The Fake News Lie that makes Trump look like a Boy Scout in compariso

[Gaoics79]

So Trump Jr. was under the impression that the Russian government was trying to support his father, and it didn't set off any warning bells with him.  He apparently relished the idea of getting support from the Russians.

Doesn't this disturb anyone?  Do we really want our Presidential candidate teams looking for and accepting help from foreign governments, especially ones we are in conflict with?

I'm sorry it's not disturbing in the slightest. If someone claims to have dirt on a rival candidate, including "incriminating" evidence, I would be shocked if they didn't agree to hear that person out. You're suggesting that if it comes from the Russian government, it's unethical to use or reveal incriminating evidence about a rival? Just meeting with him and listening to his words is treasonous is it?

So if Putin hands Trump Jr. a memo proving that Hillary committed fraud or murdered someone for example, he'd be the "unethical" one if he revealed it?

I know I know - Putin is evil and anyone touched by this Mephistopholis even directly can't help but be corrupted. But by the way, maybe I missed something, but when was this declaration of war on Russia? For how many years has this "conflict" been going on? How long has the war been waged and how many casualties have there been?

[Seriati]

Doesn't this disturb anyone?

Why would it?  I can point to dozens if not hundreds of statements by members of the various governments in Europe and the rest of America that express support or preference for one campaign or doubt of the other.  Does that "disturb" you?  Are foreign governments prohibited from preferring US candidates?  What law is that?  It certainly doesn't apply the other way, where we routinely make statements about our preferences in other peoples government.

It is also not clear that Trump Jr. did not break the law.  Per NPR:

It's actually very clear he didn't.  If you applied these laws as strictly as you seem to think, we could probably throw every national politician in jail.

I think Jasonr's analogy is pretty good, but the interpretation you espouse, for receiving anything of value could be tripped up by a foreign national announcing their love for a candidate and releasing damaging information unsolicited, or by a foreign national announcing they have evidence that a candidate committed a crime, and the other side calling for it to be made public.

Even if such were the correct interpretation of the law, shouldn't it trouble you even more that you seem to prefer that evidence of a crime be buried rather than made public to maintain a "fair" election, where our choice is not influenced by foreign nationals?  If Trump had spent his youth as a mercenary butchering villagers, would it really be an illegal foreign influence for the Clinton campaign to have brought those foreign victims to light?

[NobleHunter]

If it was all innocent and above board, why are we only hearing about it now? Why not volunteer the information when there started to be concerns about contact between the Russian government and the Trump campaign?

It's a pretty tidy story: someone who was represented as being in contact with the Russian government said they had damaging information on Clinton. Trump campaign goes to check it out and see if it's something they can verify from less dubious sources (and maybe even see if it demonstrates malfeasance by the Russians). The person didn't have anything worthwhile and tried to talk government policy so Trump's people told her to get stuffed and left. At the time, they thought it was just someone trying to pull a fast one but given recent allegations they feel it's necessary to present this information to the American people.

Instead we get: nope, never happened, none of my people ever talked to the Russians, you're the puppet. Wait? NYT is about to break the story? Here's the emails proving it wasn't really anything.

I think we're drifting into if not malice then incompetence territory.

[TheDrake]

Foreign campaign contributions are illegal. Not sure if providing information of this type can be considered an in-kind donation. If they spent money obtaining it, or were paid to broker it, I suspect a case could be made. Just talking about providing it, however, that's quite unclear.

[DonaldD]

Sadly, I'm not surprised at all, and would, as Seriati suggested, expect any campaign to arrange some sort of follow up to this type of bait.

I disagree - any experienced political campaign researcher would have had it drilled into the brain that everything they touch may, and very likely will, come to light over the period of the campaign.

Having questionably sourced negative information on an opponent, regardless of whether it was actually used, has in the past been a fire-able offense. It's in vogue to cut the Trump campaign and administration a huge amount of slack in the experience area, but it is NOT an accepted practice for exactly the reasons we are seeing now: because the blow-back is potentially huge, either on the campaign or the administration (ignoring the actuality, in this case, of providing leverage to a foreign state, one that is now in possession of possible blackmail material - and well, hey, why exactly is a an adversarial government providing you with this information anyway...)

[TheDeamon]

(ignoring the actuality, in this case, of providing leverage to a foreign state, one that is now in possession of possible blackmail material - and well, hey, why exactly is a an adversarial government providing you with this information anyway...)

Well, from what we've "know" (or at least have been told), nothing came of it, so the "foreign leverage" was near nul to start with, and it certainly is nul now that it's become public.

As to what Russia could have gained? (Assuming the offer had been legit) That is something we've already covered, Russia(Putin) did NOT want Hillary Clinton as the next PotUS. It really doesn't need to go much deeper than that.

Edit: There is also the possibility that Russia felt that Trump's administration would be unstable(doesn't take a Rocket Scientist to realize that was a likely outcome), and because of that instability, it would potentially provide them with openings to expand their own sphere of influence.

Gaining direct leverage over Trump isn't needed, if it could be obtained? Great. But not required.

[D.W.]

Not to state the obvious.  But THIS is what they had to gain.  The news frenzy right now. 
>Dangle bait
>Reel in fish
>Throw fish back

Proves that if you DO want to get them damaging info, they are open to it.
Gives you something damaging to leak later.

