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

[DMC]

16 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

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. 

Haven't seen that movie in a long time - thanks for the reminder for a rewatch - but yeah.  When even the NYP headlines "Donald Trump Jr. is an Idiot," you know everyone is aware it's amateur hour.  Which, plausibly, is perhaps why the Kremlin had Natasha use the cartoonish Goldstone to reach out to Junior, to elucidate the campaign was run by children and frequent Russian ally Manafort.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

26 minutes ago, Mudguard said:

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:

Fair enough. Also, for board clarification, collision isn't a crime. Conspiracy is. 

28 minutes ago, Mudguard said:

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.

That's an interesting way of looking at it, and you could very well be right. But that said, it only really matters if they try to charge DJTJ and this is the only evidence they had. I suspect that won't be the case if charges are brought. And more importantly, this meeting clearly demonstrates that members of Trump's inner circle were willing to coordinate with Russia to defeat Hillary. In the end that matters a lot more than breaking a  campaign finance law.

37 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 don't believe this is correct. Campaign finance laws don't apply to Fusion GPS, and I don't believe they would affect Fusion GPS's ability to hire foreign nationals if a campaign hired them to do some research for them. I could be wrong, and if I am, then I've possibly violated this law too. 

41 minutes ago, Mudguard said:

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 agree with the first sentence, but not the second. I wouldn't look at it as preventing foreign nationals conducting opposition research so much as I would them trying to provide something of value to an American campaign, and we all know the Trump campaign would have paid millions for those emails, or really any dirt on Hillary that could have significantly damaged her. 

44 minutes ago, Mudguard said:

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.

Agreed, though I don't believe Trump actually uses emails, which is one reason why it's going to be incredibly difficult to ever directly prove that Trump himself was in on the crime, if one exists. One of the things that first stood out to me when Trump gave an interview in his office was, "Hey wait a minute. Where the hell is his computer?"

[ljkeane]

2 minutes ago, Mudguard said:

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.

I don't know. I suppose you could argue it's the same thing but presumably the point is to prevent elected officials from being susceptible to being influenced by foreign nationals by virtue of the debt they owe them from their donations (financial or otherwise) to their election. Being handed information freely by the Russian government seems to me to have the potential to result in an expectation of quid pro quo while if you pay someone to do something for you it's clear what they're getting in return; the money you paid them.

[Mudguard]

3 minutes ago, Week said:

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).

"Adoption Policy" is a euphemism for the Magnitsky Act, which froze the US assets and banned from travel in the US a bunch of Russian oligarchs implicated in the death of Sergei Magnitsky for exposing a huge tax fraud in Russia.  In response to the Magnitsky Act, Russia banned the adoption of Russia children by US citizens.  The Russian lawyer has a long history of working to fight against the Magnitsky Act.  I wouldn't be surprised if her goal was to trade information on Clinton obtained by the Russian government for a promise to relax or repeal the Magnitsky Act, which supposedly infuriated Putin.  Don't think that Trump can do anything in the current anti-Russia environment though.

[Kalbear]

Again, while it's debatable whether or not DJTJ violated campaign finance law (my take is that he did, but it can be argued), it is totally beyond debate that Kushner violated his SF-86 form by leaving this off, and that should be a reasonable amount of leverage. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

8 minutes ago, Mudguard said:

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.

That's not exactly how it works though. If you're on a campaign and you hire a firm to do "oppo" on your opponent, you don't vet their staff. Also, to me there's a difference between paying for a service and receiving something for nothing or for a quid pro quo. And the latter is the real danger here. If the Trump's took Russian aid in exchange for an easing of sanctions, for example, well that would be extremely illegal to say the least. 

[denstorebog]

On a funnier / scarier note, let's play "Real or The Onion?"

Kid Rock for Senate '18

Take your guess.

AWWW HELL YEAH IT'S REAL, CUZ THIS IS 2017 AND THE WORLD IS GOING MAAAAD

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

1 minute ago, Tywin et al. said:

 If the Trump's took Russian aid in exchange for an easing of sanctions, for example, well that would be extremely illegal to say the least. 

