U.S. Politics: One NothingBurger with 100% Mos-Cow, Side of Orange Slices and a Banana Daiquiri, Please

[DMC]

11 minutes ago, Altherion said:

Yes. I read the emails and I don't see anything interesting in there except perhaps the usage of "Crown prosecutor of Russia". Not having been a monarchy for the past century, Russia has no such office; their equivalent of the American Attorney General is called the Prosecutor General (Генеральный Прокурор).

So the only interesting thing you gleaned from the emails is that Russia is not, in fact, a monarchy?  I think that about sums it up.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

27 minutes ago, Mexal said:

Here is a good timeline from TPM. Check out June...

 

It's also being reported that Trump was confirmed to be in TT when the meeting took place, and that the top agenda item for the day was digging up dirt on Clinton. It also appears that he was tweeting about Clinton's emails about 10-20 minutes after the meeting wrapped up. 

This looks like it's snowballing. 

[Mexal]

25 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

It's also being reported that Trump was confirmed to be in TT when the meeting took place, and that the top agenda item for the day was digging up dirt on Clinton. It also appears that he was tweeting about Clinton's emails about 10-20 minutes after the meeting wrapped up. 

This looks like it's snowballing. 

Still all circumstantial but it don't look good.

[Altherion]

14 minutes ago, Mexal said:

Really? The whole "This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump." wasn't interesting to you?

Not when it comes from the Crown prosecutor of Russia, no. That whole email sounds like somebody desperately trying to seem important and well connected without having done much research on the matter. Aside from getting the title wrong, they also apparently didn't realize that the Prosecutor General of Russia is not entirely like the American Attorney General. There is no plausible reason why he should know anything secret about Clinton -- that is the domain of either the SVR (Russia's civilian Foreign Intelligence Service) or the GRU (its military counterpart, the Main Intelligence Agency).

[Week]

6 minutes ago, Altherion said:

Not when it comes from the Crown prosecutor of Russia, no. That whole email sounds like somebody desperately trying to seem important and well connected without having done much research on the matter. Aside from getting the title wrong, they also apparently didn't realize that the Prosecutor General of Russia is not entirely like the American Attorney General. There is no plausible reason why he should know anything secret about Clinton -- that is the domain of either the SVR (Russia's civilian Foreign Intelligence Service) or the GRU (its military counterpart, the Main Intelligence Agency).

Hence, "Stupid Watergate"

https://www.vox.com/2017/7/11/15952232/donald-trump-jr-lawyer-russia-manafort-kushner-clinton-2016-election

[OldGimletEye]

When libertarians tell a marine general that the privately owned military forces, ie the free market, can fight wars better than the Marine Corps (which is just way too socialist, evidently. And Chesty Puller must be rolling over in his grave.), which has been in the business for a long time, one wonders what the general is thinking.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/10/world/asia/trump-afghanistan-policy-erik-prince-stephen-feinberg.html

Quote

Erik D. Prince, a founder of the private security firm Blackwater Worldwide, and Stephen A. Feinberg, a billionaire financier who owns the giant military contractor DynCorp International, have developed proposals to rely on contractors instead of American troops in Afghanistan at the behest of Stephen K. Bannon, Mr. Trump’s chief strategist, and Jared Kushner, his senior adviser and son-in-law, according to people briefed on the conversations.

On Saturday morning, Mr. Bannon sought out Defense Secretary Jim Mattis at the Pentagon to try to get a hearing for their ideas, an American official said. Mr. Mattis listened politely but declined to include the outside strategies in a review of Afghanistan policy that he is leading along with the national security adviser, Lt. Gen. H. R. McMaster.

 

Quote

Mr. Prince laid out his views in an op-ed in The Wall Street Journal in May. He called on the White House to appoint a viceroy to oversee the country and to use “private military units” to fill the gaps left by departed American soldiers. While he was at Blackwater, the company became involved in one of the most notorious episodes of the Iraq war, when its employees opened fire in a Baghdad square, killing 17 civilians.

 

[Mexal]

19 minutes ago, Altherion said:

Not when it comes from the Crown prosecutor of Russia, no. That whole email sounds like somebody desperately trying to seem important and well connected without having done much research on the matter. Aside from getting the title wrong, they also apparently didn't realize that the Prosecutor General of Russia is not entirely like the American Attorney General. There is no plausible reason why he should know anything secret about Clinton -- that is the domain of either the SVR (Russia's civilian Foreign Intelligence Service) or the GRU (its military counterpart, the Main Intelligence Agency).

