The Swamp

An updated definition of what treason is? Do we need to be pedantic and create a word here?

Cyber warfare is still warfare.

"Actively going against the best interests of America by aligning with a hostile foreign power who you are not at physical, kinetic war with."

Seems like fucking treason to me.

"Aldrich Ames, treasonous bastard."

"Whoa, whoa, whoa, that wasn't TECHNICALLY treason."

tennbengal wrote: ↑Fri Jul 27, 2018 9:00 am "Aldrich Ames, treasonous bastard."

"Whoa, whoa, whoa, that wasn't TECHNICALLY treason."

I get it, but when we are talking about indicting or impeaching the President for a crime of treason, it has to meet the legal definition of treason, not the common (mis)usage of the word.

He could personally bomb Portland while wearing a full Russian national team kit and congress wouldn't charge him with treason.

A_B wrote: ↑Fri Jul 27, 2018 7:23 am

Baloney wrote: ↑Fri Jul 27, 2018 6:57 am

Pruitt wrote: ↑Thu Jul 26, 2018 4:38 pm

degenerasian wrote: ↑Thu Jul 26, 2018 3:19 pm Ok.

I am naively still reaching over to the other side but if you guys have concluded that the group is lost I won't bring it up again.

Please don;t think I'm being condescending, but your naivety is kind of touching.

First year US Poli Sci class, the Professor laid it out that 40% in the US votes Republican and 40% votes Democrats, every single time.

the billions and billions that are spent in each election cycle is in an effort to sway the remaining 20%.

Also, the bottom 9 states in GDP per capita are - Kentucky, Montana, Arizona, South Carolina, Alabama, Arkansas, West Virginia, Idaho and Mississippi

Add Tennessee, Kentucky, Louisiana, Oklahoma and the Dakotas and you pretty much have the bottom third in education.

That's a lot of red states. You can't apply the ability to think to the majority of voters in states such as these.

Your double dipping on Kentucky there....

It's the long-standing Canada-Kentucky feud rearing its ugly head again.

To the Swamp Wrestling Federation thread!

mister d wrote: ↑Fri Jul 27, 2018 9:12 am He could personally bomb Portland while wearing a full Russian national team kit and congress wouldn't charge him with treason.

As long as we don't improperly call it treason, it's all good.

File this under no shit Sherlock.

‘Junk’ political news shared more widely by Trump backers, study finds

I have an ongoing side debate/war going on twitter with a frenemy who is a Trumper. (A lot of it is public I think if you look at my twitter timeline - a bit confusing though because we have the same first name.) I like to say "treasonous" to him a lot because it makes him crazy.

Avenatti vs Dershowitz on CNN, got heated

Everything is a Jerry Springer episode these days.

I haven’t seen any verification of this, but if true this is nuts:

Pruitt wrote: ↑Sun Jul 29, 2018 6:53 am

aside from the shameless cowards of his base they didn't conduct polls in the 1860s. But we already knew he is a moron

Square Rob wrote: ↑Sun Jul 29, 2018 6:31 am I haven’t seen any verification of this, but if true this is nuts:

This has been known since a few weeks after the election. Devos was bought.

Hey Lawyers...

Does Anything Giuliani Says Here Make Any Sense?

Strictly speaking, Giuliani is probably right that colluding with “the Russians” isn’t a crime by itself. But depending on the specific circumstances it could be a crime for conspiracy to commit computer hacking or conspiracy to violate campaign laws. But that may be hard to prove against Trump himself. There’s also a real question about whether Mueller would even indict a sitting President. But Giuiliani’s real goal here is probably just to signal to the GOP Congress, and to Trump’s base, that Trump shouldn’t be impeached for unethical conduct that isn’t actually criminal.

Umm, plot twist.

Joe K wrote: ↑Tue Jul 31, 2018 6:46 am Strictly speaking, Giuliani is probably right that colluding with “the Russians” isn’t a crime by itself. But depending on the specific circumstances it could be a crime for conspiracy to commit computer hacking or conspiracy to violate campaign laws. But that may be hard to prove against Trump himself. There’s also a real question about whether Mueller would even indict a sitting President. But Giuiliani’s real goal here is probably just to signal to the GOP Congress, and to Trump’s base, that Trump shouldn’t be impeached for unethical conduct that isn’t actually criminal.

You give Rudy more credit than I do. I think he is intentionally trying to lie, but his cognitive abilities have clearly fallen off. He is a rambling incoherent mess, and continues to hurt Trump's defense during most of his appearances. So yes, "colluding ABOUT the Russians" as he said, is not a crime, but taking a meeting with Russian government agents to accept criminally stolen information in an attempt to win a Presidential Election is.

