Printable View
Plot-twist: Trump Jr.'s lifelong struggle to gain his insane father's approval slowly turned to hatred, whereupon he agreed to help the FBI and the media sow the seeds of Daddy's destruction by first taking the Russians' bait and then admitting it in the most damaging fashion imaginable. Sweet, sweet revenge. He may not be the hero the US deserves, but...
Btw, to be clear, it appears as if he may indeed have committed a federal crime by violating campaign finance laws. That case is probably far stronger right now than the case for treason.
We're not at war with Russia. There is no legal case for treason. Even the Rosenbergs weren't charged with treason.
This is a good 700 treason. At least. And you all know it.
The question is not whether it meets your colloquial definition, but whether it rises to a legal definition, which as I've already alluded to earlier is a pretty high bar.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
Really kinda funny. That poor guy just had the floor fall out of his story.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
Is it? I thought impeachment was a political process?Quote:
Originally Posted by wiggin
Donald Trump Jr. is not in fact a public official and cannot be impeached. He, along with Manafort and Kushner, can be conceivably called traitors (though not legally at this point IMO) but there is as yet no evidence that the President was aware of or encouraged such activity.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
It strains credibility to imagine he wasn't aware.
"Better not let pa-pa in on this, he'd object as a matter of principle"
One of the emails discussed sending the info to Trump's assistant.
I'm pretty sure your son, son in law, campaign manager and assistant don't count as plausible deniability.
Steely and OG, Trump has shown himself time and time again to be utterly disinterested in the details of, well, anything. He has no use for nuance and I have no doubt that a great deal of the campaign (as well as governing) happens without his knowledge. So far we have evidence a single, likely unsuccessful meeting, between a Kremlin-affiliated lawyer and high ranking advisers. If the meeting had blossomed into a real relationship (or there were other channels for the relationship), I have no doubt Trump would know and have been actively involved. If it was one and done, then even if his advisers broke the law (at a minimum, it seems that soliciting opp research from a foreign power is illegal) it does not follow that Trump is directly implicated.
There is no direct evidence of Nixon's involvement in Watergate - despite the fact that top advisers of his were deeply involved in the plan it appears that he did not have prior knowledge of the break-in. This from a president who was far more engaged in executive leadership and details than Trump has ever shown himself to be. Nixon got in trouble because the illegal coverup, not because of the initial scandal. I am not at all convinced that there is enough evidence that Trump was involved in anything illegal ahead of time, but it's entirely plausible that he has, at a minimum, obstructed justice during the investigation. While this may indeed be impeachable (or other as yet unrevealed activity of his may be impeachable), it is not in fact treasonous.
Not really. Now if a transfer of funds was required to buy the material as opp.-research, he might have become aware. But the candidate usually doesn't get involved or even maintain much supervision/overview of efforts to attain such material, just in how it gets used after it's acquired. Someone running for President has an immense amount of stuff to take care of, things like opp-research get delegated, they don't require the personal touch that something like fundraising does. Of course, Congress could always choose to consider not being aware to be negligence. But since that would set a dangerous precedent for their own campaigns I have doubts even the Dems would be willing to go all-in on an impeachment charge like that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
Can't decide whether to argue with wiggin and LittleFuzzy or simply wait for further revelations to contradict them.
"entirely plausible": he fired the head of the FBI to stop an investigation into Russia, then admitted it in an interview.Quote:
Originally Posted by wiggin
They're talking about what conclusions can or can't be drawn, according to legal standards, based on what we currently know with a high degree of certainty. New information can change that assessment. Wrt what Trump did or did not know, it's not unreasonable to believe that he did know about these questionable contacts, but it is also not a certainty and it's not unreasonable to believe the opposite either. Which is interesting from a legal standpoint even if it's less interesting politically.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-a7836826.htmlQuote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
The press has connected enough dots that they could draw the smoking gun in a coloring book, just imagine what the actual investigators already have.