You got to keep in mind this is a win-win situation for Russia.  They get rid of a candidate that seemed a shoe in.  They gain damaging leverage over the Trump campaign.

If you are inclined to ask, "what damaging leverage?", turn on your TV.  The substance, and legality are (dishearteningly) inconsequential.  P.R. wise, this reveal is a blow to the administration.  Contrary to what some seem to believe, Trump and Putin are not friends.  In so far as Russia "wanted Trump to win", it was because he'll be easier to *censored* with and will diminish our global influence. 

America First!

[Seriati]

If it was all innocent and above board, why are we only hearing about it now? Why not volunteer the information when there started to be concerns about contact between the Russian government and the Trump campaign?

Disclose what?   Based on the meeting, would their be any reason to think this person actually was part of the Russian government?  The meeting apparently had nothing to do with the teaser, and was not itself something that would be required to be disclosed on a security clearance form.

I think, you guys are assuming this is a "government" contact with the Russian government.  That's not the case.  It's not even the case if you assume the email was in "good faith" in the first place.  All you have is a guy - not in the Russian government - asserting the Russian government wants them to win, arranging for a lawyer who is not in the Russian government to meet them. 

Honestly, if it turns out that Donnie's barber is a Russian national is that disclosable in your world?

And the idea that because it's dirt its disclosable is nonsense.  Show many any disclosure of the muckracking meetings of the Clinton campaign, or heck to be parallel, of the Obama campaign since he actually was elected President.

[DonaldD]

Well, from what we've "know" (or at least have been told), nothing came of it, so the "foreign leverage" was near nul to start with, and it certainly is nul now that it's become public.

You seem to be misunderstanding what the foreign leverage had been in this case - it's not the information, but the possession of the information, the mechanism of acquiring it.

Is there more where this came from? I wouldn't bet against it.

And as D.W. mentioned above, the current paralysis of the administration is certainly not "nothing".

[DonaldD]

I think, you guys are assuming this is a "government" contact with the Russian government.  That's not the case.  It's not even the case if you assume the email was in "good faith" in the first place.  All you have is a guy - not in the Russian government - asserting the Russian government wants them to win, arranging for a lawyer who is not in the Russian government to meet them.

No, that is not being assumed, and I don't think any honest reading of what was written here could give you that impression.

The issue is that the Trump campaign members showed themselves willing to meet with Russian government officials, and attempting to meet with what they thought were Russian government officials, in order to acquire potentially damaging information against a US presidential candidate.

A secondary issue is that Trump junior showed glee at the prospect of the Russian government working to get his father elected - which is more a PR issue for him than anything.

[Seriati]

DonaldD, if it's not assumed, and no honest reading could get me there, what exactly are the demands that this should have been disclosed?  Or statements to the effect of why are we hearing about this now?

This is literally a not an event required to be disclosed.  That may change if it were with a government official, and you're trying to get a security clearance.  But that's kind of it.  I'm not seeing how to read the demands/outrage here other than in that way given the background.

[DonaldD]

I said nothing about any demands for disclosure.  You're reading things into what I wrote that are simply not there, nor even implied.

Just read my last post, the part that I actually wrote, not the other part that you imagine I wrote.

[D.W.]

To be fair.  I did bring that up.   

[DonaldD]

I suppose Seriati might have meant the "royal" "you guys", then...

[DonaldD]

I wonder how this would have been treated by today's Trump apologists back in the day: "Obama campaign chairman attempted to meet with an Iranian government lawyer reputed to have evidence that would have incriminated Mitt Romney in his dealings with Iran"

[D.W.]

Let me flip that on you.  Think we'd be in the same boat if today, with Trump, it was Iran instead of Russia?

I think part of this is that the Trump crew, and indeed an increasing amount of our nation, see Russia in a less adversarial role and more just "the competition" and a potential partner or opportunity even in some things.

Now, recently, there's been some backsliding on that, but it's still worth mentioning.  The lack of outrage is in some ways, a dismissal of the old cold war dynamic. 

[Gaoics79]

I wonder how this would have been treated by today's Trump apologists back in the day: "Obama campaign chairman attempted to meet with an Iranian government lawyer reputed to have evidence that would have incriminated Mitt Romney in his dealings with Iran"

Donald, I am sincerely puzzled by your outrage, which you seem to see as self-evident, but others (myself included) are scratching our heads over.

Foreign governments can talk with anyone they please and conversely, anyone can talk with them. I don't see this as untoward unless there is some kind of money changing hands, or otherwise a conflict of interest developing.

It's like if the other side in a lawsuit calls me to have a meeting with them. They may be adversaries of my client, by why wouldn't I at least listen to what they have to say? As the Ferengi say, hear all, trust nothing. Seems logical to me.

[NobleHunter]

Disclose what?   Based on the meeting, would their be any reason to think this person actually was part of the Russian government?  The meeting apparently had nothing to do with the teaser, and was not itself something that would be required to be disclosed on a security clearance form.

I think, you guys are assuming this is a "government" contact with the Russian government.  That's not the case.  It's not even the case if you assume the email was in "good faith" in the first place.  All you have is a guy - not in the Russian government - asserting the Russian government wants them to win, arranging for a lawyer who is not in the Russian government to meet them. 

