Can't decide whether to argue with wiggin and LittleFuzzy or simply wait for further revelations to contradict them.
Can't decide whether to argue with wiggin and LittleFuzzy or simply wait for further revelations to contradict them.
When the sky above us fell
We descended into hell
Into kingdom come
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.Originally Posted by Steely Glint
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-a7836826.html
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.
Last edited by Ominous Gamer; 07-13-2017 at 01:23 PM.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
Are we just... not using inference now or something?
But there's no evidence of a connect between these two events!
When the sky above us fell
We descended into hell
Into kingdom come
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.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
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.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
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.
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.
"When I meet God, I am going to ask him two questions: Why relativity? And why turbulence? I really believe he will have an answer for the first." - Werner Heisenberg (maybe)
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.
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.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.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.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.
When the sky above us fell
We descended into hell
Into kingdom come
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.
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.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.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.
"When I meet God, I am going to ask him two questions: Why relativity? And why turbulence? I really believe he will have an answer for the first." - Werner Heisenberg (maybe)
President Trump contradicts son, indicates he knew about meeting with Russian lawyer
A reversal from what he said hours earlier.
https://thinkprogress.org/trump-cont...g-a73c7d9420b1
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
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.
"When I meet God, I am going to ask him two questions: Why relativity? And why turbulence? I really believe he will have an answer for the first." - Werner Heisenberg (maybe)
You mean for its claims about Trump himself directly? No. But as I said, "where there's smoke there's fire." I don't believe he was unaware of things like Manafort's ties and I think the Trump team exploited them and sought more.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
https://www.propublica.org/article/m...-emails-maddow
At least Trump is being advised by the very best.
Hope is the denial of reality
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.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
Not really relevant. Threatening to come after someone while in a position of authority is relevant though.
Hope is the denial of reality
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.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
Trump connection aside, is the threat specific enough to warrant an investigation?
Hope is the denial of reality
Not usually, no. "I know where you live" in a reply to an email? If he'd actually included the location it might have merited looking into (though that's not really difficult information to get, having bothered to do so betokens the possibility there may be genuine intent) but as it is? Tough-guy hot air.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
I doubt it. Seems unethical for a lawyer though, but I have no clue if behaviour like that can get you in trouble with the bar.
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
It can if they're already aggravated with you and looking for an excuse but the response in most places/times is going to be either to dismiss a complaint as a private communication not relevant to professional matters or courtesy, an advisory to behave more professionally, or a minor official reprimand (i.e "bad lawyer! Go forth and sin no more")
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
It took almost 2 decades of Jack Thompson attacking various entertainment genres and the Bar itself before he was finally disbarred.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
If you read between the lines of the announcement that he's planning to apologize, it actually says, "I was drunk."
Coincidentally, another Trump-affiliated idiot, Betsy DeVos, also seems to have said crazy things while drunk recently. I see a pattern.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Rare official statement from Jared Kushner: "Oops! ¯\_(ツ)_/¯"
How do any of these people still have access to sensitive information?
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
When the sky above us fell
We descended into hell
Into kingdom come
Geez time for another round of conspiracy theories.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...integrity-doxx
#transparency
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
All right, show of hands: who thinks Junior will be prosecuted over this?
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
What crime do you think Junior himself committed? He's a private citizen, holds no formal office in the US government, and so he can collude with the Russians all he likes. There might be a minor crime in knowingly receiving stolen property but there isn't one in in failing to do so. And while there'd definitely be a crime in conspiring to hack DNC servers, that had already happened and he was just trying to get the information they managed to grab after hacking independently. The wrongful action was by the Trump campaign (and if Trump knew about it by Trump himself) but that doesn't necessarily mean criminal action by various individuals involved.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
In light of recent events, this is hilarious:
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-...709-story.html
Is Blackwell the most transparent US politician in history?
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Most of the commentary on the legal aspects of Jr's emails seems to have focused on his role in the Trump campaign and on whether or not any statutes pertaining to campaign contributions and the solicitation of help of from foreign powers were violated. There is a series of posts on Just Security exploring these ideas, eg: https://www.justsecurity.org/43111/l...mp-jr-meeting/
Similar discussions on electionlawblog.org (where there's a growing list of references clarifying the concept of "anything of value") and in a number of articles compiling brief opinions from legal scholars. I haven't yet seen much attention given to the question of whether or not both Jr and his dad are somehow protected by Jr's distance (such as it was) from the campaign. The testimony from the Russian lobbyist suggests that he not only knowingly attempted to obtain an illegal contribution (in the form of harmful information about an opponent) from a foreign agent on behalf of the campaign but also that he received that information. I'm not yet sure where the jury currently stands on Jr's or anyone else's individual culpability.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote