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

[Nerm]

I really have not followed the investigation stuff regarding the Mueller probe.  But, I have been reading various threads about politics here, which leaves me feeling out of the loop on some areas of disagreement about the severity of various allegations of wrongdoing.  So, I ask this out of ignorance (not to defend Trump or attack democrats).

 

But, what is the concern about meeting with Russians that said they might have dirt on Clinton... When there was also opposition research funded by others that sought Russian informants to provide dirt about Trump?  What is the issue that differentiates the seeking of "dirt" in these situations. 

 

Again, this isn't a defense of Trump.  I'm just unaware of the details, and trying to become more informed. 

 

 

[Cooked Crack]

34 minutes ago, Nerm said:

I really have not followed the investigation stuff regarding the Mueller probe.  But, I have been reading various threads about politics here, which leaves me feeling out of the loop on some areas of disagreement about the severity of various allegations of wrongdoing.  So, I ask this out of ignorance (not to defend Trump or attack democrats).

 

But, what is the concern about meeting with Russians that said they might have dirt on Clinton... When there was also opposition research funded by others that sought Russian informants to provide dirt about Trump?  What is the issue that differentiates the seeking of "dirt" in these situations. 

 

Again, this isn't a defense of Trump.  I'm just unaware of the details, and trying to become more informed.

The Trump meeting was understood to be meeting with a representative from a adversarial foreign state. It wasn't like they were just kicking it with Boris from St. Petersburg. Now you're involving another country in our election. A country that can run covert operations to get communications. It's really not as innocent as we wanted dirt.

[Heisenberg]

25 minutes ago, Cooked Crack said:

The Trump meeting was understood to be meeting with a representative from a adversarial foreign state. It wasn't like they were just kicking it with Boris from St. Petersburg. Now you're involving another country in our election. A country that can run covert operations to get communications. It's really not as innocent as we wanted dirt.

 

Plus, I'm almost certain there was some quid pro quo involved as far as the Russians being paid back some way if Trump won. No way they'd be offering up info for free.

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

2 hours ago, Nerm said:

I really have not followed the investigation stuff regarding the Mueller probe.  But, I have been reading various threads about politics here, which leaves me feeling out of the loop on some areas of disagreement about the severity of various allegations of wrongdoing.  So, I ask this out of ignorance (not to defend Trump or attack democrats).

 

But, what is the concern about meeting with Russians that said they might have dirt on Clinton... When there was also opposition research funded by others that sought Russian informants to provide dirt about Trump?  What is the issue that differentiates the seeking of "dirt" in these situations. 

 

Again, this isn't a defense of Trump.  I'm just unaware of the details, and trying to become more informed.

It's not. The snowflake libs are just experiencing Trump Derangement Syndrome all because of a little illegal collusion that has compromised the President of the United States (if he wasn't already, which he almost certainly was) making him subservient to a hostile foreign nation which he has been assisting by destroying our position of global dominance and democratic norms from within while also making it as easy as possible for them to continue the attacks on our country that have been occurring for the past three years.

Edited July 27, 2018 by Sacks 'n' Stuff

[Momma There Goes That Man]

1 hour ago, Nerm said:

I really have not followed the investigation stuff regarding the Mueller probe.  But, I have been reading various threads about politics here, which leaves me feeling out of the loop on some areas of disagreement about the severity of various allegations of wrongdoing.  So, I ask this out of ignorance (not to defend Trump or attack democrats).

 

But, what is the concern about meeting with Russians that said they might have dirt on Clinton... When there was also opposition research funded by others that sought Russian informants to provide dirt about Trump?  What is the issue that differentiates the seeking of "dirt" in these situations. 

 

Again, this isn't a defense of Trump.  I'm just unaware of the details, and trying to become more informed. 

 

They weren’t just foreign nationals, they were explicitly meeting as representation of a foreign government and that government’s desire to assist.

 

Which naturally leads to either a quid pro quo 

[Hersh]

Campaigns/Campaign staff cannot solicit things of value (like dirt on an opponent) from foreign nationals. We already know that at a minimum Junior Trump did this.