Honestly, if it turns out that Donnie's barber is a Russian national is that disclosable in your world?

And the idea that because it's dirt its disclosable is nonsense.  Show many any disclosure of the muckracking meetings of the Clinton campaign, or heck to be parallel, of the Obama campaign since he actually was elected President.

To avoid this kind of situation and to control the narrative around the meeting. "No, the lawyer totally didn't discuss anything of interest and we just ignored her," sounds a lot more convincing when you volunteer the information rather than scramble to get it out ahead of the media. Especially since three people who are inclined to talk to NYT saw the email. 

Not to mention, if the person wasn't with the government, and Trump's believe didn't believe they were from the Russians, why did three top members of the Trump campaign meet with them? The only thing giving the claim that they had info on Clinton any weight was that it was from the Russians. Or did those three just meet any Tom, Dick, or Ivan that promised them dirt?

If they did believe they were meeting someone with the government, they should have disclosed it to because the lawyer in question had some very high-level clients in Russia and wanted to talk government policy. The reverse of the barber scenario also seems to apply: so long as anyone Trump's people talk to isn't officially employed by the Kremlin then they're non-disclosable.

Donald, better example is vs McCain.

jasonr, part of it is context for me. There's been months of noise about potential issues with Russia and denials about any sort of contact, yet they fail to mention meeting someone who represented to them as being associated with the Russia government and has high-level Russian clients? If it was nothing, why not get out in front of it?

[DonaldD]

I get that Jason - it's clear that half the country doesn't care whether foreign governments work to elect their preferred candidates in US elections, and the other half, seemingly including Congress, actually don't want foreign governments directly and indirectly working with one candidate to bring another candidate down.

Basically, it's the difference between those who are OK with foreign governments exerting control over the US democratic process, and those who are maybe a little more naively invested in having the US electorate come to its own decision.

[DonaldD]

Let me flip that on you.  Think we'd be in the same boat if today, with Trump, it was Iran instead of Russia?

If the Trump campaign had organized a meeting with who they thought were Iranian government lawyers who had evidence purported to incriminate Clinton?  Yes, I'm pretty sure the Trump campaign would be getting skewered just the same.

My analogy, however, was a thought exercise for Trump apologists, to see whether a similar situation in the Obama era would evince the same reactions - sure, I could have used Russia for the comparison, but it seems like some folks have grown a somewhat irrational acceptance of Russian interference of late, I can't imagine why, so I used what I expect is another foreign adversary that had not been so normalized in their minds.

[D.W.]

I meant would "the apologists" still do so?  Or would they turn their backs on him?

[Gaoics79]

Basically, it's the difference between those who are OK with foreign governments exerting control over the US democratic process, and those who are maybe a little more naively invested in having the US electorate come to its own decision.

You will have to elaborate further on what is meant by "control" in this context, because I find your insinuation bears little resemblance to the facts. If you mean a foreign government buying a candidate or blackmailing a candidate, then we'd agree that this is extremely bad. If a foreign government hacked into election machines and changed the outcome of vote, that would be another example of a very worrying thing.

But I'm baffled by your concept that a foreign government *speaking to* a candidate or seeking to *influence* that candidate with words is somehow equated with "control" and a corruption of the system.

That's like saying that if I listen to a settlement proposal from the other side's lawyer or hear his arguments, I am somehow being unethically "controlled" by him. What bollocks.

Why can't a candidate or his surrogate listen to what a Russian lawyer has to tell him? If there is crucial information promised that could expose criminality on the part of the opposition, who in blazes wouldn't want to give this a hearing?

Are you suggesting the Russian lawyer bribed Trump Jr.? Blackmailed him? Or are you insinuating that they mind controlled him? Or are you simply condemning the fact that Trump Jr. appeared in this instance, to feel that he could profit from the information they were providing? And exactly why would that be unethical? Because the lawyer was Russian? They're our enemies now? Says who exactly? If it had been a Swedish lawyer or a Korean lawyer, it would have been okay to take the meeting?

[DonaldD]

Jason, I'm not sure why you are ignoring the specifics of what Trump junior's expectations were.  He wasn't meeting with a lawyer who just happened to be Russian - he thought he was meeting with a "Crown Prosecutor" (yes, I know that isn't a thing in Russia) who was going to provide "high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump" (my bold) And that is completely outside the context of the Russian government's propaganda and hacking war against western democracies.

The Trump campaign was attempting to acquire information provided by a foreign government, information that was being characterized as beneficial to the Trump candidacy and damaging to the Clinton candidacy. There are so many reasons why normalizing this would be a bad idea. Your seeming assumption that the Russian state information apparatus, having acquired compromising information about US politicians, would not use this information to damage the USA in specific ways, yes, including releasing only the information that would help themselves the most and damage the USA the most, and keeping to themselves that information that would damage the candidate that would be most beneficial to Russia, shows a complete lack of imagination on your part.

And no, it would be no less bad if it was "high level and sensitive information part of Sweden and its government's support for Mr. Trump" that was being delivered by a Swedish government employee, nor if it were "high level and sensitive information part of South Korea and its government's support for Mr. Trump" that was being delivered by a South Korean government employee.

