Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins
Forum Rules and Guidelines

Moose & Squirrel v Boris & Natasha: what's the deal with the rooskies and trumpland?

Jumbo

By Jumbo
in The Tailgate

 Share

Recommended Posts

PleaseBlitz

PleaseBlitz

Posted
Posted

Kushner is the only one that is currently working for the federal government (with a TS security clearance).  The number of meetings that he's forgotten about (under penalty of perjury) is approaching double digits.  He's so forgetful, I am beginning to think he has CTE.  

  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DCranon21

DCranon21

Posted
Posted
Just now, PleaseBlitz said:

Kushner is the only one that is currently working for the federal government (with a TS security clearance).  The number of meetings that he's forgotten about (under penalty of perjury) is approaching double digits.  He's so forgetful, I am beginning to think he has CTE.  

 

This dude should have been escorted out on the 1st mishap. I've seen folks walked out for less than what Kush has done.

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites
AsburySkinsFan

AsburySkinsFan

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

Kushner is the only one that is currently working for the federal government (with a TS security clearance).  The number of meetings that he's forgotten about (under penalty of perjury) is approaching double digits.  He's so forgetful, I am beginning to think he has CTE.  

I think he probably has the best attorney of all of them at this point, because he's all but silent right now. Manafort is pleading ignorance and Jr is posting incriminating information. Kushner is a whisper in comparison.

What I do find funny is line what others have stated, that they had no recollection of the meeting then when their hand is forced all the sudden every detail is recalled.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sacks 'n' Stuff

Sacks 'n' Stuff

Posted
Posted
16 minutes ago, Larry said:

And I could see that possibly flying, too.  I mean, is what he did really all that criminal?  It's dirty as all hell.  But is if criminal?  As in major jail time?  

 

Just my opinion, but based on what we know, justice, here, is Trump is removed from office, and it ends there.  To me, the consequences for this "crime" ought to be political, not criminal.

The part about advancing pro-Russia policy to the detriment of the United States is also a factor.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
PleaseBlitz

PleaseBlitz

Posted
Posted
11 minutes ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

I think he probably has the best attorney of all of them at this point, because he's all but silent right now. Manafort is pleading ignorance and Jr is posting incriminating information. Kushner is a whisper in comparison.

What I do find funny is line what others have stated, that they had no recollection of the meeting then when their hand is forced all the sudden every detail is recalled.

 

Have you ever heard Jared talk?  Do you even know what his voice sounds like?

 

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry

Larry

Posted
Posted (edited)
10 minutes ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

The part about advancing pro-Russia policy to the detriment of the United States is also a factor.

 

Yeah, but is that really all that different from, say, agreeing to advocate a policy that favors the Koch brothers, in exchange for campaign support*?  Another thing that is in the "really dirty, but not technically criminal" area? 

 

* Or, for that matter, the Republican "health care bill"?  I mean, that's a proposal to screw the country to help out campaign contributors, too.  Is that criminal?  

 

 

 

Edit:  

 

Maybe the thing that distinguishes this case from my Koch brothers hypothetical isn't that the Trump case involves the Russians.  Maybe this case is different from my hypothetical because the Russian's help was illegal.  (The hacking of the DNC and the Clinton campaign.)  As opposed to the Koch brothers proposing to create a fake PAC to run attack ads attacking a candidate's opponent.  

 

But then we get into "did the Trump campaign know that the Russians were offering to do illegal things?  (Which then causes me to wander down the "Noooo, they thought the Russians were offering the campaign information which the KGB obtained legally, right?")

 

Edited by Larry
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bozo the kKklown

Bozo the kKklown

Posted
Posted
39 minutes ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

 Although I see Manafort is saying that he didn't read the whole email, so he'll be pleading incompetence all while $17,000,000 from Russia sits in his bank account.

The subject line read "Russia - Clinton - private and confidential" so he can't play that game.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry

Larry

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, LadySkinsFan said:

Even speaking with the Russians is what's illegal because foreign entity. That's enemy foreign. Koch brothers is domestic enemy.

 

I'm pretty certain that US citizens are allowed to speak to foreigners.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
twa

twa

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, LadySkinsFan said:

Even speaking with the Russians is what's illegal because foreign entity. That's enemy foreign. Koch brothers is domestic enemy.