Eh. That's what someone would say when they can't actually argue on the grounds that everyone else is looking at. You're focusing on mistakes a British national made in terms of titles of people within the Russian government rather then looking at who Goldstone represents (Aras Agalarov's son), his relationship to the Kremlin (Aras Agalarov was recipient of Order of Honor from Putin and an oligarch), the relationship of the lawyer to the Kremlin, the promise of information, the constant lies and shifting stories and the fact that all of that is illegal under the Federal Election Campaign Act.

You're back to your mental gymnastics of focusing on the minutia that matters little rather then admitting this is terrible, is unprecedented in our election history and proves that the Trump campaign knew that the Russian Government was supporting Trump against Clinton and was willing to get involved.

[James Arryn]

You know, Bill Maher can range from insightful to insufferable in delivery...though I often agree with his actual points...but he was bang on re: Russia and the right. Back when the talking point was 'no collusion, stop being obsessed with Russia' he predicted the 180 to 'nothing wrong with collusion, stop being obsessed with Russia' if/when the first point became untenable, and that's exactly what we've seen.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

10 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

You know, Bill Maher can range from insightful to insufferable in delivery...though I often agree with his actual points...but he was bang on re: Russia and the right. Back when the talking point was 'no collusion, stop being obsessed with Russia' he predicted the 180 to 'nothing wrong with collusion, stop being obsessed with Russia' if/when the first point became untenable, and that's exactly what we've seen.

Yup. That's been the spin on Fox News for the past week and a half. The thing that kills me is that they may have a point. In all the legal opinions I'm seeing, they keep on saying that this is clear proof of collusion, but that collusion in of itself is not a crime.  

[Kalbear]

53 minutes ago, Altherion said:

Not when it comes from the Crown prosecutor of Russia, no. That whole email sounds like somebody desperately trying to seem important and well connected without having done much research on the matter. Aside from getting the title wrong, they also apparently didn't realize that the Prosecutor General of Russia is not entirely like the American Attorney General. There is no plausible reason why he should know anything secret about Clinton -- that is the domain of either the SVR (Russia's civilian Foreign Intelligence Service) or the GRU (its military counterpart, the Main Intelligence Agency).

You're absolutely right.

How does ANY OF THIS ABSOLVE THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN?

It is illegal - criminal law - to solicit anything from a foreign person or group for your campaign. Even if you don't get anything, this is against campaign law. 

It is illegal - criminal law - to not disclose a meeting with a foreign agent on your security form. 

It should also be considered kind of a Big Deal that the letter came with the notion of how much Russia holds Mr. Trump in regard and wants to help him - and this was not at all talked down. It was accepted at face value. As was the offer of dirt on Clinton. 

Regardless of whether or not they should have known better, these things are, actually, illegal. 

[Altherion]

8 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

You're absolutely right.

How does ANY OF THIS ABSOLVE THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN?

It is illegal - criminal law - to solicit anything from a foreign person or group for your campaign. Even if you don't get anything, this is against campaign law. 

It is illegal - criminal law - to not disclose a meeting with a foreign agent on your security form. 

It should also be considered kind of a Big Deal that the letter came with the notion of how much Russia holds Mr. Trump in regard and wants to help him - and this was not at all talked down. It was accepted at face value. As was the offer of dirt on Clinton. 

Regardless of whether or not they should have known better, these things are, actually, illegal. 

I don't think the law about soliciting anything from a foreign person or group is that broad. It is illegal to ask them for money, yes, but I don't think it's illegal to ask for information. There are two reasons for this. First, Trump openly asked Russia for Clinton's missing emails and nobody brought this up. Second, the law would be ill-formed: where do you draw the line between simply having a conversation with a foreigner and soliciting information?

The meeting with a foreign agent thing is also dubious. The lawyer in question misrepresented herself as a quasi-governmental agent, but she wasn't one -- she actually represented some oligarchs who wanted something from Trump. Do you still have to disclose it if it turned out to be some random foreigner rather than an agent?

And yes, it is a big deal that Russia wanted Trump to win... but it is also something that was very widely known and not at all hidden: when the Russians found out that Trump won, they held a party in their parliament.

[James Arryn]

1 hour ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Yup. That's been the spin on Fox News for the past week and a half. The thing that kills me is that they may have a point. In all the legal opinions I'm seeing, they keep on saying that this is clear proof of collusion, but that collusion in of itself is not a crime.  

Lol.

But in all honesty, the whole 'shock exhaustion' strategy has largely paid off. Things that would have destroyed prior presidents don't even make Trump's top 50, and yet when you combine the hard-core racists/supporters, the 'my party do or die' voters and the politically exhausted, there doesn't seem to be anything all that imaginable that'll effectively move the needle here. I think we're all fucked.