The Sybian wrote: ↑Tue Jul 31, 2018 7:12 am

Joe K wrote: ↑Tue Jul 31, 2018 6:46 am Strictly speaking, Giuliani is probably right that colluding with “the Russians” isn’t a crime by itself. But depending on the specific circumstances it could be a crime for conspiracy to commit computer hacking or conspiracy to violate campaign laws. But that may be hard to prove against Trump himself. There’s also a real question about whether Mueller would even indict a sitting President. But Giuiliani’s real goal here is probably just to signal to the GOP Congress, and to Trump’s base, that Trump shouldn’t be impeached for unethical conduct that isn’t actually criminal.

So yes, "colluding ABOUT the Russians" as he said, is not a crime, but taking a meeting with Russian government agents to accept criminally stolen information in an attempt to win a Presidential Election is.

Is it, though? Accepting criminally stolen information certainly isn’t a crime for media outlets, or else every major newspaper in the country would be in trouble. Is it a crime for a political campaign to accept criminally-obtained information after the fact, without more? I would think that if you paid for the information in advance (and perhaps even after the fact) you’d have conspiracy liability but I’d be surprised if accepting the information is itself a crime.

Joe K wrote: ↑Tue Jul 31, 2018 7:34 am

The Sybian wrote: ↑Tue Jul 31, 2018 7:12 am

Joe K wrote: ↑Tue Jul 31, 2018 6:46 am Strictly speaking, Giuliani is probably right that colluding with “the Russians” isn’t a crime by itself. But depending on the specific circumstances it could be a crime for conspiracy to commit computer hacking or conspiracy to violate campaign laws. But that may be hard to prove against Trump himself. There’s also a real question about whether Mueller would even indict a sitting President. But Giuiliani’s real goal here is probably just to signal to the GOP Congress, and to Trump’s base, that Trump shouldn’t be impeached for unethical conduct that isn’t actually criminal.

So yes, "colluding ABOUT the Russians" as he said, is not a crime, but taking a meeting with Russian government agents to accept criminally stolen information in an attempt to win a Presidential Election is.

Is it, though? Accepting criminally stolen information certainly isn’t a crime for media outlets, or else every major newspaper in the country would be in trouble. Is it a crime for a political campaign to accept criminally-obtained information after the fact, without more? I would think that if you paid for the information in advance (and perhaps even after the fact) you’d have conspiracy liability but I’d be surprised if accepting the information is itself a crime.

A politician’s goals ≠ the Press’.

EnochRoot wrote: ↑Tue Jul 31, 2018 8:28 am

Joe K wrote: ↑Tue Jul 31, 2018 7:34 am

The Sybian wrote: ↑Tue Jul 31, 2018 7:12 am

Joe K wrote: ↑Tue Jul 31, 2018 6:46 am Strictly speaking, Giuliani is probably right that colluding with “the Russians” isn’t a crime by itself. But depending on the specific circumstances it could be a crime for conspiracy to commit computer hacking or conspiracy to violate campaign laws. But that may be hard to prove against Trump himself. There’s also a real question about whether Mueller would even indict a sitting President. But Giuiliani’s real goal here is probably just to signal to the GOP Congress, and to Trump’s base, that Trump shouldn’t be impeached for unethical conduct that isn’t actually criminal.

So yes, "colluding ABOUT the Russians" as he said, is not a crime, but taking a meeting with Russian government agents to accept criminally stolen information in an attempt to win a Presidential Election is.

Is it, though? Accepting criminally stolen information certainly isn’t a crime for media outlets, or else every major newspaper in the country would be in trouble. Is it a crime for a political campaign to accept criminally-obtained information after the fact, without more? I would think that if you paid for the information in advance (and perhaps even after the fact) you’d have conspiracy liability but I’d be surprised if accepting the information is itself a crime.

A politician’s goals ≠ the Press’.

That is true, to a degree, but think about this in terms of a politician less odious than Trump. If whoever gave The NY Times Trump’s tax return instead mailed them to the Clinton campaign, are you guys saying that you think it would be a crime for her campaign to then use them or pass them along to a media outlet? Maybe so, but I’m skeptical.