And that would really be the only reason for the Russkies to want these meetings in the first place, outside of blackmail material. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

2 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Again, while it's debatable whether or not DJTJ violated campaign finance law (my take is that he did, but it can be argued), it is totally beyond debate that Kushner violated his SF-86 form by leaving this off, and that should be a reasonable amount of leverage. 

Correct. And I wonder if his updated version is what lead to the NYT finding this nugget. I believe it was reported that he included this meeting on his updated form.

Also, another interesting question to ask, who actually had access to these emails outside of the principals involved? 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 minute ago, denstorebog said:

On a funnier / scarier note, let's play "Real or The Onion?"

Kid Rock for Senate '18

Take your guess.

 

  Hide contents

AWWW HELL YEAH IT'S REAL, CUZ THIS IS 2017 AND THE WORLD IS GOING MAAAAD

 

If this gives us The Rock, then it is a necessary sacrifice. On the other hand, if this gives us Kanye 2020, we're all screwed.

[DMC]

1 hour ago, Mudguard said:

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 doesn't really follow.  Glenn Simpson (a fairly well respected former WSJ journalist, BTW) created a firm, Fusion GPS, to make money selling opposition research.  He then sold it to donors that did not work for any specific campaign.  It would be very hard to demonstrate that Simpson was working for any specific campaign - especially considering he sold to donors of both parties.  If he was, you may have a case.  If you could demonstrate those donors were aware he specifically hired Steele, and wished to use the information Steele specifically acquired you may have a case.  

Anyway, that's an infinitely harder case to prove than the one at hand.  If you really have a problem with all this mishegoss, blame the DC United case gutting McCain-Feingold which emboldened soft money, and the general malaise for campaign finance reform among both incumbents and the electorate.

Should be noted, Fusion GPS is currently under investigation by Chuck Grassley and the Senate Judiciary Committee.  Relevantly, and ironically, the impetus is due to their lobbying against the Magnitsky Act:

Quote

According to a complaint filed with the Justice Department, Fusion GPS headed the pro-Russia campaign to kill the Global Magnitsky Act, which imposes sanctions on Russians designated as human rights abusers. This was the same time, Grassley said, that the FBI was relying on the anti-Trump dossier and the man who produced it for Fusion to further its investigation into Trump and his Russian ties.

 

[Mudguard]

4 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

That's not exactly how it works though. If you're on a campaign and you hire a firm to do "oppo" on your opponent, you don't vet their staff. Also, to me there's a difference between paying for a service and receiving something for nothing or for a quid pro quo. And the latter is the real danger here. If the Trump's took Russian aid in exchange for an easing of sanctions, for example, well that would be extremely illegal to say the least. 

Generally speaking, for most generic research, I would agree.  But for the type of material that Steele was providing, any reasonable person would want to know who and how this person was getting this type of material.  I can't imagine anyone just getting this type of information and not asking those questions. 

In terms of the campaign finance law, it doesn't matter if Trump paid money for the Russian aid or made promises to ease sanctions.  There is no  distinction in that statute.  It does seem way more wrong though to accept foreign aid in exchange for easing sanctions.

[DMC]

22 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Again, while it's debatable whether or not DJTJ violated campaign finance law (my take is that he did, but it can be argued), it is totally beyond debate that Kushner violated his SF-86 form by leaving this off, and that should be a reasonable amount of leverage. 

Yeah, like I intimated this morning, I don't really care about the legal ramifications for Kushner's (third) violation of the SF-86, or Junior's violation of a campaign finance law, or even getting Kushner's security clearance revoked (seems rather irrelevant when the guy in the Oval should not have such clearance).  What matters is both how this plays politically, and how Mueller can use both violations to dig deeper.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

The Feds are now looking at Kushner's digital operation...

http://amp.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/national/article160803619.html

[Mexal]

16 minutes ago, Mudguard said:

Generally speaking, for most generic research, I would agree.  But for the type of material that Steele was providing, any reasonable person would want to know who and how this person was getting this type of material.  I can't imagine anyone just getting this type of information and not asking those questions. 

