in some way. And even if she was there just for the adoption thing, it was representing Russia. The rules aren't that hard. Just now, Cas Stark said: Eh, we'll see, I still think this is a huge reach that isn't going to net anything beyond 'people failed to disclose meetings they say they forgot about or didn't think met the threshold of 'meeting'...like I saw them at an event'. Then why lie about the meeting's purpose? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted July 10, 2017 Author Share Posted July 10, 2017 19 minutes ago, Cas Stark said: More than anything it shows that the Trump people are rank amateurs when it comes to politics and that 6 months into his term there is no sign they've brought anyone on board who can stop these unforced errors. Foiled again by Moose and Squirrel... https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/de/f6/55/def655882177002611970009c9320c24.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted July 10, 2017 Share Posted July 10, 2017 Also, to make it clear - getting oppo from foreign agencies is really, really weird most of the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fez Posted July 10, 2017 Share Posted July 10, 2017 29 minutes ago, Cas Stark said: Is it? If I meet with someone who is a "foreign agent" and I don't know they are a foreign agent, how would it be illegal? You immediately disclose the contact occurred and seek out guidance from the appropriate Federal agencies if you are unclear on the whether the individual meets the definition of "foreign agent" and whether what they are offering could be considered "material value." The Trump campaign did not do this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cas Stark Posted July 10, 2017 Share Posted July 10, 2017 25 minutes ago, Fez said: You immediately disclose the contact occurred and seek out guidance from the appropriate Federal agencies if you are unclear on the whether the individual meets the definition of "foreign agent" and whether what they are offering could be considered "material value." The Trump campaign did not do this. I don't think this is correct either, I'm not aware that campaign staff have to disclose all meetings with foreigners, or even that elected officials do, that would be kind of a xenophobic policy that I doubt exists. There was nothing to ask the Feds about. I assume these meetings had to be disclosed on the security clearance forms....but failure to do that is a long, long way from proving any collusion. I'm not sure what you mean when you say 'material value'...material value to what and whom? The Feds are also not interested in opposition research unless it provides evidence of a federal crime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.