The Indictment Thread (Trump Admin Meltdown Thread Part II)

Steve of phpBB · Post by **Steve of phpBB** » Tue Nov 21, 2017 12:33 am

I think the key is that the Trump people colluded with Russia to get dirt *that was obtained illegally*.

The Russians broke into the DNC and Podesta computer systems. They stole emails. Not much different from Nixon's people breaking into the DNC offices at Watergate. And the Trump campaign then was willing to surreptitiously work with these criminals to take advantage of those crimes.

Relatedly, the information that the Trumps wanted to get from Russia was domestic information - so again, this is taking advantage of Russian espionage inside the United States.

That is a completely different ballgame from hiring Steele to investigate, or even from talking to a foreign government to find out what that foreign government knows about things happening in that foreign country.

Joe K · Post by **Joe K** » Tue Nov 21, 2017 6:49 am

Steve of phpBB wrote:I think the key is that the Trump people colluded with Russia to get dirt *that was obtained illegally*.

I agree that this matters but I still think the timing of said collusion, and whether it occurred prior to or simultaneously with the theft of the information, is significant. Keep in mind that some of Trump's tax returns were sent, almost certainly illegally, to The NY Times during the campaign. I'm not saying the Clinton campaign had anything to do with that, but if whoever the source of that info was had contacted the campaign first, instead of The NY Times, I wouldn't have a problem with the campaign using that info (or forwarding it along to a media outlet), instead of contacting the FBI. Further dissemination of illegally obtained information isn't a crime -- if it were, every major media outlet in the world would be in deep shit for reporting on the information that Chelsea Manning and Edward Snowden leaked. For this reason, any Watergate comparisons are premature unless or until we learn that the Trump campaign helped coordinate the theft.

tennbengal · Post by **tennbengal** » Tue Nov 21, 2017 8:07 am

I agree that this matters but I still think the timing of said collusion, and whether it occurred prior to or simultaneously with the theft of the information, is significant.

Full disagreement.

The Sybian · Post by **The Sybian** » Tue Nov 21, 2017 8:36 am

Joe K wrote:But yes, the DNC did pay a private company to dig for dirt, and they interviewed Russian officials.

I agree with you that the two are not equivalent, and that any discussions of lifting sanctions (or any other policy concessions) are a problem. But the parts I bolded make it seem like you're saying that soliciting campaign help from Russian government officials is okay, but only if you do it through a private party as an intermediary. That seems like a tenuous distinction, which further shows that "meeting with Russians" by itself (without something like criminal action or policy quid pro quos) isn't necessarily an out-of-bounds act. I think we're in agreement about the importance of proving criminality, and this just shows the risks in jumping the gun before the investigation uncovers that proof.

[/quote]

The difference is what was exchanged for the information. It's not 100% confirmed, but it really sounds like the Russians were exchanging illegally obtained information for Trump's promise to change laws and policies to benefit Russia and Russian oligarchs. Trump made public statements and took positions almost immediately after WikiLeaks told Don Jr Trump should take those positions. Then the campaign team told countless lies in Congressional testimony that they never met or communicated with Russian officials, which is rapidly falling apart.

Maybe I am naive as to what Steele offered in exchange for information, but unless he was authorized by Hillary or the DNC to promise payoffs or policy promises to the Russians in exchange for their information, the two things aren't comparable. There is nothing wrong with paying oppositional researchers to ask questions and dig for dirt. The difference is promising policy changes or taking orders from Russia.

tennbengal · Post by **tennbengal** » Tue Nov 21, 2017 9:09 am

The difference is what was exchanged for the information. It's not 100% confirmed, but it really sounds like the Russians were exchanging illegally obtained information for Trump's promise to change laws and policies to benefit Russia and Russian oligarchs. Trump made public statements and took positions almost immediately after WikiLeaks told Don Jr Trump should take those positions. Then the campaign team told countless lies in Congressional testimony that they never met or communicated with Russian officials, which is rapidly falling apart.

Maybe I am naive as to what Steele offered in exchange for information, but unless he was authorized by Hillary or the DNC to promise payoffs or policy promises to the Russians in exchange for their information, the two things aren't comparable. There is nothing wrong with paying oppositional researchers to ask questions and dig for dirt. The difference is promising policy changes or taking orders from Russia.

Thank you.

JoeK - you do see this difference, right?

Joe K · Post by **Joe K** » Tue Nov 21, 2017 9:26 am

tennbengal wrote:
The difference is what was exchanged for the information. It's not 100% confirmed, but it really sounds like the Russians were exchanging illegally obtained information for Trump's promise to change laws and policies to benefit Russia and Russian oligarchs. Trump made public statements and took positions almost immediately after WikiLeaks told Don Jr Trump should take those positions. Then the campaign team told countless lies in Congressional testimony that they never met or communicated with Russian officials, which is rapidly falling apart.