 

The way the dossier was put together was legal. At least that is my understanding.  

[SoulSkin]

We had a political party's leadership, actively working with a foreign government to influence our elections, that was simultaneously attacking us in other ways, and who now seemingly have an odd influence on our President and our nation's foreign policy, 

[visionary]

 

[Larry]

1 hour ago, visionary said:

 

 

Well, duh. 

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

Thanks Judge Nap. Way to feed the base there at the end too...

 

"But here's the backstory... Erick Holder! Six years ago yada yada and some horse****. We gotta take a commercial but stay tuned cause when it's confirmed 100% that Trump knew about the meeting with Russians ahead of time, we'll spend an hour acting outraged that he wasn't more forthright and pretend that was his only mistake and HEY LOOK OVER THERE!! HILLARY!!!!"

[Llevron]

It was always going to come to a head with Trump, Jr., and Cohen. Always. Neither is trustworthy. Neither trusts the other. And all are out for their own benefit at the end of the day. 

 

The only way we didnt get here was if Trump was capable of showing any loyalty to anyone but himself. But hes not. Clearly. Which is also why we know Putin has him by the balls. Only reason he would capitulate so. 

[PeterMP]

11 hours ago, Nerm said:

I really have not followed the investigation stuff regarding the Mueller probe.  But, I have been reading various threads about politics here, which leaves me feeling out of the loop on some areas of disagreement about the severity of various allegations of wrongdoing.  So, I ask this out of ignorance (not to defend Trump or attack democrats).

 

But, what is the concern about meeting with Russians that said they might have dirt on Clinton... When there was also opposition research funded by others that sought Russian informants to provide dirt about Trump?  What is the issue that differentiates the seeking of "dirt" in these situations. 

 

Again, this isn't a defense of Trump.  I'm just unaware of the details, and trying to become more informed. 

 

Well, at this point in time, one of the biggest issues is that they've lied about it and hid it.  It might turn out that they didn't do much different than what is "normally" done, but when it became an issue, they lied about it.  That then makes them much more attractive targets for things like blackmail.

 

@Hersh's first point is right.  By law, it would have been a crime.  I'm not sure why or if the Steele dossier would not have been a crime.  He himself is a foreign national, and presumably some of the information he got came from other foreign nationals.  He doesn't appear to have met with anybody in the Clinton campaign.  He was hired by a law firm that they were paying to do opposition research.  I don't know exactly what the law is and if that's sort of the loop hole there.  Could Trump Jr. have said, I'm sorry, but I can't talk to you, and then hired a lawyer and them contact the person?  I don't know.

 

It is possible that they were both crimes where what the Clinton campaign did is pretty normal, but just never prosecuted and that kind of criminal activity is actually common in political campaigns, but by lying about the Trump campaign has then committed other crimes (in the context of political prosecutions, this is common going back to at least Watergate.  What undid Nixon wasn't the break in, it was the attempt to cover up the break in, then the attempt to cover up the fact that they tried to cover up the break in.)

 

Edited July 27, 2018 by PeterMP

[AsburySkinsFan]

6 hours ago, visionary said:

 

Well at least the judge is educating the Faux News horde. I'm certain some are immediately claiming that he's a closet liberal now though.

[Riggo-toni]

The bottom line to understanding the Trump relationship with Russia is actually quite simple - money.

The Trump Organization has been through 6 bankruptcies. By the admission of the Cheetoman's own son, they can't get money from banks anymore but they don't care because they get all the money they need from Russia. For the last 20+ years, the Trump "empire" has been a laundromat for Russian gangsters. This is why Trump is willing to get "tough" on Russia when it comes to things like expelling diplomatic personnel, but fights sanctions tooth and nail - the more you squeeze the oligarchs, the less money they have to launder. If Russian money gets pulled out of Trump's businesses, his empire collapses and his entire lie about being a genius businessman evaporates. This is a clear conflict of interest and an absolute violation of the emoluments clause.

