Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted July 12, 2017 Author Share Posted July 12, 2017 For Altherion... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DireWolfSpirit Posted July 12, 2017 Share Posted July 12, 2017 1 hour ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said: More like a carnival act. It looks like argument just for the thrill of argument, like someone carrying on with themself in their mirror or some such nonsense. Oh here it is- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted July 12, 2017 Author Share Posted July 12, 2017 1 hour ago, OldGimletEye said: LOL, like Hannity has any credibility. Or like his sorry ass "conservative principles" has any credibility. Yeah, talk about a shill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMC Posted July 12, 2017 Share Posted July 12, 2017 52 minutes ago, DireWolfSpirit said: It looks like argument just for the thrill of argument, like someone carrying on with themself in their mirror or some such nonsense. Oh here it is- Someone alert Jodie Foster!!! ....Again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S John Posted July 12, 2017 Share Posted July 12, 2017 1 hour ago, Kalbear said: Note also that there is a significant legal difference between 'foreign national' and 'agent of foreign government'. DJTJ accepted this meeting with the pretense that this person was a high-ranking attorney representing Russia, and that the goal was for the Russian state to support Trump. Regardless of whether this ended up being true or not doesn't matter; the problem is that DJTJ, Manafort and Kushner were willing to take this meeting. And then Kushner didn't disclose it. The reason this is a problem on a security form is that it is precisely this sort of thing they're looking for. The goal of the security form isn't to make you disclose everything, it's to see what kind of person you are. And if you are the kind of person who is willing to take meetings with agents of foreign governments to get information against US citizens, that is kind of a big deal. If you're further willing to omit that on your briefing and then lie, saying you didn't have any contacts, that's an even bigger deal - because it implies that you will certainly do this in the future. The popular saying when you are doing one of these forms is that they aren't looking or saints, they're looking for liars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fragile Bird Posted July 12, 2017 Share Posted July 12, 2017 Lol, does anyone actually think that nothing of value was gleaned in this meeting with the Russian lawyer? The meeting didn't last long. but it wouldn't take long for her to say, "we've hacked the Clinton campaign and we will be leaking e-mails through WikiLeaks". Just saw Trey Gowdy on CNN saying "Somebody in the WH has to get everyone involved in the campaign together in a room and tell them they aren't leaving until they list every single meeting they had with a foreign national, starting from the meeting with Dr. Zhivago and up to the shot of vodka they had with Boris". Or words to that effect. ETA: And then said 'this drip drip drip has got to end, it's undermining the credibility of the government". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted July 12, 2017 Share Posted July 12, 2017 1 minute ago, Fragile Bird said: Lol, does anyone actually think that nothing of value was gleaned in this meeting with the Russian lawyer? The meeting didn't last long. but it wouldn't take long for her to say, "we've hacked the Clinton campaign and we will be leaking e-mails through WikiLeaks". Honestly, I do believe that nothing happened in that meeting, because it was simply so very open. I suspect strongly Russia would be a bit more secretive in hiding their track here. I think it's more likely that this was a sounding board for Russia, who wanted to see what the Trump campaign would do if presented with this opportunity, and instead of going to the FBI they happily went the other way. My reasoning on this is that I honestly think for the most part that Trump et al genuinely believe they didn't collude, which means (to them) that they didn't openly plan with Russia in getting stuff in a nefarious way. Instead, they probably talked with Wikileaks, and talked with Guccifer, and talked with a few others, thinking 'oh, this isn't Russia'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trebla Posted July 12, 2017 Share Posted July 12, 2017 On the lighter side of news... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Chatywin et al. Posted July 12, 2017 Share Posted July 12, 2017 Never forget: Quote Politicians from foreign countries are receiving fundraising emails from Donald Trump's campaign even though such contributions would be a violation of federal law. Members of parliament in Australia, Iceland, Denmark and Finland have all received the emails, according to Talking Points Memo. Tim Watts, an Australian member of Parliament, said he has received several emails from the presumptive GOP presidential nominee's campaign and thinks his colleagues have as well. "Even the left wing ones #ImWithHer," Watts tweeted, indicating support Trump's Democratic rival, Hillary Clinton. He then posted a screenshot of an email he received from the Trump campaign titled "They took their country back," referring