[TheDeamon]

If they did believe they were meeting someone with the government, they should have disclosed it to because the lawyer in question had some very high-level clients in Russia and wanted to talk government policy. The reverse of the barber scenario also seems to apply: so long as anyone Trump's people talk to isn't officially employed by the Kremlin then they're non-disclosable.

The issue here is that while they may have met with the person thinking they were agents of a foreign government. They evidently left those meetings thinking otherwise. So where exactly under existing law is THAT supposed to be disclosed? "Oh yeah, I met with this one guy that I thought represented a foreign government, but after I met with them, I was convinced they were full of hot air."

The requirement/expectation was disclosure of known communication with representatives of foreign governments, which this contact evidently wasn't. So you're left with splitting hairs on the whole matter of if initiation of a contact believing that to be the case is sufficient grounds.

Contact with foreign nationals is not the same thing as contact with foreign governments.

[TheDeamon]

And no, it would be no less bad if it was "high level and sensitive information part of Sweden and its government's support for Mr. Trump" that was being delivered by a Swedish government employee, nor if it were "high level and sensitive information part of South Korea and its government's support for Mr. Trump" that was being delivered by a South Korean government employee.

So then, how about that information dossier that the Obama Admin obtained from a foreigh(British) agent via "russian agents" in regards to activities Trump allegedly undertook in Russia any different?

That the source was foreign doesn't matter much. What would matter would be any "terms and conditions" that may have come with that information. But as no information exchange actually happened, there isn't anything to see here. Doubly so since the "foreign agent" doesn't appear to have been working for any government in the first place.

As to the scenario regarding Obama, Romney and Iran. You're assuming I hadn't already "turned my back" on Obama by then. But in that particular case, I'd be calling the Republicans pants on head retarded for pursuing that issue too. I didn't like Obama, but that didn't stop me from calling the birthers stupid and irrelevant from the onset.

[Gaoics79]

The Trump campaign was attempting to acquire information provided by a foreign government, information that was being characterized as beneficial to the Trump candidacy and damaging to the Clinton candidacy. There are so many reasons why normalizing this would be a bad idea. Your seeming assumption that the Russian state information apparatus, having acquired compromising information about US politicians, would not use this information to damage the USA in specific ways, yes, including releasing only the information that would help themselves the most and damage the USA the most, and keeping to themselves that information that would damage the candidate that would be most beneficial to Russia, shows a complete lack of imagination on your part.

You are insinuating that the Russian information may be selective, biased or self serving. I file that under the Duh category. The question is, why would that preclude someone from listening to that information and making his own judgment? If Russia presented solid evidence that, say, Hillary had a rival murdered, you would shut your ears, disconnect your phones and put out your eyes because of the fear that *gasp* the source might be self-serving or impure in his motives? Either the info is credible or it isn't.

[D.W.]

You tell them to release it, or refer them to the the proper agency to disclose information they may have and tell them it would be inappropriate for your campaign to accept this information from you.

You then report to the same agency, and any other relevant agency, that you were approached, and that this information may be out there.  Maybe you even do so publicly.  Letting "the people" know not only how principled you are in not "stooping to letting a foreign power hand you the election", but also how concerned you are that this info may be out there, and how you dread the idea of the Russians having potential blackmail material on your opponent.

Or... you know, you *censored* it up in spectacular fashion, like Don Jr. and crew managed.  Whatever works.

[TheDeamon]

You tell them to release it, or refer them to the the proper agency to disclose information they may have and tell them it would be inappropriate for your campaign to accept this information from you.

While not opposed to the information release, or worse, then discovering there is information and then "colluding" as to the timing of said information release. I'm going to side on human nature compelling most normal people to want an advance look at the information so "your team" can prepare a response before it hits the general public, even if the lead time is only an hour or so. That's not dirty politics, that's human nature.

As it was, there was no information, so we'll never know which choice they would have made.

You then report to the same agency, and any other relevant agency, that you were approached, and that this information may be out there.  Maybe you even do so publicly.  Letting "the people" know not only how principled you are in not "stooping to letting a foreign power hand you the election", but also how concerned you are that this info may be out there, and how you dread the idea of the Russians having potential blackmail material on your opponent.

Yes, reporting something like this to the Obama Administration about Hillary Clinton was very likely to result in immediate, swift and meaningful action. 

Where exactly have you been since 2012?

As to the hazard of prematurely bringing that information forward yourself(prior to meeting them), clearly if they had done so in this instance, it would have been a massive win for the Clinton Campaign as not only did you just make baseless accusations against them, but you were "bamboozled" by someone pretending to be an agent of a foreign government.

[D.W.]

That's not dirty politics, that's human nature.

"Clean" politics, would probably be constraining human nature.  Just because "everyone" would be tempted, doesn't make it OK.

As it was, there was no information, so we'll never know which choice they would have made.

Wait a week or two.  Never say never with this crew.

...very likely to result in immediate, swift and meaningful action. 

So demonstrating you can play a clean game is synonymous with being a looser.  Got it.  If your opposition isn't equally worthy of sainthood, you should play in the mud.  /shrug  Probably not wrong.  Maybe, that's why I'd risk being labeled as "bamboozled" in public, rather than just trust them to do the right thing.  I honestly don't see the risk here if you declined the meeting. 