Joe K wrote: ↑Tue Jul 31, 2018 8:33 am

EnochRoot wrote: ↑Tue Jul 31, 2018 8:28 am

Joe K wrote: ↑Tue Jul 31, 2018 7:34 am

The Sybian wrote: ↑Tue Jul 31, 2018 7:12 am

Joe K wrote: ↑Tue Jul 31, 2018 6:46 am Strictly speaking, Giuliani is probably right that colluding with “the Russians” isn’t a crime by itself. But depending on the specific circumstances it could be a crime for conspiracy to commit computer hacking or conspiracy to violate campaign laws. But that may be hard to prove against Trump himself. There’s also a real question about whether Mueller would even indict a sitting President. But Giuiliani’s real goal here is probably just to signal to the GOP Congress, and to Trump’s base, that Trump shouldn’t be impeached for unethical conduct that isn’t actually criminal.

So yes, "colluding ABOUT the Russians" as he said, is not a crime, but taking a meeting with Russian government agents to accept criminally stolen information in an attempt to win a Presidential Election is.

Is it, though? Accepting criminally stolen information certainly isn’t a crime for media outlets, or else every major newspaper in the country would be in trouble. Is it a crime for a political campaign to accept criminally-obtained information after the fact, without more? I would think that if you paid for the information in advance (and perhaps even after the fact) you’d have conspiracy liability but I’d be surprised if accepting the information is itself a crime.

A politician’s goals ≠ the Press’.

That is true, to a degree, but think about this in terms of a politician less odious than Trump. If whoever gave The NY Times Trump’s tax return instead mailed them to the Clinton campaign, are you guys saying that you think it would be a crime for her campaign to then use them or pass them along to a media outlet? Maybe so, but I’m skeptical.

I’m saying the press’s goal is to get at the truth. The root definition of media is middle - to get at the goings-on in the world in order to inform the public.

If some actor turned over Trump’s taxes to the Clinton Campaign and they uncovered a whole slew of Russian and Eastern Europe shady banking ventures, I think it’s safe to say the Intelligence Community was already aware of it. The play would be to get this to the national media, and CC the intelligence community.

Ok, then if the standard you’re using is that a campaign can use stolen information if there is a compelling public interest in its disclosure, you just gave Trump a really good defense argument.

Part of why I’m skeptical here is that the only charges that Mueller’s team has brought against US citizens related to the campaign is for lying to investigators. No one has been charged for arranging or attending the Trump Tower meeting or for what Pappadopolous said to the Aussie guy about the campaign knowing about the hack.

As a dude with a security clearance, if I'm contacted by a hostile foreign government, I am to call higher authorities (OSI, the FBI, whoever) IMMEDIATELY.

Like, what the fuck are we doing right now? Splitting hairs over what a conspiracy is? What's the intent of a foreign government trying to coerce and conspire with a political party with leveraged documents over the rival political party? Both sides are American with the duty to serve the American people and government.

Dems 2018: "We Will Act Exceedingly and Embarrassingly in Good Faith, Even if it Kills You"

This started because Pruitt asked the question about Giuiliani’s widely-mocked comments that “collusion isn’t a crime.” I pointed out my view that although Giuiliani is obviously a blowhard there’s probably some truth to what he’s saying. And that I think it’s indicative of a strategy to show an ultimate lack of criminal charges against Trump as “vindication” to stave off impeachment. You can call the discussion splitting hairs, but Mueller can’t just bring criminal charges against Trump because his actions were unethical or immoral. There needs to be a criminal offense that fits his actions. And Mueller really doesn’t seem like the type to charge a sitting president, or his family members, unless he’s pretty convinced he can make it stick.

Joe K wrote: ↑Tue Jul 31, 2018 9:01 am Ok, then if the standard you’re using is that a campaign can use stolen information if there is a compelling public interest in its disclosure, you just gave Trump a really good defense argument.

Part of why I’m skeptical here is that the only charges that Mueller’s team has brought against US citizens related to the campaign is for lying to investigators. No one has been charged for arranging or attending the Trump Tower meeting or for what Pappadopolous said to the Aussie guy about the campaign knowing about the hack.

I'm a web designer not a political strategist or lawyer. Not sure what you meant by it giving Trump a good defense argument. Hell, I'd have probably baited WikiLeaks with a not-so blind CC to the Intelligence Community, to put the fucking cards on the table.

I'll say this though: Mueller is circling the wagons. Maybe not as fast as most of us would like, but the truth will see the light. What happens with it is another question.

Collusion is a misnomer. Conspiracy is the crime.

If he can piece together every moment of those Trump Tower meetings and conclude that it was done to fuck with the government, that's what we're dealing with here.

Like Capone with tax evasion, if Trump ever goes down it'll be for campaign finance laws. There's already enough evidence w/r/t to the Stormy Daniels and the McDougal cases that numerous federal laws were violated. Of course Trump supporters will claim small potatoes, but those charges will stick and will be prosecutable when he's out of office (and will make for many more salacious headlines).