to Britain's vote to leave the European Union last week. "Four since Friday, but I'm sure there have been more that my office has just deleted as spam," Watts said in a tweet to a Talking Points Memo reporter. Joanne Ryan, another Australian member of Parliament, said she has also received the emails. "Just what I need popping up in the inbox. #swipelefttodelete," Ryan tweeted. The Iceland Monitor also reports members of Parliament in Iceland have received emails asking for donations. "This whole matter is very perplexing. The letter left me speechless," said Katrín Jakobsdóttir, the head of Iceland's Left Green Party, according to The Iceland Monitor. Other members of parliament from Denmark, Finland and the United Kingdom also reported receiving the requests for donations. Natalie McGarry, a Scottish member of the U.K. Parliament, posted on Twitter that she received a fundraising email from Trump's oldest son, Donald Trump Jr. "Quite why you think it appropriate to write emails to UK parliamentarians with a begging bowl for your father's repugnant campaign is completely beyond me," McGarry said in an email to the campaign, which she posted on Twitter. "Given his rhetoric on migrants, refugees and immigration, it seems extraordinary that he would be asking for money; especially people who view his dangerous divisiveness with horror." Under federal election law, foreign nationals are prohibited from making any contributions in connection with any election in the U.S. http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/285987-foreign-politicians-report-getting-fundraising-email-from Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMC Posted July 12, 2017 Share Posted July 12, 2017 20 minutes ago, Kalbear said: Honestly, I do believe that nothing happened in that meeting, because it was simply so very open. I suspect strongly Russia would be a bit more secretive in hiding their track here. I agree with this. Hell, Goldstone checked into Trump Tower for the meeting on Facebook. That doesn't exactly scream classic KGB subterfuge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Week Posted July 12, 2017 Share Posted July 12, 2017 16 minutes ago, dmc515 said: I agree with this. Hell, Goldstone checked into Trump Tower for the meeting on Facebook. That doesn't exactly scream classic KGB subterfuge. Or is the wine in front of me....? https://wiki.mafiascum.net/index.php?title=WIFOM There may not have been much (or anything) in that meeting - however it was not the last Russia-Trump meeting at Trump Tower -- where the KUSH and Sergey Kislyak (allegedly) discussed setting up a secure channel. Could very well be the start of engagement to determine how receptive Trump and his lackeys would be -- considering DJT2 jumped on the meeting request and invited Manafort and the KUSH then I suspect that answer was heard loud and clear. It's hard to tell how much of the connecting the dots is suspicious and how much is just the idiocy and mismanagement of the Trump campaign that just looks suspicious. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/russian-ambassador-told-moscow-that-kushner-wanted-secret-communications-channel-with-kremlin/2017/05/26/520a14b4-422d-11e7-9869-bac8b446820a_story.html?utm_term=.d13260cec125 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMC Posted July 12, 2017 Share Posted July 12, 2017 1 minute ago, Week said: There may not have been much (or anything) in that meeting - however it was not the last Russia-Trump meeting at Trump Tower -- where the KUSH and Sergey Kislyak (allegedly) discussed setting up a secure channel. Yes, to be clear - while I agree it's unlikely anything serious happened at that particular meeting, that does not mean that nothing significant happened between Russia and the Trump campaign after, before, or somewhere else during. That is for Mueller to figure out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted July 12, 2017 Author Share Posted July 12, 2017 15 minutes ago, Week said: Or is the wine in front of me....? https://wiki.mafiascum.net/index.php?title=WIFOM There may not have been much (or anything) in that meeting - however it was not the last Russia-Trump meeting at Trump Tower -- where the KUSH and Sergey Kislyak (allegedly) discussed setting up a secure channel. Could very well be the start of engagement to determine how receptive Trump and his lackeys would be -- considering DJT2 jumped on the meeting request and invited Manafort and the KUSH then I suspect that answer was heard loud and clear. It's hard to tell how much of the connecting the dots is suspicious and how much is just the idiocy and mismanagement of the Trump campaign that just looks suspicious. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/russian-ambassador-told-moscow-that-kushner-wanted-secret-communications-channel-with-kremlin/2017/05/26/520a14b4-422d-11e7-9869-bac8b446820a_story.html?utm_term=.d13260cec125 INCONCEIVABLE! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mudguard Posted July 12, 2017 Share Posted July 12, 2017 7 hours ago, Tywin et al. said: I agree with basically everything I snipped, but as to the bolded, does it even matter if she was associated with the Russian government? Trump Jr, Jared and Manafort agreed to meet with what they thought was a senior agent of the Russian government to obtain valuable information on Clinton. The intent, it seems to me, is all that matters. To be clear, I was discussing collusion in the context of more serious charges like treason and aiding and abetting the enemy, which I think has no chance of sticking. Wasn't thinking about campaign finance laws. That said, after looking at the campaign finance law linked by dmc515, I can see how one could argue that Trump Jr. violated such a law. The relevant sections appears to be this: Quote (4)Knowingly means that a person must: (i) Have actual knowledge that the source of the funds solicited, accepted or received is a foreign national; (ii) Be aware of facts that would lead a reasonable person to conclude that there is a substantial probability that the source of the funds solicited, accepted or received is a foreign national; or (iii) Be 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, but the person failed to conduct a reasonable inquiry. ... (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. (c)Contributions and donations by foreign nationals to political committees and organizations of political parties. A foreign national shall not, directly or indirectly, make a contribution or donation to: (1) A political committee of a political party, including a national party committee, a national congressional campaign committee, or a State, district, or local party committee, including a non-Federal account of a State, district, or local party committee, or (2) An organization of a political party whether or not the organization is a political committee under 11 CFR 100.5. ... (g)Solicitation, acceptance, or receipt of contributions and donations from foreign nationals. No person shall knowingly solicit, accept, or receive from a foreign national any contribution or donation prohibited by paragraphs (b) through (d) of this section. (h)Providing substantial assistance. (1) No person shall knowingly provide substantial assistance in the solicitation, making, acceptance, or receipt of a contribution or donation prohibited by paragraphs (b) through (d), and (g) of this section. Under this law, it's irrelevant whether the Russian lawyer is or isn't an agent for the government. All that matters is that the Russian lawyer is a foreign national and that Trump Jr. knew or should have know that she was a foreign national. The emails show that this prong is satisfied. If what Trump Jr. says about receiving nothing of value is true (and I have some serious doubts about this), then it comes down to whether he solicited the dirt on Clinton from the Russian lawyer. If he sought her out and initiated the contact, I would say yes, there's definitely solicitation. But since she apparently is the one that sought Trump out, I don't think that agreeing to meet with her and find out more specifically what type of information she had would amount to solicitation. Also, under this law (see sections (g) and (h) above), it seems that the people who paid Christopher Steele would be in violation of this law. These people either knew or should have know that he was a foreign national. I think any reasonable person would want to know the background of the person claiming to be getting all this dirt on Trump, otherwise how would you give any credibility to the reports? This means that the Republican donor that hired Fusion GPS violated the law, Fusion GPS itself violated the law, and the Democrats that subsequently hired Fusion GPS violated the law. I don't think that having Fusion GPS as an intermediary would shield the Republicans and Democrats from this law if they knew or should have know that Steele was a foreign national. That said, I really doubt any of these people are going to be prosecuted for violating this campaign finance regulation. I really doubt that the purpose and intent of this law was to prevent foreign nationals from conducting opposition research. Seems like a real stretch to try and apply the law in these situations. I know people are sick of hearing about emails, but I think we need more emails. Trump Sr., Trump Jr. and Kushner's credibility is in the shitter, so I think we need all their emails and all the emails associated with Trump campaign. The irony would be so sweet if Trump got taken down be emails. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted July 12, 2017 Share Posted July 12, 2017 1 hour ago, dmc515 said: I agree with this. Hell, Goldstone checked into Trump Tower for the meeting on Facebook. That doesn't exactly scream classic KGB subterfuge. The more I read and hear about things the less I think this is some kind of House of Cards plot and the more I think of Burn After Reading. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted July 12, 2017 Author Share Posted July 12, 2017 Little background bio on Natalia Veselnitskaya, the Russian lawyer who met with Donny Jr... https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/11/world/europe/natalia-veselnitskaya-donald-trump-jr-russian-lawyer.html?referer=https://t.co/vFzL9p0tGh&utm_source=fark&utm_medium=website&utm_content=link&ICID=ref_fark /Moose and Squirrel unavailable for comment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mudguard Posted July 12, 2017 Share Posted July 12, 2017 1 hour ago, Kalbear said: Honestly, I do believe that nothing happened in that meeting, because it was simply so very open. I suspect strongly Russia would be a bit more secretive in hiding their track here. I think it's more likely that this was a sounding board for Russia, who wanted to see what the Trump campaign would do if presented with this opportunity, and instead of going to the FBI they happily went the other way. My reasoning on this is that I honestly think for the most part that Trump et al genuinely believe they didn't collude, which means (to them) that they didn't openly plan with Russia in getting stuff in a nefarious way. Instead, they probably talked with Wikileaks, and talked with Guccifer, and talked with a few others, thinking 'oh, this isn't Russia'. It doesn't seem that Russia was being very subtle this past election with all of their meddling. Their fingerprints are everywhere. Their actions seemed pretty blatant to me. It wouldn't surprise me if the Russian lawyer was working in some capacity with the Russian government, that she was being used as an intermediary between the Kremlin and Trump. Otherwise, the meeting would be pointless. Why would Trump agree to do anything for her if she brought nothing of value? Just doesn't make any sense. Right now, my feeling is that they were colluding, in the sense that they had discussions with Russian and welcomed any assistance that they could provide, but they just didn't think that there was anything wrong with it. I don't think that this type of collusion, if true, amounts to treason or aiding and abetting the enemy. It just looks really, really bad. They would have had to actively encourage or ask the Russians to do something illegal, such as hack the servers, to get in trouble. Maybe they were that stupid, but I'd need to see some evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ljkeane Posted July 12, 2017 Share Posted July 12, 2017 41 minutes ago, Mudguard said: Also, under this law (see sections (g) and (h) above), it seems that the people who paid Christopher Steele would be in violation of this law. These people either knew or should have know that he was a foreign national. I think any reasonable person would want to know the background of the person claiming to be getting all this dirt on Trump, otherwise how would you give any credibility to the reports? This means that the Republican donor that hired Fusion GPS violated the law, Fusion GPS itself violated the law, and the Democrats that subsequently hired Fusion GPS violated the law. I don't think that having Fusion GPS as an intermediary would shield the Republicans and Democrats from this law if they knew or should have know that Steele was a foreign national. I'm not sure that's clearly the case. I suppose it depends how you interpret soliciting a contribution to campaign from a foreign national but paying a non US citizen to perform a service seems like a different kettle of fish from receiving donations etc which seems like the main thrust of the statute. I'd be very surprised if it's not exceedingly common for foreign nationals to be paid to perform various services for electoral campaigns in the US. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Week Posted July 12, 2017 Share Posted July 12, 2017 13 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said: Little background bio on Natalia Veselnitskaya, the Russian lawyer who met with Donny Jr... https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/11/world/europe/natalia-veselnitskaya-donald-trump-jr-russian-lawyer.html?referer=https://t.co/vFzL9p0tGh&utm_source=fark&utm_medium=website&utm_content=link&ICID=ref_fark /Moose and Squirrel unavailable for comment. That does not sound like someone on the hunt for a reversal of adoption policy. The other aspect of this that bothers me is that DJT2 seemed to not be surprised or concerned that a 'flimsy' connection to a government lawyer would want to share information on Hillary to help Trump. There is a familiarity or comfort that is a bit jarring in retrospect. --- I guess I mean to say, is that it was so easy for a Russian lawyer to get access to the top 2 members of the Trump campaign and DJT2. This was also just at the start of the switch to the general election campaign (aside from scant rumors of a contested nomination) -- not right after Indiana (as DJT2 continues to assert - which is blatantly false). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mudguard Posted July 12, 2017 Share Posted July 12, 2017 Just now, ljkeane said: I'm not sure that's clearly the case. I suppose it depends who you interpret soliciting a contribution to campaign from a foreign national but paying a non US citizen to preform a service seems like a different kettle of fish from receiving donations etc which seems like the main thrust of the statute. I'd be very surprised if it's not exceedingly common for foreign nationals to be paid to preform various services for electoral campaigns in the US. To be clear, I agree with your position. I was just making the argument that if you are going to try and get Trump Jr. for violating a campaign finance law for soliciting opposition research from a Russian, you are going to have to do the same to the people who hired Christopher Steele. Even though the law as written seems like it covers this situation, it just doesn't seem right to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.