[Burgold]

To me, if Cohen can prove that Donald know of and signed off on this meeting with foreign agents to undermine Hillary, we finally have the smoking gun that proves collusion.

 

The question is whether even with indisputable evidence of collusion or treason would the House do anything? I suspect the only thing they would do is try to pass a Bill seeking to legalize collusion/treason.

[DogofWar1]

The key differences are this:

 

1. The Russians committed illegal activities to get their data.  Steele drew on his years of experience and contacts and seemingly committed no illegal acts.

 

2.  The Russians directly contacted Trump's campaign.  Steele and Clinton had a firewall between them.  Was that firewall even necessary?  I don't actually think so, but it was there for safe keeping anyways.

 

3. Obviously, Russia is a state actor.  A hostile one.  Steele is a private individual, and a contractor.  Getting help from a state actor is a lot different than hiring a contractor.

[Llevron]

1 minute ago, DogofWar1 said:

The key differences are this:

 

1. The Russians committed illegal activities to get their data.  Steele drew on his years of experience and contacts and seemingly committed no illegal acts.

 

2.  The Russians directly contacted Trump's campaign.  Steele and Clinton had a firewall between them.  Was that firewall even necessary?  I don't actually think so, but it was there for safe keeping anyways.

 

3. Obviously, Russia is a state actor.  A hostile one.  Steele is a private individual, and a contractor.  Getting help from a state actor is a lot different than hiring a contractor.

 

Add to that - Trump is providing cover for Russia. Publicly at that. And it is already having an effect on our democratic processes. We know for a fact that 3 political campaigns have already been attacked. 

[DogofWar1]

6 minutes ago, Llevron said:

 

Add to that - Trump is providing cover for Russia. Publicly at that. And it is already having an effect on our democratic processes. We know for a fact that 3 political campaigns have already been attacked. 

Oh yeah, all the stuff AFTER was really bad too.

 

But it's key to prevent the false equivalence at any point along the trail.

[PeterMP]

Here's the actual law:

 

"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."

 

https://www.vox.com/world/2017/7/10/15950590/donald-trump-jr-new-york-times-illegal

 

Obviously, there must be some practical limit there.  If I'm doing canvassing work for a campaign and buy a comfortable pair of sneakers made in China to do it, you could argue the Chinese workers made a positive contribution to the campaign.

 

I'm not sure where or what the line is.  Maybe the difference is the actual purchase.  Is the Steele dossier not illegal because he was presumably paid for his work?

 

(and then what you might see (as what you've seen with the paying off of the porn stars) is violations of campaign finance laws.  If some Russians gave some information and there was some sort of exchange for the information (e.g. the Trump campaign paid them money for it) and that isn't reported, then that violates campaign finance laws vs. the Clinton campaign was likely properly documenting their payments to the law firm that paid Steele.  So we might get in a situation where the Trump campaign didn't break that law, but still broke campaign finance laws.)

[DogofWar1]

I think the difference is indeed in the paying for the work vs receiving the fruits.

 

Contribution or donation seems to mean something given for nothing, the same way someone makes a campaign contribution.

 

But contractor work that is paid for is obviously not a donation, nor a "campaign contribution" in the traditional sense, it really only fits into the most broad sense of "contribution."

 

And that would be crazy because so many businesses in America are foreign owned.  If contractor work was considered a "contribution" then basically no campaign could function.

[AsburySkinsFan]

This man at one point was a lock for POTUS now, he’s a joke.

 

[88Comrade2000]

Puty just invited Trump, to come to Moscow. 

 

An escape plan for Donny?

[Bozo the kKklown]

13 hours ago, skinsfan_1215 said:

Donald Trump is going to die in jail. 

needed

[Cooked Crack]

30 minutes ago, Rdskns2000 said:

Puty just invited Trump, to come to Moscow. 

 

An escape plan for Donny?

Hopefully he practices what he preaches and hires American hookers this time.

[Bozo the kKklown]

13 hours ago, DogofWar1 said:

SEVERAL OTHERS

 

 

Mueller stop.

 

I can only get so erect.