[James Arryn]

8 minutes ago, Altherion said:

I don't think the law about soliciting anything from a foreign person or group is that broad. It is illegal to ask them for money, yes, but I don't think it's illegal to ask for information. There are two reasons for this. First, Trump openly asked Russia for Clinton's missing emails and nobody brought this up. Second, the law would be ill-formed: where do you draw the line between simply having a conversation with a foreigner and soliciting information?

The meeting with a foreign agent thing is also dubious. The lawyer in question misrepresented herself as a quasi-governmental agent, but she wasn't one -- she actually represented some oligarchs who wanted something from Trump. Do you still have to disclose it if it turned out to be some random foreigner rather than an agent?

And yes, it is a big deal that Russia wanted Trump to win... but it is also something that was very widely known and not at all hidden: when the Russians found out that Trump won, they held a party in their parliament.

The whole 'no one said anything then' argument, while dubious in and of itself, is kind of undermined by the months of vehement denials any such exchanges ever took place. Switching to this one is about as cynically desperate as can be...but I'm not surprised at who is selling and buying it.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

18 minutes ago, Altherion said:

I don't think the law about soliciting anything from a foreign person or group is that broad. It is illegal to ask them for money, yes, but I don't think it's illegal to ask for information.

Actually it is rather broad, and several constitutional scholars have suggested it could apply to things other money:

Quote

Federal law makes it a crime for any person to “solicit, accept or receive” a foreign gift or “anything of value” from a foreign person for a U.S. political campaign or “for the purpose of influencing any election for federal office.”

This includes an “express or implied promise” to give something of value. So in that sense it may not matter whether the thing of value was ever actually provided.

I think we can all agree that gaining incriminating evidence on your opponent is something of incredible value. 

Also, what Trump did is kind of apples and oranges compared to what Jr. did. Trump called for Russia to hack and release Clinton's emails  for everyone to see(that may also be illegal, I'm not 100% sure though) while Jr. specially wanted a Russian agent to give him something. 

[TrueMetis]

1 hour ago, James Arryn said:

You know, Bill Maher can range from insightful to insufferable in delivery...though I often agree with his actual points...but he was bang on re: Russia and the right. Back when the talking point was 'no collusion, stop being obsessed with Russia' he predicted the 180 to 'nothing wrong with collusion, stop being obsessed with Russia' if/when the first point became untenable, and that's exactly what we've seen.

That's not exactly an impressive prediction, all you have to do is look at all the other times they've done the exact same thing. Global warming comes to mind.

[Mudguard]

At this point, it's pretty clear that Trump's campaign was/is colluding with Russia.  After Trump's 2+ hour meeting with Putin, he wanted to form a joint cybersecurity task force to ensure the integrity of future elections.  Trump may as well put the Russia flag and a portrait of Putin in the White House now.  Their denials of collusion have zero credibility.  Meeting after meeting with Russians have been exposed by the media, and only after being exposed do they seem to remember having those meetings.  

With respect to the Russian lawyer and Trump Jr.'s meeting with her, I don't take her denials of being a Russian government representative at face value, nor do I believe that she provided no useful information.  After the constant lying, why should I believe anything these people say?  It doesn't make sense for the Russian lawyer to allege having information on Clinton and then showing up with nothing.  How is that going to advance her client's interest if she comes into the meeting with nothing of value?  That would be just wasting everyone's time.  If she had no information, why did the meeting last for 20 to 30 minutes?  I wouldn't be surprised if she is an SVR agent or working in some capacity with the SVR.  That TPM link provided earlier provides some circumstantial evidence that Russia traded releasing information on Clinton for relaxing the Magnitsky Act.  The timing of the meeting and the subsequent dump onto Wikileaks of Clinton campaign related emails, which were obtained by the Russians, lines up perfectly.  Just a coincidence?  Really doubt it.

Does anyone know when Kushner updated his foreign contacts form with the latest meeting?  I get the impression that it was updated recently when they got wind that the NYTimes was going to break the story, but I haven't read anything definitive.  If that is the case, that this latest update wasn't included in the earlier update that included his meeting with Kislyak, Kushner should at a minimum lose his security clearance.  One free pass for forgetting to list a meeting is all he could reasonably get.  A second incident can't be passed off as being forgetful, and it has to be assumed that he has been actively concealing his contacts with Russians.  I doubt that he'll be prosecuted by this administration though.

The charge of collusion with a foreign agent is going to be much more difficult to make stick, and I'm not even sure what the legal basis for the charge is.  The Russian lawyer and the Russian government both deny that she is an agent of the government.  If you can't prove that she's an agent, then how is the information that she provided any different than the information Christopher Steele provided to various campaigns?  It doesn't seem like the meeting with the Russian lawyer is going to do it.  You would need to prove collusion with someone like Kislyak, who has conveniently for the Trump campaign left the USA.