Are we just... not using inference now or something?Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
But there's no evidence of a connect between these two events!Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
Correct, but, even if we were, it would not be straightforward. Let me put it this way: I strongly believe, but I don't know.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
Steely, no 'further revelations' can contradict us because our statements are explicitly predicated on what information is publicly available. I won't speak for LF, but I have serious questions about Trump, the conduct of his campaign, and his relationship with Russia. But I am not willing to convict someone in the court of public opinion based on flimsy evidence. As more information becomes available, it is entirely possible that the case against him will become overwhelming and unassailable. Yet it is currently largely circumstantial evidence backed by inference and supposition. That's certainly concerning, yes, but for a matter as critical as accusing POTUS of impeachable offenses, the standard for proof should be set quite high.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
As for the obstruction issue, I do indeed think a strong case could be made that he has obstructed justice, though IANAL nor do I have all of the information. My main objection has been to you continually arguing that Trump has committed treason, for which there is precious little evidence. It is indeed possible that he is in thrall to (or cahoots with) the Russians, but there is as yet no proof.
We're all looking at the information that is publicly available, it's just that for some reason you and Fuzz seem to insist on looking at each individual piece in isolation, rather than consider the damning picture the totality of what we know paints.Quote:
Originally Posted by wiggin
On their own, a semi-innocent explanation for the Trump Jr e-mails becomes at least somewhat plausible, and if that was all there was I might be more inclined to agree with you. But it isn't. It's damn hard to concoct an innocent explanation which fits with everything we know.
The evidence isn't flimsy, it's damning. What you're looking for is cast iron proof. Waiting for that before holding political leaders to account is how you end up with a culture of impunity. How you've ended up with, rather. Even the appearance of impropriety should be enough to toss his ass out of office, and would be if you had a functional and healthy political culture.Quote:
I won't speak for LF, but I have serious questions about Trump, the conduct of his campaign, and his relationship with Russia. But I am not willing to convict someone in the court of public opinion based on flimsy evidence.
When you hear quacking, you don't need to see the ducks to know they are there. And I can hear quacking.Quote:
As more information becomes available, it is entirely possible that the case against him will become overwhelming and unassailable. Yet it is currently largely circumstantial evidence backed by inference and supposition.
He admitted it.Quote:
As for the obstruction issue, I do indeed think a strong case could be made that he has obstructed justice, though IANAL nor do I have all of the information.
He. Admitted. It.
He openly asked Russia to hack the DNC, too. It's like that scene at the end of American Psycho where Bateman is trying to confess his crimes to everyone around him, and they just laugh him off.
I don't think that there is an innocent explanation for the emails. I explicitly said that I believe that at a minimum Trump Jr. may have violated the law, and Manafort and Kushner possibly as well. But I'm not willing to jump to conclusions without evidence about (a) the level of Trump Sr's knowledge or involvement and (b) broader questions related to collusion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
There is no doubt of the following facts:
1. Russia clearly preferred a Trump victory - or, at a minimum, seriously tainting a Clinton victory by calling our democratic process and her integrity into question.
2. Russia clearly interfered in the election by e.g. hacking and leaking sensitive information as well as broader attempts to call our democracy into question by e.g. attacking local election authorities.
3. Trump, his advisers, and his campaign have, by and large, espoused a more conciliatory line towards Russia than has been standard in Washington since Russia's latest shenanigans in Ukraine and Syria.
4. Members of Trumps' campaign, transition team, and administration have had contact with representatives of the Russian government, at least one of them with the aim of obtaining information that would be beneficial to the campaign. Some of this was illegal/problematic because of the activity itself, some because it was not properly disclosed.
5. Trump himself has tried very hard to end or limit inquiries into the connection between Russian meddling and his advisers using the bully pulpit, unconventional and inappropriate interactions with the Justice Department, firing Comey, and other means. As of yet it is unclear whether any of these means were illegal, but they certainly were fishy and may amount to obstruction of justice.
All of this paints a troubling picture, yes. But what it doesn't do is indicate that the Trump campaign conspired with the Russian government to sway the election, nor does it suggest there was an implicit or explicit quid pro quo for future US policy towards Russia or Russian interests. These last two points are obviously the most concerning and inflammatory, and it's important that we be absolutely sure of the evidence if we make that accusation. The evidence is not yet there, though I will readily admit that the recent revelations certainly help to make that case.