It only becomes a PR mess, when you accept it.  You only tip your hand to Russia that you are willing to cooperate with them if you accept it.  You only open yourself up to Russia revealing at a later date that you accepted help in order to damage your reputation if you accepted that meeting.  (and lied about it...)

Listen, if a foreign power wanted my opponent to lose; groovy.  To quote Don Jr., "I love it"!  That doesn't mean I'm going to let them get their hooks into me in their effort to sabotage my opponent. 

This, right now, in the news, this week.  This is a weapon Russia could have (or is) employing to weaken Trump.  It cost them NOTHING.  All because these people succumbed to "human nature" and took the meeting. 

I cannot grok how people are defending this as no big deal.  It may not be some smoking gun that will torpedo the administration.  But it perfectly illustrates how out of their depth this whole team is.  They don't understand how the global game is played and how terrible they are at it.  From out the gate, and showing no signs of learning.

[Gaoics79]

Listen, if a foreign power wanted my opponent to lose; groovy.  To quote Don Jr., "I love it"!  That doesn't mean I'm going to let them get their hooks into me in their effort to sabotage my opponent. 

Like Donald you seem to equate listening to someone with being controlled by them.

[D.W.]

As a general rule?  No. 
But in this situation, the act of listening, after being informed as to the source and the subject matter?  Yes.  That's a hook. 
When the meeting existing at all, can cause all this media attention? 
Holding that over someone would be a form of control.

Is this ammunition being spent, or just an un-orchestrated leak?  Does it matter?  Again, this was a win-win for those making the offer.  Which leads to it being a lose-lose to accepting the meeting. 

Now, as has been pointed out, most wouldn't let such an opportunity slip by.  But I expect MOST, would know how to insulate themselves from any possibility of "being controlled".

[TheDeamon]

I cannot grok how people are defending this as no big deal.  It may not be some smoking gun that will torpedo the administration.  But it perfectly illustrates how out of their depth this whole team is.  They don't understand how the global game is played and how terrible they are at it.  From out the gate, and showing no signs of learning.

It's no big deal because it's not really news, or unexpected where Trump and his crew of misfits is concerned. I already knew full and well Trump was "out of his depth" before he started doing well in the primaries. How many times do I have to reiterate I thought he was a terrible candidate?

This latest reveal ultimately changes nothing. Particularly given the matter that with what we know at present, nothing actually happened. He was a bad candidate, he's a sub-par President. The system of Government we have says he's President until at least January 2021, possible as long as January 2025.

Suck it up, this isn't the first time this nation has dealt with incompetents at the steering wheel. So far he hasn't done anything that seriously endangers the nation, and there are no provisions for unseating a President on the basis of thinking he's a Prime Recruit for the Keystone Cops.

[D.W.]

How many times do I have to reiterate I thought he was a terrible candidate?

A few more than I do regarding Hillary? 

Suck it up

I'm not out there shouting this is enough.  Impeach!  Impeach! 

And you're right.  It changes nothing.  We already knew they lied habitually.  It's mostly just depressing.  If Jr. broke an actual law, he'll be sacrificed for Sr.  If not, business as usual.

[rightleft22]

It's no big deal because it's not really news

So it doesn’t bother you how much, or in what ways, a foreign power might try to influence USA elections/democracy?
No one is going to do anything about it so its not news, nothing we can learn from or take measures limit such inevitable future intrusions.

How are we defining news? I'm so confused.

Trump presidency is unique in that people don’t expect him to mean what he says or tweets. It is mystifying and understandable only as a physiological happening

Historically when the election of such leaders those that supported them will convince themselves, when all is said and done, that they never did. 

[Gaoics79]

Trump presidency is unique in that people don’t expect him to mean what he says or tweets.

Respectfully, what rock have you been hiding under? For most of my adult lifevI watched greasy politicians smile and say things I knew weren't true, they knew weren't true and even the journalists questioning them knew weren't true.

When Obama said that he supported the traditional definition of marriage, did you seriously believe him? I mean really? That's about as brazen a lie as any Trump ever made - it's just with Obama you couldn't prove it because Obama wasn't an idiot.

The difference is one of degree not kind. Unlike his more evolved breathren Trump won't even bother to mask his lies with obsfuscation and plausible deniability. The man is a garbage fire. Yet it's been heading in this direction for a long time. Standards have been slipping for a long time, accelerated by the switchover from journalism to punditry.

[TheDeamon]

Historically when the election of such leaders those that supported them will convince themselves, when all is said and done, that they never did.

Well, I didn't vote for him, so don't look at me. 

I think Trump is ultimately either going to be a Republican Jimmy Carter(which actually wouldn't be too shocking, he was a Democrat back then), or he'll make an attempt at being Reagan. Based on what I've seen so far, Bush(43) is probably the best he'll do(hopefully without the major events).

Of course, failing that, I guess he could pull a Nixon on us.

I highly doubt the doomsday scenarios so many others are proffering out there. I'm more concerned about the SJW/AntiFa crowd to be honest. I'm certain "they don't get it" and will fail to amount to much, but looking at the history of what went down in Germany with their National Socialist party, all it could take is a solid drop in the economy and all bets are off. Only instead of the Jews getting the blame, it'll be CIS-gendered White Males on the receiving end for it was their efforts to "preserve their White Privilege" that lead to that dire outcome. 

