Comrade Trump

[old_gregg]

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.

a meeting by official agents of the campaign with known representatives of a foreign, hostile government for the express purpose of sharing damaging information to reach a common goal would not be collusion? ok bro

[creekster]

a meeting by official agents of the campaign with known representatives of a foreign, hostile government for the express purpose of sharing damaging information to reach a common goal would not be collusion? ok bro

It isn't referenced in the plea and stip, so it wasn't part of the conversation. Ok? Bro?

Moreover, your hypothetical is wholly incomplete, and you know it.

[BlueK]

It isn't referenced in the plea and stip, so it wasn't part of the conversation. Ok? Bro?

Moreover, your hypothetical is wholly incomplete, and you know it.

a clear intent at least twice involving different people from the trump family or campaign to work with the Russian government for the purpose of getting help in winning the election I think should feel wrong to Americans, but maybe I'm mistaken. You can argue how much it takes to constitute "collusion" but it just comes off to some of us as not wanting to admit something doesn't smell right. Or am I wrong there?

[falafel]

a meeting by official agents of the campaign with known representatives of a foreign, hostile government for the express purpose of sharing damaging information to reach a common goal would not be collusion? ok bro

Plus, assuming you are talking about Pappagiorgio's meeting with the professor and "Putin's niece," neither of them are government representatives.

[BlueK]

Plus, assuming you are talking about Pappagiorgio's meeting with the professor and "Putin's niece," neither of them are government representatives.

How does the Russian "government" work?

Do they have to wear a certain uniform or something or come to you saying "hello, I'm with the Russian government and I'm here to help!" (apologies to the great Ronald Reagan) before we believe they might be influenced/directed by the Kremlin? Or in this case they do say something like that but we brush it off because they lack a certain title? When it comes to the way Putin exerts his control over there, does it really matter?

[creekster]

a clear intent at least twice involving different people from the trump family or campaign to work with the Russian government for the purpose of getting help in winning the election I think should feel wrong to Americans, but maybe I'm mistaken. You can argue how much it takes to constitute "collusion" but it just comes off to some of us as not wanting to admit something doesn't smell right. Or am I wrong there?

Wrong where? I think we are talking about criminal charges here and we should be very careful and precise in what we say has been proven or admitted.

One of the things that has resulted from Trump's bombastic and hysterically hyperbolic tenure in office is a tendency by his supporters and opponents to exaggerate and speak very sloppily. Collusion is not just the idea of talking to someone. It is something fairly specific. The plea agreement and stipulation is not a wholesale admission of badness, it is a very carefully drafted document that states specific admitted facts and legal misconduct. I don't think any of us are served by overstating it.

I cannot stand Trump. I can't even stand to listen to him anymore and I can barely force myself to read things he has written (even though they are rarely over 140 characters). I think he has coarsened our political discourse and public life to an extremely unfortunate degree. I think he has been divisive and that he is a terrible leader. I doubt he will ever be a good president in ANY respect. That said, I am also very, very reluctant to brand him or others as traitors or similar. I think the claim of collusion to improperly prevail in a campaign is an extremely serious charge and I am not willing to go there unless and until it is proven. And, from my POV, it has not been proven at this point. It might still be proven, and mueller seems like the sort of guy who will do it if the evidence is there, but to date it has not been shown. And, to be honest, while the connections with Russia do seem odd, I have yet to see anything compelling that came out of it with respect to the campaign. In fact, if I am truthful, it appears to me more likely at this point that Trump's team were rather amateurish in dealing with some of these Russians and were played by the Russians who were themselves seeking to enhance their own reputations and wield influence back home rather than being sinister operatives dispatched by Putin to corrupt America. But time will tell.

[BlueK]

Wrong where? I think we are talking about criminal charges here and we should be very careful and precise in what we say has been proven or admitted.

One of the things that has resulted from Trump's bombastic and hysterically hyperbolic tenure in office is a tendency by his supporters and opponents to exaggerate and speak very sloppily. Collusion is not just the idea of talking to someone. It is something fairly specific. The plea agreement and stipulation is not a wholesale admission of badness, it is a very carefully drafted document that states specific admitted facts and legal misconduct. I don't think any of us are served by overstating it.