Maybe I am naive as to what Steele offered in exchange for information, but unless he was authorized by Hillary or the DNC to promise payoffs or policy promises to the Russians in exchange for their information, the two things aren't comparable. There is nothing wrong with paying oppositional researchers to ask questions and dig for dirt. The difference is promising policy changes or taking orders from Russia.

Thank you.

JoeK - you do see this difference, right?

Of course. But I also don't think it's been proven (yet) that there were any policy promises made. Several actions the Trump administration has taken (bombing Syrian runways, putting staunch NATO/EU supporters in foreign policy roles, etc.) are antithetical to Russian interests. If that's proven it's obviously a huge deal, and should in any normal political climate be an impeachable offense.

tennbengal · Post by **tennbengal** » Tue Nov 21, 2017 11:13 am

Just gonna leave this here. It's long, but probably should be read:

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/ar ... on/546356/

One hundred thirty-nine years since Reconstruction, and half a century since the tail end of the civil-rights movement, a majority of white voters backed a candidate who explicitly pledged to use the power of the state against people of color and religious minorities, and stood by him as that pledge has been among the few to survive the first year of his presidency. Their support was enough to win the White House, and has solidified a return to a politics of white identity that has been one of the most destructive forces in American history. This all occurred before the eyes of a disbelieving press and political class, who plunged into fierce denial about how and why this had happened. That is the story of the 2016 election.

...

Trump’s great political insight was that Obama’s time in office inflicted a profound psychological wound on many white Americans, one that he could remedy by adopting the false narrative that placed the first black president outside the bounds of American citizenship. He intuited that Obama’s presence in the White House decreased the value of what W. E. B. Du Bois described as the “psychological wage” of whiteness across all classes of white Americans, and that the path to their hearts lay in invoking a bygone past when this affront had not, and could not, take place.

Nonlinear FC · Post by **Nonlinear FC** » Tue Nov 21, 2017 12:43 pm

And I'll just leave THIS here. It's kind of long. Probably should read.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics ... -analogies

Ezra Klein, comparing Bush 2005 to Trump 2017.

What this period most closely resembles, argues political scientist Brendan Nyhan, is the aftermath of the 2004 election, when George W. Bush defeated John Kerry. Then, like now, a culturally polarizing Republican candidate was narrowly elected after a campaign waged atop nationalistic, identitarian appeals. Then, like now, the GOP gained control of both the White House and Congress. Then, like now, the winner had no clear policy mandate, and quickly suffered massive legislative defeat (Social Security privatization for Bush, Obamacare repeal for Trump). Then, like now, the president watched his favorability ratings tumble into the 30s, and appeared to be headed for a severe backlash in the midterms.

2006 was a historic tsunami election for the Dems.

This idea that we are permanently doomed just doesn't jibe with very recent history. (Not to mention this November.) There's a reckoning coming for the GOP.

Avram · Post by **Avram** » Tue Nov 21, 2017 1:20 pm

The big difference is the massive gerrymandering that took place after the 2010 census
Flipping both houses would be fantastic. If the Dems flipped Congress in 2018 I would have morning wood for 2 days

sancarlos · Post by **sancarlos** » Tue Nov 21, 2017 1:30 pm

Avram wrote:The big difference is the massive gerrymandering that took place after the 2010 census
Flipping both houses would be fantastic. If the Dems flipped Congress in 2018 I would have morning wood for 2 days

Off topic - I know the winemaker:

Nonlinear FC · Post by **Nonlinear FC** » Tue Nov 21, 2017 1:58 pm

And, tb, I was gonna PM you, but I wanted to say this publicly.

I totally understand where you are coming from and I've always respected your opinion. I don't want to get in the habit of just knee-jerk disagreeing with you or anyone else on here. I try to listen and absorb most angles when trying to settle on a stance. A lot of what you are saying is resonating. And it's frightening.

For my sanity, I am choosing to be optimistic and for that reason I'm not sure I'm being totally realistic. I HOPE I am. But I readily concede that this is an extremely volatile situation that could very easily slide down the mountain.

tennbengal · Post by **tennbengal** » Tue Nov 21, 2017 2:03 pm

Nonlinear FC wrote:And, tb, I was gonna PM you, but I wanted to say this publicly.

I totally understand where you are coming from and I've always respected your opinion. I don't want to get in the habit of just knee-jerk disagreeing with you or anyone else on here. I try to listen and absorb most angles when trying to settle on a stance. A lot of what you are saying is resonating. And it's frightening.

For my sanity, I am choosing to be optimistic and for that reason I'm not sure I'm being totally realistic. I HOPE I am. But I readily concede that this is an extremely volatile situation that could very easily slide down the mountain.