[DMC]

11 hours ago, Altherion said:

I don't think the law about soliciting anything from a foreign person or group is that broad. It is illegal to ask them for money, yes, but I don't think it's illegal to ask for information.

I don't know why I waste my time while you frantically jump from one groundless justification to another, but again, this is just flagrantly wrong.  As @Tywin et al. mentioned, "or other thing of value" is in the statute, specifically section (b):

Quote

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.

Opposition research, or "oppo" as the cool kids call it, is inarguably something of monetary value - it is, in fact, a regular commodity of modern campaigns.  The type of oppo the lawyer purported to be offering, and Junior explicitly stated he would have "loved," was clearly something of lucrative value.  Further, it's a fact that Junior himself admitted two days ago he was seeking oppo.  Listen, I'm not a lawyer and am not going to pretend to be.  But politically speaking, by any reading of the statute, Junior admitted to a crime when releasing the email chain beyond a reasonable doubt.  And based on the Feds' track record, it's almost certain that Mueller could at least get him indicted for this, if he wants to.

[OldGimletEye]

Today in The Orange One’s 19^th Century Foreign Policy:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/11/business/economy/trumps-security-vision-leaves-little-room-for-plowshares.html

Quote

Since the end of World War II, American foreign policy has understood the role of economic development in the prevention of conflict around the world — providing a subtle yet powerful contribution to the United States’ own national security.

Poverty reduces the opportunity cost of violence. Scarcity intensifies competition over resources. Inequality pits have-nots against haves. And poor states are weaker — less able to contain conflict once it breaks out. President John F. Kennedy summed up the argument more than half a century ago: “A more prosperous world would also be a more secure world.”

 

Quote

And Mr. Trump’s stand on trade — threatening to encircle the United States with a wall of punitive tariffs and other protections (ironically justifying protectionism on grounds of national security) — is likely to be more damaging to global development than his stand on aid, further weakening an already wobbly commitment by the world’s largest nations to refrain from protectionist measures that would stymie global growth.

Related

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2017/07/10/global-value-chains-shed-new-light-on-trade/

Quote

Global value chains (GVCs) have complicated both the reality and the analysis of international trade. On the one hand, they break up the production process so that different steps can be carried out in different countries, and in so doing have transformed the nature of trade. On the other, they’re complex, which makes it harder to understand trade and to formulate policies that allow workers, firms, and governments to capitalize on GVCs while mitigating negative side-effects.

 

Quote

The benefits from GVC-related trade have been distributed highly unevenly. On the U.S. side, the big winners appear to be high-skilled workers and multinational corporations. GVCs have enabled them to benefit from enormous productivity gains in developing countries such as China. Ordinary American workers have not seen much, if any, benefit. In China, ordinary workers have benefited. 

Now this result wasn't exactly unknown according to basic trade theory. It's too bad, certain sorts of people weren't upfront about this. There are ways to handle this, making everyone better off. But, you know, we chose Ayn Rand.

If elites want to keep support for free trade, and it's material and peace benefits, then they are going to have figure out ways to make it work for everyone. And I think there are ways to do it. Yet , what we get is a bunch of assholes running around Davos saying, "golly, what can we do!!!".

[Martell Spy]

Likely the most important part of the Don Jr. thing is that the President could have been blackmailed. As long as this was secret, until recent in other words, Even if Jr. and gang didn't tell Trump, they stupidly opened up the President of the United states to blackmail by Russia. Insane.

 

Reeling Republicans take one last shot at Obamacare
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell still doesn’t have the votes to pass a bill, but he’s pressing ahead with plans for a vote next week.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/07/11/senate-republicans-pessimistic-obamacare-repeal-240404

McConnell Scrubs Half the Senate’s August Recess As GOP Scrambles to Save Its Agenda

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/07/mcconnell-scrubs-senates-recess-in-bid-to-save-gop-agenda.html

The Trump administration isn’t a farce. It’s a tragedy.
Like Watergate, this is an era of low comedy and high fear.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/7/11/15953440/trump-russia-emails-watergate

[LongRider]

The Russian attorney is small potatoes.  The hot potatoe is the Agalarovs who are the pipeline to Putin and the agents the Trumps need to be worried about.  They are mentioned in Jr's emails 

Quote

this is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and it's support for Mr. Trump - helped along by Aras and Emin.  [Agalarov]

(this email found everywhere on the web, no link needed)

Look there for your agents, they sent the attorney.