I cannot stand Trump. I can't even stand to listen to him anymore and I can barely force myself to read things he has written (even though they are rarely over 140 characters). I think he has coarsened our political discourse and public life to an extremely unfortunate degree. I think he has been divisive and that he is a terrible leader. I doubt he will ever be a good president in ANY respect. That said, I am also very, very reluctant to brand him or others as traitors or similar. I think the claim of collusion to improperly prevail in a campaign is an extremely serious charge and I am not willing to go there unless and until it is proven. And, from my POV, it has not been proven at this point. It might still be proven, and mueller seems like the sort of guy who will do it if the evidence is there, but to date it has not been shown. And, to be honest, while the connections with Russia do seem odd, I have yet to see anything compelling that came out of it with respect to the campaign. In fact, if I am truthful, it appears to me more likely at this point that Trump's team were rather amateurish in dealing with some of these Russians and were played by the Russians who were themselves seeking to enhance their own reputations and wield influence back home rather than being sinister operatives dispatched by Putin to corrupt America. But time will tell.

Oh, I fully understand this is 90% a political issue and not as much a legal one. Sorry if I wasn't fully clear about that. But Mueller also has to follow the legal implications to get to the truth surrounding the political questions, I think.

[old_gregg]

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.

responding to this, you obtuse dummy

[old_gregg]

Plus, assuming you are talking about Pappagiorgio's meeting with the professor and "Putin's niece," neither of them are government representatives.

there is at least circumstantial evidence to the contrary

[creekster]

there is at least circumstantial evidence to the contrary

And what illegal goal did they have? What was admitted in the plea/stip that would fill out that part of the crime?

[frank ryan]

Oh, I fully understand this is 90% a political issue and not as much a legal one. Sorry if I wasn't fully clear about that. But Mueller also has to follow the legal implications to get to the truth surrounding the political questions, I think.

I fully expect Trump to fire Mueller as he gets closer and closer to him. Murdoch's media organs have already called for firing Mueller and pardoning those involved, the Wall Street Journal editorial page being one outlet.

[frank ryan]

Papadopoulos Claimed Trump Campaign Approved Russia Meeting

"The evidence gleaned during Papadopoulos’s three months of cooperation could further advance Mueller’s investigation into possible collusion by Trump’s aides. This latest email, one of many unsealed on Monday, runs counter to the steadfast denials by Trump and his supporters that anyone attempted to work with the Russians. Trump tweeted on Tuesday that Papadopoulos, a low-level adviser that few people on the campaign knew, “has already proven to be a liar.”

Prosecutors didn’t explain why the email wasn’t included in the detailed admissions of Papadopoulos’s wrongdoing, and it’s possible they concluded the assertions weren’t true.

Writing to the Russian contact a week before the Republican National Convention, Papadopoulos proposed a meeting for August or September in the U.K. that would include “my national chairman and maybe one other foreign policy adviser” and members of Putin’s office and Russia’s foreign ministry.

“It has been approved by our side,” Papadopoulos wrote.


https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic..._medium=social

[Uncle Ted]

Papadopoulos Claimed Trump Campaign Approved Russia Meeting

"The evidence gleaned during Papadopoulos’s three months of cooperation could further advance Mueller’s investigation into possible collusion by Trump’s aides. This latest email, one of many unsealed on Monday, runs counter to the steadfast denials by Trump and his supporters that anyone attempted to work with the Russians. Trump tweeted on Tuesday that Papadopoulos, a low-level adviser that few people on the campaign knew, “has already proven to be a liar.”

Prosecutors didn’t explain why the email wasn’t included in the detailed admissions of Papadopoulos’s wrongdoing, and it’s possible they concluded the assertions weren’t true.

Writing to the Russian contact a week before the Republican National Convention, Papadopoulos proposed a meeting for August or September in the U.K. that would include “my national chairman and maybe one other foreign policy adviser” and members of Putin’s office and Russia’s foreign ministry.

“It has been approved by our side,” Papadopoulos wrote.


https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic..._medium=social

...

The message, if true, would bolster claims that Trump’s campaign attempted to collude with Russian interests. But it’s unclear whether Papadopoulos, who pleaded guilty to lying to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, was merely boasting when he sent the July 14, 2016, email to a Kremlin-linked contact. There’s also no indication such a meeting ever occurred.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I bet Uncle Ted liked this on FB:

Embedded Tweet

[Commando]

My Trump voting aunt would totally 'like' that shit. She also shared the Obi-Wan Kenobi pic that said, "Most people are too ashamed of the Savior to share this to their wall". Had me DYING!