No worries on my end. My natural bent toward pessimism isn't helped AT ALL by what has transpired. I am hoping with all I have that you are right and we have a way out of this starting in 2018.

Johnnie · Post by **Johnnie** » Tue Nov 21, 2017 10:32 pm

If there are democrats still calling for Franken to resign, realize it's moral virtuosity like that which makes them lose elections. As if forcing him to step down will bring some karmic retribution in the field of politics.

The admitted sexual assaulter in chief has fully endorsed a pedophile to a Senate seat because 'we can't tolerate a liberal Democrat' in that position. The Trumpublicans condone this monstrous piece of shit and self righteous democrats are calling to axe one of their own. Laughable.

I wish they'd learn how to play this fucking game instead of getting bent over every time there's an opportunity to capitalize.

mister d · Post by **mister d** » Tue Nov 21, 2017 11:10 pm

“You grab what you want and fuck who you want and that doesn’t change until the republicans start to take responsibility for doing the same and then we’ll follow along!”

EnochRoot · Post by **EnochRoot** » Wed Nov 22, 2017 10:16 am

Johnnie wrote:If there are democrats still calling for Franken to resign, realize it's moral virtuosity like that which makes them lose elections. As if forcing him to step down will bring some karmic retribution in the field of politics.

The admitted sexual assaulter in chief has fully endorsed a pedophile to a Senate seat because 'we can't tolerate a liberal Democrat' in that position. The Trumpublicans condone this monstrous piece of shit and self righteous democrats are calling to axe one of their own. Laughable.

I wish they'd learn how to play this fucking game instead of getting bent over every time there's an opportunity to capitalize.

It makes them susceptible to the Lee Atwaters and Roger Stones of the world, no question. Get them to fall on their sword! Make them deny they boff'd pigs!

SQUEEEEEEEEE!

Post by **brian** » Wed Nov 22, 2017 10:58 am

https://twitter.com/tomscocca/status/933327379602247681

Pruitt · Post by **Pruitt** » Wed Nov 22, 2017 12:04 pm

https://twitter.com/tomscocca/status/933327379602247681

Henceforth it will be known as the "failing NBA."

The Sybian · Post by **The Sybian** » Wed Nov 22, 2017 10:40 pm

Man, Lavar Ball is fucking insane! If you can get through it, this this interview with Chris Cuomo is amazing. Ball is really just a Keegan Michael Key character, right?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pRU1PBhhPd4

A_B · Post by **A_B** » Wed Nov 22, 2017 10:51 pm

You done messed up Ell-on-zo!

Pruitt · Post by **Pruitt** » Thu Nov 23, 2017 6:49 am

The Sybian wrote:Man, Lavar Ball is fucking insane! If you can get through it, this this interview with Chris Cuomo is amazing. Ball is really just a Keegan Michael Key character, right?

One of the highlights of the year!

Johnnie · Post by **Johnnie** » Thu Nov 23, 2017 12:14 pm

I made it to 13 minutes.

That was fucking stupid. Between Trump needing praise for everything and being petty about it on Twitter (LavVar's point that Cuomo can't grasp) and just saying thank you for however the president may have helped in a diplomatic situation (Cuomo's point that LaVar seems to want to sidestep - even though a situation like this relies on the State Department), that was nothing but fluff for ratings.

News television is dumb. Thanks, Jeff Zucker. You fuck.

Johnnie · Post by **Johnnie** » Thu Nov 23, 2017 6:53 pm

A Split From Trump Indicates That Flynn Is Moving to Cooperate With Mueller

Opening paragraph:

Lawyers for Michael T. Flynn, President Trump’s former national security adviser, notified the president’s legal team in recent days that they could no longer discuss the special counsel’s investigation, according to four people involved in the case, an indication that Mr. Flynn is cooperating with prosecutors or negotiating a deal.

But later in the article:

The notification alone does not prove that Mr. Flynn is cooperating with Mr. Mueller. Some lawyers withdraw from information-sharing arrangements as soon as they begin negotiating with prosecutors. And such negotiations sometimes fall apart.

Make up your fucking mind.

mister d · Post by **mister d** » Thu Nov 23, 2017 8:21 pm

There’s nothing contradictory there.

Brontoburglar · Post by **Brontoburglar** » Fri Nov 24, 2017 12:04 pm

mister d wrote:There’s nothing contradictory there.

seconded. the use of "indication" in the first paragraph is important.

Pruitt · Post by **Pruitt** » Fri Nov 24, 2017 2:14 pm

Superman on the case!

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/sta ... tosize%3D1

Post by **Sabo** » Fri Nov 24, 2017 8:44 pm

In light of Trump’s tweets about Time Magazine’s Man of the Year, I really, really, really hope they name Robert Mueller Man of the Year.