[D.W.]

If there is somehow an uprising from "the left" you'd be a fool to believe it was the "SJW/AntiFa" crowd.
The only potential uprising I can see on the horizon is Trump supporters if some new method of kicking the President out of office was invented just for Trump.  And I don't know as I'd blame them entirely for it.

[Wayward Son]

So Trump Jr. was under the impression that the Russian government was trying to support his father, and it didn't set off any warning bells with him.  He apparently relished the idea of getting support from the Russians.

Doesn't this disturb anyone?  Do we really want our Presidential candidate teams looking for and accepting help from foreign governments, especially ones we are in conflict with?

I'm sorry it's not disturbing in the slightest. If someone claims to have dirt on a rival candidate, including "incriminating" evidence, I would be shocked if they didn't agree to hear that person out. You're suggesting that if it comes from the Russian government, it's unethical to use or reveal incriminating evidence about a rival? Just meeting with him and listening to his words is treasonous is it?

So if Putin hands Trump Jr. a memo proving that Hillary committed fraud or murdered someone for example, he'd be the "unethical" one if he revealed it?

I know I know - Putin is evil and anyone touched by this Mephistopholis even directly can't help but be corrupted. But by the way, maybe I missed something, but when was this declaration of war on Russia? For how many years has this "conflict" been going on? How long has the war been waged and how many casualties have there been?

Here's the difference, jasonr.

Why go through Trump, Jr.?

Think about it.  You have damaging information on a candidate that you oppose.  It's good information; it's been vetted; it's confirmed true.  So why not just publish that information?  What's stopping you?  You still get the information out.  You still damage the candidate you're against.

So why offer it to the opposing candidate (through his son) first?  What can you possibly gain from that?

There are only two things I can think of.  Money and/or influence.  He'll either pay you for it, or he will owe you.  And by offering it first, you can set the terms, or else refuse to give the info or publish it.

By offering it first to Trump, Jr., the person was either trying to get money or to influence the candidate, the one who became President.  And the info came from, according to the e-mail that Trump, Jr. got, "part of Russia and its government support of Trump."  And the Russian government doesn't need his money (no matter how rich he is).

To which Trump, Jr. said, "I love it"!

He loved the idea of owing Russia for the information.  And he asked Jared and Manafort along to witness the deal.

I'm sorry you're not disturbed in the slightest.  Russia may not be our enemy, but they are by no stretch of the imagination our friends and ally.  So I don't see why you wouldn't be disturbed at the idea that they wanted the President to "owe them one."  To personally "owe them one."  And that Trump, Jr. jumped gleefully to take that gift.

Republicans were outraged--outraged--that Clinton took money from China (although it was given back).  Why?  What possible reason should anyone be the slightest disturbed that the President's campaign took a few measly bucks from China.  Unless we wanted to prevent the President from "owing them one."

Be disturbed, by this, and by the people who are telling you not to be disturbed.

[Gaoics79]

Wayward I do see your point, but I can't help but find the equivalence between accepting information and accepting *money* a bit specious. I'm curious - does this purely apply to a foreign government or to anyone? And if it is not exclusive to monetary favours (i.e. taking bribes) but includes even the provision of mere information where does this stop?

If an anonymous tipster calls up Trump's foot soldier and offers to tip him off on some piece of information, is he not allowed to hear that person out or communicate with him because he might "owe" the tipster who might in turn work for a foreign government for all he knows?

[Pete at Home]

While there is good reason to doubt all sorts of actors at the moment, one thing you should keep in mind - and this is a significant point - is that while Assange has been known to blow smoke when speaking off the cuff, Wikileaks has, to date, never released faulty data or files that weren't the genuine article.

While by contrast, I note that James Clapper, the former Director of National Intelligence, has never been prosecuted for perjury concerning his false testimony before congress. To my knowledge, no one has been prosecuted for illegal surveillance of Americans under the Obama admin. Indeed, the only response to the revelation of this illegal program was the attempted arrest and prosecution of the whistleblower.

So why in blazes would I believe a word these unrepentant (confirmed) liars have to say about anything?

And speaking of motives to lie, it's been increasingly apparent to me that U.S. policy has been to vilify Putin and Russia at every turn. This was obvious long before the election. I don't say that to suggest that everything that was said about Putin was a lie or that he was a nice guy - but that of all the bad men in the world (including several allies) someone high up in the U.S. government seemed to have a particular axe to grind against Russia and Putin in particular.

Yes; Putin seems to be the new Saddam, and the stung post-2016 DNC seems to be the new Bush Jr, using jingo and obfuscation to hurtle us into another unnecessary war.

[Pete at Home]

So Trump Jr. was under the impression that the Russian government was trying to support his father, and it didn't set off any warning bells with him.  He apparently relished the idea of getting support from the Russians.

Doesn't this disturb anyone?  Do we really want our Presidential candidate teams looking for and accepting help from foreign governments, especially ones we are in conflict with?

I'm sorry it's not disturbing in the slightest. If someone claims to have dirt on a rival candidate, including "incriminating" evidence, I would be shocked if they didn't agree to hear that person out. You're suggesting that if it comes from the Russian government, it's unethical to use or reveal incriminating evidence about a rival? Just meeting with him and listening to his words is treasonous is it?