Ideally, Mueller is turning up stuff that can be used to prosecute at the NYAG state level (racketeering?) since Trump can't pardon himself for those crimes.

Johnnie wrote: ↑Tue Jul 31, 2018 7:10 am Umm, plot twist.

This is a war from which I'd hope there are no winners.

I don't think that Trump ever knelt before the Koch's. Didn't he skip the Koch summit during the primaries. He has done their bidding quite well though but I don't think he kissed the ring.

Now, I wish the Koches would retaliate by using their money against Trump and his acolytes.

sancarlos wrote: ↑Tue Jul 31, 2018 11:30 am Now, I wish the Koches would retaliate by using their money against Trump and his acolytes.

Maybe that study that they funded that comes out in favour of Bernie's Medicare For All is the first step in them becoming Democratic Socialists.

Rush2112 wrote: ↑Tue Jul 31, 2018 11:34 am

sancarlos wrote: ↑Tue Jul 31, 2018 11:30 am Now, I wish the Koches would retaliate by using their money against Trump and his acolytes.

Maybe that study that they funded that comes out in favour of Bernie's Medicare For All is the first step in them becoming Democratic Socialists.

Maybe they can even team up with George Soros!

There is also this

i don't know what's going on.

Joe K wrote: ↑Tue Jul 31, 2018 7:34 am

The Sybian wrote: ↑Tue Jul 31, 2018 7:12 am

Joe K wrote: ↑Tue Jul 31, 2018 6:46 am Strictly speaking, Giuliani is probably right that colluding with “the Russians” isn’t a crime by itself. But depending on the specific circumstances it could be a crime for conspiracy to commit computer hacking or conspiracy to violate campaign laws. But that may be hard to prove against Trump himself. There’s also a real question about whether Mueller would even indict a sitting President. But Giuiliani’s real goal here is probably just to signal to the GOP Congress, and to Trump’s base, that Trump shouldn’t be impeached for unethical conduct that isn’t actually criminal.

So yes, "colluding ABOUT the Russians" as he said, is not a crime, but taking a meeting with Russian government agents to accept criminally stolen information in an attempt to win a Presidential Election is.

Is it, though? Accepting criminally stolen information certainly isn’t a crime for media outlets, or else every major newspaper in the country would be in trouble. Is it a crime for a political campaign to accept criminally-obtained information after the fact, without more? I would think that if you paid for the information in advance (and perhaps even after the fact) you’d have conspiracy liability but I’d be surprised if accepting the information is itself a crime.

Yes. Accepting anything that potentially benefits a political campaign is consider a campaign contribution, and it's illegal to accept campaign contributions from a foreign government. It appears several Trump campaign officials, especially Don Jr. knowingly and actively sought to obtain this information (I love it!). It always appeared like Trump was aware of the meeting, and even promised a press conference to announce the dirt on Hillary that he expected to learn from this meeting. Then he publicly asked Russia to hack Hillary to get her missing e-mails, and either later that day or the next day, Russian government agents did just that. If Mueller can get evidence to substantiate what Cohen is alleging, I think we have extremely clear evidence of a conspiracy with Russian agents to commit a crime. I'm also confident Mueller, and more importantly the NY Attorney General, will make rock solid cases of money laundering, fraud and other financial crimes committed by Trump and the Trump organization. The pathetic thing is how little effort Trump put into hiding his crimes. The only question is whether any of it matters. Trump will pardon everyone convicted of Federal crimes. I suspect he would pardon them before they go to trial, so no evidence against him comes out. Manafort seems to be holding strong and not ratting out Trump, so his pardon has not come out yet. If New York wants to indict Trump on state crimes, it's unclear whether they could indict a sitting President, or if they'd have to wait until after he is out of office.

No matter what evidence is compiled, Trump's 35% will refuse to believe it. Trump will tell them it's Fake News, it's the Deep State lying to bring him down because he is doing tremendous things to make America great, and the haters are jealous or don't want to see the little guy win. Nothing matters to them, and an attempt to impeach in light of 100% rock solid evidence will be seen as an attack on Democracy, and they will fight to protect Trump. They are a cult, and any information against the cult is a lie, and anyone against the cult is evil and must be destroyed.

Manafort is never going to flip and it's not because he's worried about Trump. Trump is a clown compared to the dudes Manafort was doing business with in Russia and Ukraine. Fucking with those guys gets you a polonium-238 enema.

degenerasian wrote: ↑Tue Jul 31, 2018 11:57 am There is also this

i don't know what's going on.

Sort of like the Ukrainians that fought with the Nazis against the Russians I guess. Those with common enemies make strange friends.