Comrade Trump

[BlueK]

So he got some "dirt" on Clinton which we haven't seen (just where are those 30,000+ emails?) and that made Hillary lose to the worst presidential candidate in the history of these United States?

If these are the same emails that were published on wikileaks then while that made some good bedtime reading they didn't make Clinton lose to Drumpf. Comey's announcement of finding Clinton emails on Weinerman's laptop was far more damaging then any of those emails. Therefore, they must be talking about some far worse emails. Thanks to the freedom of information act we should be able to see those emails.

I guess if we can't agree that a presidential candidate's team talking with a foreign adversary about how they can help influence our electoral process is kind of scary, then I don't know what else to say. Ultimately this is going to end up being a political question more than a legal one.

[Uncle Ted]

I guess if we can't agree that a presidential candidate's team talking with a foreign adversary about how they can help influence our electoral process is kind of scary, then I don't know what else to say. Ultimately this is going to end up being a political question more than a legal one.

I guess it is really up to what he did with the dirt emails... Maybe he use them to blackmail Hillary to not campaign in Wisconsin and all those other states that she didn't set foot in and then lost.

[BlueK]

I guess it is really up to what he did with the dirt emails... Maybe he use them to blackmail Hillary to not campaign in Wisconsin and all those other states that she didn't set foot in and then lost.

This is where I apparently differ. I don't care whether it worked or didn't work. To me, the slimy act of teaming with a country that doesn't like us to help gain political power is bad enough, whether it can be proven that it helped a huge amount or didn't. Trump does have something in common with Putin though. They both seem interested in eroding democratic norms here and in other countries.

[creekster]

read the plea agreement he signed.


https://www.lawfareblog.com/george-p...plea-agreement


The lying they got him to plead guilty to was about what he told investigators about when he met with Russian officials to get "thousands" of Clinton emails for the purpose of helping the campaign. It turns out this meeting actually happened when he was officially working for the campaign and not before, which is what he lied about.

I read the plea and the stipulation before I asked. That was why I asked. I am not sure why you are convinced this stip evidences collusion. It certainly shows this guy was nosing around with Russians and looking to get information about Clinton and to arrange a meeting with Trump and the Russians, but there are a few inconvenient facts for your view:

1. Trump never met the Russians.
2. Trump never received any of the emails.
3. The supposed highly connected Russians referenced in the stip never introduced Papadopoulos to the Russian Ambassador.

Now there might be plenty more to come that will show there was a collusive effort by the campaign, but this stipulation simply does not constitute such evidence. Over-claiming its import and content is not something that is very useful in this discussion. It is also not something the special prosecutor is doing. I think this plea and stip prove only what they say. Let Mueller finish his job and see what happens without adding unsupported and hyperbolic speculation.

[Uncle Ted]

I guess if we can't agree that a presidential candidate's team talking with a foreign adversary about how they can help influence our electoral process is kind of scary, then I don't know what else to say. Ultimately this is going to end up being a political question more than a legal one.

This is where I apparently differ. I don't care whether it worked or didn't work. To me, the slimy act of teaming with a country that doesn't like us to help gain political power is bad enough, whether it can be proven that it helped a huge amount or didn't. Trump does have something in common with Putin though. They both seem interested in eroding democratic norms here and in other countries.

Oh, so you are saying they just talked about influencing the election and maybe didn't do anything. Kind of like the little chat that Obama had with the Putin's minion on the hot mike about having more flexibility to be chums after the election. Of course, not to mention, Obama told us in the presidential debate that the Ruskies were also nothing to worry about...

So just talking to the Russians is enough to make you uneasy? If so, where were in you in 2012?

[BlueK]

I read the plea and the stipulation before I asked. That was why I asked. I am not sure why you are convinced this stip evidences collusion. It certainly shows this guy was nosing around with Russians and looking to get information about Clinton and to arrange a meeting with Trump and the Russians, but there are a few inconvenient facts for your view:

1. Trump never met the Russians.
2. Trump never received any of the emails.
3. The supposed highly connected Russians referenced in the stip never introduced Papadopoulos to the Russian Ambassador.

Now there might be plenty more to come that will show there was a collusive effort by the campaign, but this stipulation simply does not constitute such evidence. Over-claiming its import and content is not something that is very useful in this discussion. It is also not something the special prosecutor is doing. I think this plea and stip prove only what they say. Let Mueller finish his job and see what happens without adding unsupported and hyperbolic speculation.

I didn't say this was all there was or needed to be to bring down the presidency.

[BlueK]

Oh, so you are saying they just talked about influencing the election and maybe didn't do anything. Kind of like the little chat that Obama had with the Putin's minion on the hot mike about having more flexibility to be chums after the election. Of course, not to mention, Obama told us in the presidential debate that the Ruskies were also nothing to worry about...

So just talking to the Russians is enough to make you uneasy? If so, where were in you in 2012?

I don't care what Obama thought.

[creekster]

I didn't say this was all there was or needed to be to bring down the presidency.

It is also not collusion.

[BlueK]

It is also not collusion.

Because you classify what we know so far as not being large enough in scale to meet your standard of what "collusion" is. That's fine. It's obviously an ongoing investigation, and making this guy's plea public right now is clearly part of Mueller's strategy for moving it forward.

[creekster]

Because you classify what we know so far as not being large enough in scale to meet your standard of what "collusion" is.

Scale? It has nothing to do with scale. It has to do with what is here admitted to have taken place. There was no meeting. Talking about maybe meeting but then not actually meeting is not collusion. You have to actually do something to collude. It might have occurred here, to be sure, but nothing in the plea agreement or the stipulation constitutes an admission of collusion.

[BlueK]

ok, maybe better said, we at least have clear intent of wanting to work with the Russians now from two different places: Papadopoulos and Don jr,, Kushner and Manafort on the other occasion. How many more were there? We don't know yet.

[old_gregg]

Scale? It has nothing to do with scale. It has to do with what is here admitted to have taken place. There was no meeting. Talking about maybe meeting but then not actually meeting is not collusion. You have to actually do something to collude. It might have occurred here, to be sure, but nothing in the plea agreement or the stipulation constitutes an admission of collusion.

you mean other than the meeting at trump tower between kremlin associates and donald trump, jr and other prominent campaign members to discuss information they hoped would be damaging to the hrc campaign?

[Color Me Badd Fan]

you mean other than the meeting at trump tower between kremlin associates and donald trump, jr and other prominent campaign members to discuss information they hoped would be damaging to the hrc campaign?

nope still not collusion bro the russian collusion story is a low iq tell

[creekster]

you mean other than the meeting at trump tower between kremlin associates and donald trump, jr and other prominent campaign members to discuss information they hoped would be damaging to the hrc campaign?

BlueK began by asserting the plea and stipulation constituted an admission of collusion. It does not. My post, which you quoted, specifically states that there is nothing in the plea and stipulation that constitutes collusion. The meeting(s) you are talking about, whether or not they constitute collusion (and I don't think they do), are not referenced in either the plea or the stipulation. Try to keep up.

Looking to foreign sources for dirt, and even paying for it, is not collusion. I think hrc and the DNC would agree with that conclusion.

[Color Me Badd Fan]

You know who also doesn't apparently believe Trump colluded with Russia?

James Comey.

http://www.independent.co.uk/News/world/americas/us-politics/trump-comey-testimony-investigation-russia-fbi-president-not-under-probe-a7778161.html