So if Putin hands Trump Jr. a memo proving that Hillary committed fraud or murdered someone for example, he'd be the "unethical" one if he revealed it?

I know I know - Putin is evil and anyone touched by this Mephistopholis even directly can't help but be corrupted. But by the way, maybe I missed something, but when was this declaration of war on Russia? For how many years has this "conflict" been going on? How long has the war been waged and how many casualties have there been?

Here's the difference, jasonr.

Why go through Trump, Jr.?

Think about it.  You have damaging information on a candidate that you oppose.  It's good information; it's been vetted; it's confirmed true.  So why not just publish that information?  What's stopping you?  You still get the information out.  You still damage the candidate you're against.

So why offer it to the opposing candidate (through his son) first?  What can you possibly gain from that?

There are only two things I can think of.  Money and/or influence.  He'll either pay you for it, or he will owe you.  And by offering it first, you can set the terms, or else refuse to give the info or publish it.

By offering it first to Trump, Jr., the person was either trying to get money or to influence the candidate, the one who became President.  And the info came from, according to the e-mail that Trump, Jr. got, "part of Russia and its government support of Trump."  And the Russian government doesn't need his money (no matter how rich he is).

To which Trump, Jr. said, "I love it"!

He loved the idea of owing Russia for the information.  And he asked Jared and Manafort along to witness the deal.

I'm sorry you're not disturbed in the slightest.  Russia may not be our enemy, but they are by no stretch of the imagination our friends and ally.  So I don't see why you wouldn't be disturbed at the idea that they wanted the President to "owe them one."  To personally "owe them one."  And that Trump, Jr. jumped gleefully to take that gift.

Republicans were outraged--outraged--that Clinton took money from China (although it was given back).  Why?  What possible reason should anyone be the slightest disturbed that the President's campaign took a few measly bucks from China.  Unless we wanted to prevent the President from "owing them one."

Be disturbed, by this, and by the people who are telling you not to be disturbed.

Eight Million dollars to President Clinton's 1996 campaign is "a few measly bucks"?  But information on the DNC's wrongdoing is a clear bribe.

Wayward, you running for Ornery's new Kool-Aid man?

If one party is running us into an unnecessary war, and lying to the public, is it really wrong for the country that we're being run into a war with, to pass information to the opposing party, so that the truth comes out and the conflict averted?  I seem to remember several movies and TV shows where the heroes speak to the "enemy" and prevent a war.  Using American hyperpatriotic jingo to punish those who brought out the truth seems, well, more "disturbing" than Trump Jr's meeting with Russia (which doesn't disturb me) or even than the earlier Trump lies that no one had met with Russia (which *do* disturb me).  Although when I see a Canadian like Donald feeding the America hyperjingo panic, that's more funny than disturbing.   To subvert a phrase from the McCarthy hearings, have you no sense of irony, sirs?

[TheDrake]

Regardless of the amount, the difference is in quality. All the China stuff that I'm familiar with had China using US fronts to make the donations, and apparently nobody at the DNC was lunching with Chinese government lawyers. Dunno if that means "less corrupt" or "better at being corrupt".

I agree that the difference is in the fact that the meeting happened. If the Russians just mailed whatever info they had unilaterally to Trump Tower, then I couldn't see holding anyone responsible, even if they used the information.

[Wayward Son]

Wayward I do see your point, but I can't help but find the equivalence between accepting information and accepting *money* a bit specious. I'm curious - does this purely apply to a foreign government or to anyone? And if it is not exclusive to monetary favours (i.e. taking bribes) but includes even the provision of mere information where does this stop?

If an anonymous tipster calls up Trump's foot soldier and offers to tip him off on some piece of information, is he not allowed to hear that person out or communicate with him because he might "owe" the tipster who might in turn work for a foreign government for all he knows?

Those are interesting questions, jasonr, and worth considering.  But not entirely applicable to this situation.

The law states that campaigns cannot accept money or "anything of value" from foreign citizens and governments, IIRC.  And certainly, information that is detrimental to your opponent is something a campaign might reasonably pay money for, thus establishing that it is valuable.  This was advertised as not just "mere information," but significant information that could have turned the tide of the election.

So if we decide that campaigns can accept valuable information from foreigners and foreign governments, then why shouldn't we also allow them to accept money?  What is the real difference if they accept information, or use money to advertise and/or buy that information?

It's one thing to accept valuable information or money when you don't know, or are fooled about, who the source is.  But it's an entirely different matter when you know the source is a foreign government and you try to get the information or money anyway.  And "love it."

[Wayward Son]

Eight Million dollars to President Clinton's 1996 campaign is "a few measly bucks"?  But information on the DNC's wrongdoing is a clear bribe.

I don't quite remember it being that much, although maybe I didn't add it all up at the time.

But I also recall that all the money was returned when the source was discovered.