In terms of the campaign finance law, it doesn't matter if Trump paid money for the Russian aid or made promises to ease sanctions.  There is no  distinction in that statute.  It does seem way more wrong though to accept foreign aid in exchange for easing sanctions.

No campaigns hired Fusion GPS therefore it's not violating campaign finance law.

[DMC]

53 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Also, for board clarification, collision isn't a crime.

If you're driving drunk, it is.  

[OldGimletEye]

Yes Kevin Warsh Is a Conservative Moron.

I think it’s well known or should be well known, conservatives, since 2008, blew it.

But, Warsh is almost in a league of his own in terms of ignorance and incompetence and stupidity.

And yet, it wouldn’t be past Trump to appoint him as FED Chair.

And by the way Warsh was a Dubya appointee. Another legacy of the “Bush Boom”.

http://douglaslcampbell.blogspot.ru/2017/07/in-idiocy-of-kevin-warsh-more-evidence.html

Quote

First, Bell notes that Warsh is a lawyer by training, who was only appointed to the Fed at age 35 with a light resume after his father-in-law, Ronald Lauder, heir to the Estée Lauder fortune and apparently a confidant of Donald Trump, likely influenced his selection with donations.

Even as the economy was tanking in 2008 and 2009, Bell writes that "Warsh adopted a skeptical and increasingly oppositional posture. He doubted the Fed could do much good without creating much bigger problems.

If Warsh didn’t realize by at least by December of 2008 that we were heading towards a full blown liquidity trap, he’s an idiot.

Quote

Much bigger problems? What could be a bigger problem than letting the economy burn in a financial crisis?
"In March 2009 he told his Fed colleagues that he was “quite uncomfortable with the idea of purchasing long-term Treasuries in size” because “if the Fed is perceived to be monetizing debt and serving as a buyer of last resort in the name of lowering risk-free rates, we could end up with higher rates and less credibility as a central bank.”"

Warsh should have realized that people were fleeing towards safety and the US government is the largest safe asset supplier around and people weren’t going to dump US treasuries, unless the Republican Party decided to something really stupid, like they did in 2011. Investors are smart enough to know that the US prints its own money and would have little trouble making payments particularly with the US’s service on interest payments  likely to plunge.

Quote

Warsh continued to warn about the dangers of both monetary and fiscal stimulus in 2010.

Yes Warsh was a signer of that dumb ass letter to Beranke. Warsh evidently didn’t realize that the demand for money is interest elastic. Warsh evidently didn’t think the velocity of money is unstable. Warsh didn’t realize that deflation or low inflation was more likely going to be the problem. Warsh didn’t realize that a bout of inflation would push down the real interest rate. And by 2010, Warsh like so many others still were clueless about us being in a liquidity trap.

And after 2010, did conservatives like Warsh admit they were wrong? Did they admit that whatever model they were working in was flawed? No they didn’t. They just kept right on talking like they had a clue.
 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

Trump Continues to Milk Bizarro World Defense...

http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-team-blames-democrats-for-meeting-between-campaign-and-natalia-veselnitskaya-2017-7

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

1 hour ago, denstorebog said:

On a funnier / scarier note, let's play "Real or The Onion?"

Kid Rock for Senate '18

Take your guess.

 

  Reveal hidden contents

AWWW HELL YEAH IT'S REAL, CUZ THIS IS 2017 AND THE WORLD IS GOING MAAAAD

 

Click to embigginate.

[DMC]

41 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Trump Continues to Milk Bizarro World Defense...

http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-team-blames-democrats-for-meeting-between-campaign-and-natalia-veselnitskaya-2017-7

Ah, yes.  The classic "No fair!  Those Dems used something less sophisticated than the Nigerian prince scam to trick my son into enthusiastically committing a crime" defense.  We are indeed down the rabbit hole.