I have said it before, but it merits repeating: I have a natural aversion to nearly anything Trump or his administration does. I can't stand him as a person or as a president and think he is, possibly, the worst president in living memory. I am deeply concerned about his rhetoric and policy priorities. In that context, it's natural for me to want to see the worst in everything related to him, including the ongoing investigations surrounding Russian interference in the election. But precisely because that's my natural inclination, I wish to be scrupulously careful in what conclusions I draw or statements I make. No one will take the opposition seriously if they fulminate over circumstantial evidence... and if there is real evidence to be had in the future, the sides might have already been chosen on the basis of identity and not facts.
I strongly disagree. I don't need 'cast iron proof', but I do need more than 'Trump likes Russia and Russia tried to influence the election in favor of Trump' as evidence. And I think if we go after people without good evidence of guilt, we risk poisoning political discourse even further, and encouraging partisan attempts to remove people from office on the basis of flimsy evidence. Rarely does a presidency go by where there isn't some legitimate concern about POTUS overreaching his power in one way or another; I think it would be very challenging to govern if every controversy brought credible calls for impeachment. It is a tool that should be used sparingly and with the utmost caution.Quote:
The evidence isn't flimsy, it's damning. What you're looking for is cast iron proof. Waiting for that before holding political leaders to account is how you end up with a culture of impunity. How you've ended up with, rather. Even the appearance of impropriety should be enough to toss his ass out of office, and would be if you had a functional and healthy political culture.
He admitted that he fired Comey due to his handling of the Russia investigation. The does not necessarily mean that it rises to the level of obstruction of justice. Certainly from a functional level it doesn't appear that it helped his case at all, though obviously it's possible Trump was stupid enough to imagine it might. The reason I said IANAL is because there are details about what constitutes obstruction that I am frankly not qualified to evaluate. I think that a decent case can be made, though, both based on his actions and his statements. This, far more than an unsubstantiated hypothesis of collusion, is likely to be the most troublesome accusation for Trump. And it should be. But you're not saying 'he obstructed justice', which I'd probably agree with, provisionally. You keep saying he committed treason. That's a pretty damn strong accusation and you don't have proof for it.Quote:
He admitted it.
He. Admitted. It.
He openly asked Russia to hack the DNC, too. It's like that scene at the end of American Psycho where Bateman is trying to confess his crimes to everyone around him, and they just laugh him off.
I think there was collusion during the campaign and that he knew about it/was involved. I've thought it since that dossier came out before he actually stepped into the Oval Office. Hell, I thought calling on the hackers to publicly release their stolen material was itself a violation of campaign law at a minimum, even without the collusion with a foreign government aspect. Call it a preponderance of evidence and "where there's smoke there's fire" interpretation. But you keep talking in terms of a specific pieces of evidence or insisting things are beyond doubt. And that means I'm going to point out that whatever specific piece of material you want to hang things on doesn't really work that way or why people might reasonably doubt. Since apparently nothing actually came of the meeting there is no reason to think Trump or any other candidate HAD to have been aware of it. You can claim that the father/son relationship makes it ridiculous to think they wouldn't talk about it but one can claim with equal plausibility that their established familial and working relationship meant Jr. could be a proxy for Trump and act on his own initiative in a wide range of campaign endeavors including a meeting like this. And if/when we're talking in criminal terms, the whole "preponderance of evidence" thing is strictly verboten. That's a civil standard.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
LF, did you find that dossier at all credible? My understanding was that both journalists and the IC looked into it and couldn't verify any of the details.
https://www.propublica.org/article/m...-emails-maddow
At least Trump is being advised by the very best.
I have to register how much that seems like non-news. Why would the guy contact Kasowitz in the first place? Kasowitz responded like the total jackass he is sure but his nature's been clear from the beginning.
Not really relevant. Threatening to come after someone while in a position of authority is relevant though.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
He's not in a position of authority. He's not the White House Attorney or any other such position. He's a trial attorney working in private practice. He is representing Donald Trump in Trump's persona as a private citizen.