Johnny Carwash · Post by **Johnny Carwash** » Fri Nov 24, 2017 9:15 pm

Sabo wrote:In light of Trump’s tweets about Time Magazine’s Man of the Year, I really, really, really hope they name Robert Mueller Man of the Year.

I was thinking about this a few days ago, and I feel like there's a 99% chance the Person of the Year is going to be something abstract, like "The Protestor" or "Women."

Pruitt · Post by **Pruitt** » Sat Nov 25, 2017 6:26 am

Johnny Carwash wrote:
Sabo wrote:In light of Trump’s tweets about Time Magazine’s Man of the Year, I really, really, really hope they name Robert Mueller Man of the Year.

I was thinking about this a few days ago, and I feel like there's a 99% chance the Person of the Year is going to be something abstract, like "The Protestor" or "Women."

Or "The Hacker."

Ryan · Post by **Ryan** » Sat Nov 25, 2017 7:51 am

Alec Baldwin

mister d · Post by **mister d** » Sat Nov 25, 2017 9:29 am

The biggest dork move would be to name an unknown with an elaborate backstory then later disclose that wasn’t a real person and the real winner is “fake news”.

degenerasian · Post by **degenerasian** » Sun Nov 26, 2017 9:38 pm

Pruitt wrote:
Johnny Carwash wrote:
Sabo wrote:In light of Trump’s tweets about Time Magazine’s Man of the Year, I really, really, really hope they name Robert Mueller Man of the Year.

I was thinking about this a few days ago, and I feel like there's a 99% chance the Person of the Year is going to be something abstract, like "The Protestor" or "Women."

Or "The Hacker."

Or #metoo

Johnnie · Post by **Johnnie** » Sun Nov 26, 2017 10:40 pm

Doesn't matter. Joke's on us, still.

https://twitter.com/Reuters/status/934968891192893440

Post by **Shirley** » Mon Nov 27, 2017 12:23 am

Johnnie wrote:Doesn't matter. Joke's on us, still.

https://twitter.com/Reuters/status/934968891192893440

I love that Patrick Swayze made that cover.

Johnnie · Post by **Johnnie** » Mon Nov 27, 2017 4:06 pm

Would have been better if his photo was in either of Princess Di's, Jackie O's, or Elvis's spots, however.

Johnnie · Post by **Johnnie** » Mon Nov 27, 2017 5:13 pm

It's astounding how much trouble I'd be on if I did this.

Good to know that at 17 years old I was held to a higher standard than the current president.

https://twitter.com/keliasiobhan/status ... 8084280322

Pruitt · Post by **Pruitt** » Mon Nov 27, 2017 5:28 pm

Johnnie wrote:It's astounding how much trouble I'd be on if I did this.

Good to know that at 17 years old I was held to a higher standard than the current president.

https://twitter.com/keliasiobhan/status ... 8084280322

OMFG - as the kids would say.

Johnnie, I'll bet that as an 8 year old, you were held to a higher standard than this.

Johnnie · Post by **Johnnie** » Mon Nov 27, 2017 10:06 pm

3rd grade? Probably.

I just cannot wrap my head around the fact that there are these strict guidelines for military members using social media accounts and to have a professional image at all times when representing the military.

And yet here's my ultimate boss doing this shit. There seems to be no one holding him accountable for anything. There are current and prior members of the military in Congress.

Having policy disagreements is one thing. But to be an outright scumbag subhumanoid racist piece of fucking shit and representing America as the "leader of the free world"? It's bullshit. Complete fucking bullshit. A YouTube commenter troll is president and no one is ashamed.

The Sybian · Post by **The Sybian** » Tue Nov 28, 2017 12:09 pm

Johnnie wrote:3rd grade? Probably.

I just cannot wrap my head around the fact that there are these strict guidelines for military members using social media accounts and to have a professional image at all times when representing the military.

And yet here's my ultimate boss doing this shit. There seems to be no one holding him accountable for anything. There are current and prior members of the military in Congress.

Having policy disagreements is one thing. But to be an outright scumbag subhumanoid racist piece of fucking shit and representing America as the "leader of the free world"? It's bullshit. Complete fucking bullshit. A YouTube commenter troll is president and no one is ashamed.

He was elected BECAUSE he behaves like a petulant child. His base loves it. Hopefully one day it will catch up with him, but it's gotten him this far...

mister d · Post by **mister d** » Tue Nov 28, 2017 12:28 pm

There's nothing he can say at this point to a non-white that will move the dial. That's not hyperbole.

Pruitt · Post by **Pruitt** » Tue Nov 28, 2017 12:48 pm

mister d wrote:There's nothing he can say at this point to a non-white that will move the dial. That's not hyperbole.

He did say he could shoot someone on 5th avenue and not lose votes. That may not have been hyperbole.