 

folk on both sides speak with the Russians everyday

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DogofWar1

DogofWar1

Posted
Posted
22 minutes ago, justice98 said:

Ambition is a helluva thing sometimes.  Gotta know when you're biting off more than you can chew. Kushner coulda just kept doing what he was doing, making a bunch of money.  Now he's neck deep in politics and trouble.  

Well maybe, but maybe not.  He had some troubles with his projects which put some pretty serious liability and debt over his head.  He might have had the funds to clear it out, but there were definitely some seriously concerning things floating about.

 

Ultimately, Adam Khan on twitter has chronicled most of it.  Kushner, I velieve, got bailed out by other rich dudes, and those rich dudes are now getting seats at the table on lucrative government contracts.  Appears to be an implied quid pro quo, maybe after the fact.  We bailed you out, now get us lots of infrastructure contracts, for example.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Springfield

Springfield

Posted
Posted

Ok, here's that problem as I see it:

 

We have Russians, in the Russian government, who hacked American property and attempted to spread propaganda to Americans in order to sway an election.

 

We have Trump, and his cohorts, who attempted to discuss with Russians possible ways to defeat Hillary in a general election.

 

Someone has to prove that those two are connected.  Good luck!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sacks 'n' Stuff

Sacks 'n' Stuff

Posted
Posted
39 minutes ago, Larry said:

Yeah, but is that really all that different from, say, agreeing to advocate a policy that favors the Koch brothers, in exchange for campaign support*?  Another thing that is in the "really dirty, but not technically criminal" area?

Agree that they are both dirty. One of them technically isn't criminal. The other absolutely is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
LadySkinsFan

LadySkinsFan

Posted
Posted
13 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

I'm pretty certain that US citizens are allowed to speak to foreigners.  

 

Not about our elections. Election law forbids this. 

 

All three of those guys should have informed the FBI immediately and not taken the meeting.  The fact that they did, and knew it was regarding election matters is collusion with foreign entity.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
PleaseBlitz

PleaseBlitz

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, Springfield said:

Ok, here's that problem as I see it:

 

We have Russians, in the Russian government, who hacked American property and attempted to spread propaganda to Americans in order to sway an election.

 

We have Trump, and his cohorts, who attempted to discuss with Russians possible ways to defeat Hillary in a general election.

 

Someone has to prove that those two are connected.  Good luck!

 

Those two things need to be connected in order to prove a variety of very serious crimes, but it is a crime, by itself, for a campaign to solicit help from a foreign national.

 

"No person shall knowingly solicit, accept or receive from a foreign national any contribution or donation,"  A contribution can be "anything of value," including negative information about a political opponent.

 

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/11/110.20

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry

Larry

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

Agree that they are both dirty. One of them technically isn't criminal. The other absolutely is.

 

Please tell me specifically which law was broken.  

 

I'm not asking for ironclad proof.  I'll settle for "it's pretty obvious that they did this".  My point is more along the lines that I don't think it's illegal (or should be) for a US politician to support policies that a foreign entity or government approves of.

 

For example, I don;t think it's illegal for a candidate to support NATO.  And by my reasoning, if it's legal for him to support it, it's legal for him to oppose it.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry

Larry

Posted
Posted (edited)
13 minutes ago, LadySkinsFan said:

 

Not about our elections. Election law forbids this. 

 

I'm pretty certain that there is no law forbidding US Citizens from talking to foreigners about our elections, either.  

 

For example, I distinctly remember assuring my Canadian in-law that there was no way that the US was actually going to elect Donald Trump.  

 

And in any case, if there were such a law, I think I'd oppose it.  I think political campaigns ought to be free to discuss political issues with anybody.  

 

Maybe there is, or should be, a law forbidding them from making deals with foreign entities.  Just like there's a difference between discussing policy with citizens, and taking bribes from them.  But that's a much tougher standard of proof, to meet.  (And I'm certain that modern politicians are experts at making sure that no such proof exists.)  (One such widely-recognized technique is to have subordinates make the deals.  Another is to have the client pay a relative, instead of paying the politician directly.)  

Edited by Larry
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...