If one party is running us into an unnecessary war, and lying to the public, is it really wrong for the country that we're being run into a war with, to pass information to the opposing party, so that the truth comes out and the conflict averted?  I seem to remember several movies and TV shows where the heroes speak to the "enemy" and prevent a war.  Using American hyperpatriotic jingo to punish those who brought out the truth seems, well, more "disturbing" than Trump Jr's meeting with Russia (which doesn't disturb me) or even than the earlier Trump lies that no one had met with Russia (which *do* disturb me).  Although when I see a Canadian like Donald feeding the America hyperjingo panic, that's more funny than disturbing.   To subvert a phrase from the McCarthy hearings, have you no sense of irony, sirs?

If the foreign government gave the information to the press, that is one thing.  If it is only facts that affect policy, that is the same thing.  But if it affects the outcome of an election, isn't that a different thing?  Because we're talking about a race here, where two sides are competing with each other, winner takes all.  A situation where every advantage is important, and people are willing to compromise to attain their goal.  Where they worry that, if they don't have the advantage next time, they might lose.  And who are grateful to those who helped them win.

If those who helped are American citizens, that's one thing.  They are part of the country and part of the electorate, and have a stake in the outcome as citizens.  Their fate is tied to the fate of our country.  But if those who helped are not American citizens, or are actually competing countries, then their fate is not tied to ours, and may in fact be in opposition to our fate.  American citizens should at least have the best interest of the country in mind (whether we agree with them or not), because they will suffer if things go wrong along with the rest of us.  (At least, that's the theory. )  But foreign nationals may be immune to what happens to our country.  So their best interest may not coincide with our own.

Once again, if there is no problem with foreigners trying to influence the outcome of our elections by giving valuable information to candidates, then why not money?  Why would providing funds that helps a candidate win an election so much worse than providing information that helps a candidate win an election?

[Pete at Home]

gathering intelligence on a crime from any source is legitimate so long as it doesn't violate fundamental human rights (e.g. info obtained by torture)

Accepting money otoh is corrupt if done knowingly. And taking from the PRC was particularly ugly since Clinton's release of gyroscope tech looks like a quid pro quo.

[Pete at Home]

At best, only that which was discovered could have been returned. Surely you don't suppose it was all discovered.

Once again, if there is no problem with foreigners trying to influence the outcome of our elections by giving valuable information to candidates, then why not money? 

Freedom of speech and association covers information. It does not cover money.  Not unless you buy into the Republican argument that money is a form of "speech."

[Pete at Home]

Once again, if there is no problem with foreigners trying to influence the outcome of our elections by giving valuable information to candidates

You really want to go down that road of treating information as money?  Can information be taxed in your moral universe?

I'd rather live a hundred years under Trump than under a government based on the moral assumptions that you are making to overthrow him. Talk about swallowing the spider to catch the fly! Is there any moral or constitutional principle you would *not* trammel to get this guy?

[Gaoics79]

Wayward, I don't know about the law. But I just can't accept the premise that taking money and just listening passively to what someone is telling you is the same thing. Or is the crime here supposed to be the fact that Trump Jr. was enthusiastic about the info, versus just sitting back and absorbing it?

[TheDrake]

Would it be legally okay for a foreign government to:

Provide a donor list (of Americans) for use by a campaign.
Send out emails to recruit volunteers and pass the results along.
Make a youtube video and hand it over in a private meeting.
Generate polling results.

These are all information, it seems to me, nothing tangible. Maybe they are all legal. But there's a shady morality there.

Of course, getting worked up about it is pretty silly considering how companies owned and by foreign nationals funnel money legally into campaigns.

Basically, companies owned by foreign firms can spend in U.S. elections as long as the funds are generated in the U.S. and no foreign national has a role in the decision-making process.

Public attention grew in August, when The Intercept reported that a California company owned by Chinese nationals, American Pacific International Capital Inc., directed $1.3 million to Right to Rise USA, Jeb Bush’s super PAC. (That made it No. 30 on our list of top organizations funding outside groups.)

[Pete at Home]

Would it be legally okay for a foreign government to:

Provide a donor list (of Americans) for use by a campaign.
Send out emails to recruit volunteers and pass the results along.
Make a youtube video and hand it over in a private meeting.
Generate polling results.

These are all information, it seems to me, nothing tangible. Maybe they are all legal. But there's a shady morality there.

That's not a moral issue, but rather an issue of international relations and sovereignty.  We do it to other governments and we don't like it when it's done to us.  The remedy is cut diplomatic relations, declare war, and a thousand variations in between.  Obama tossed out a bunch of Russian diplomats.  That's pretty par for the course.  Consider that Clinton and Obama helped back a Coup D'etat in the Ukraine, it's hard to say that we should not have seen the threat of Russian interference coming.  And Obama has now admitted that he DID see it coming, and yet kept it a secret.

IF President Obama had made a public announcement that Russia was trying to manipulate our election, and had put folks on notice (based on one of thousands of tools that Congress has put to the President's sole discretion) that one should not communicate with the Russian government or its proxies, THEN you might have an argument that Trump Jr. did something wrong in communicating with the Russian attorney.

Make a youtube video and hand it over in a private meeting.

I don't understand that hypo.  Please clarify or illustrate.

Generate polling results.

Seems like that's something that should be illegal, but at this time, I don't think there's even any law that would prohibit, say, CAIR from running surveys of the American people and then posting the results in public where it could be used by ISIS and/or Al Qaeda to manipulate an election as they did for Zapatero in Spain.  I think that such a law, if enacted, would pass constitutional muster as espionage.