Donald Trump Presidency discussion thread II

ThisRegard

He's getting more and more out of touch with reality. Either that, or has had a fallen out with Fox. Wait, he couldn't have, as he's retweeted them a few times today already.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/885131482397908992

Billy86

DaniilKharms wrote: »

He said:



He then went on to describe A difference, but that difference is hardly consequential; while Dems voters are less uniform - and I'm accepting stats that don't come with a link, as are you - the outcome is exactly the same.

And of course, his post is glaringly false in a few respects - both parties are serving the mega rich. That's not a difference. And BOTH parties prey on the ignorance of voters. So again, not a difference.

I'd also point out that the GOP isn't passing healthcare with ease BECAUSE their membership isn't uniform in their beliefs. I find ALL of their beliefs re: healthcare abhorrent, yet I can't deny that within their own caucus there's disagreement and factions of belief.

So if that is a selling point, the GOP also has it.

Your assertion of my post appears to be false... I ever say Democrats do not serve rich people?

Both parties are poor, I agree there - however the Democrats do however do significantly more than Republicans to benefit the working and middle classes as the latter is amongst the most disgusting a parties in any prominent western democracy. One of the marvels of the last few decades has been the fervour and enthusiasm with which they have got so many of these people to actively vote against their own interests and to vilify a party who while full of their own faults, are at least somewhat interested in these by comparison.

The difference between them however is hugely consequential. Unless you consider things like leaving the Paris Agreement, complete rejections of science, taking health care away from 20-odd million people (the only reason it has not passed is that other Republicans want to take this even further again - the proposed AHCA is the most 'sane' Republican plan that could viably pass which says all it needs to), allowing open discrimination of LGBT people to be inconsequential.

EDIT TO ADD: It is this battle against education (a poll recently showed that the majority of Republican voters consider college a bad thing) and critical thinking that has cultivated a base on the Republican side far more likely to completely ignore whatever a politician or their party is doing, and simply to look at the letter beside their name and go with that. If Trump and party leaders came out tomorrow and said that military action in Syria would be a terrible idea and that the US will under no circumstances be considering it, you could bet the house that the over 75% of Republican voters would agree (like 86% now agree with military action compared to 22% when the person in office had the letter D beside their name and not an R).

recedite

DaniilKharms wrote: »

The law in question is coordinating with a foreign government, as a campaign... part of the campaign finance laws.

That law states...

"A foreign national shall not, directly or indirectly, make a contribution or a donation of money or other thing of value, or expressly or impliedly promise to make a contribution or a donation, in connection with any Federal, State, or local election....
"No person shall knowingly solicit, accept, or receive from a foreign national any contribution or donation prohibited by" the law.

Its not about "co-ordinating" or receiving truthful information, its about political donations. Its a ban on political fundraising abroad.

DaniilKharms wrote: »

So, to put the two things back together:

Trump campaign members solicited valuable oppo from - in a roundabout way - the Russian gov. That has very real financial value.

So, if Russians paid for TV ads for Trump, that would be not only illegal coordination, but an illegal contribution.

If the Russians instead gave Trump the money for campaign ads, that again be illegal.

If they gave him something that was valuable, but wasn't cash, like plane rides, or paid for hotels... illegal.

Giving him opposition research, which campaigns pay thousands for, and which DT Jr thought he was getting... illegal.

Put it like this... if a Russian email DT Jr and said, " Hey meet with this russian and he'll pay for all your campaign's flights, " and Trump Jr excitedly agreed to that, the law would be broken.

Or at least many many legal scholars think that's the case.

I think it was a British national who solicited Trump Junior. Not Trump soliciting a Russian. But either way we have a foreign national soliciting the Trump campaign with information, which was not delivered. So, not a crime.

All the other examples in your list would indeed be illegal. If they had actually happened. But as you will probably admit yourself, they are all makey uppy examples. CNN would probably be happy to run with them though; I suggest you e-mail the list to them.

Leroy42

recedite wrote: »

That law states...
Its not about "co-ordinating" or receiving truthful information, its about political donations. Its a ban on political fundraising abroad.
I think it was a British national who solicited Trump Junior. Not Trump soliciting a Russian. But either way we have a foreign national soliciting the Trump campaign with information, which was not delivered. So, not a crime.

All the other examples in your list would indeed be illegal. If they had actually happened. But as you will probably admit yourself, they are all makey uppy examples. CNN would probably be happy to run with them though; I suggest you e-mail the list to them.

Its not the foreign national that the law is aimed at, its the US citizen. It means that no foreign national is allowed to contribute to an election campaign, of any thing of value.

You are trying to limit it to fundraising abroad, but how would that even work? How would a US law have any implication for a foreign national in their own country? None.

Its aimed at the US citizen. At it is not just fundraising. It clearly states anything of value. Do you think intel on a political opponent is of value? BEcause Trump Jr does and admits as much in both his e-mails and his subsequent statements.

Trump invited this woman into the campaign offices, thereby given her the change to give them the information. It has already been pointed out that her failure to deliver the intel is of no consequence. That Trump Jr was prepared to take the intel if it was available.

And that is before we deal with the Logan Act. And Kushner lying on the security form. And Pence lying on national TV. And Sessions lying under oath.

Billy86

Just to clear one thing up...

solicit
səˈlɪsɪt/Submit
verb
1. ask for or try to obtain (something) from someone.

By accepting the offer for damaging information on a rival candidate what he was told came from Russian officials, Trump Jr. solicited. By attending with him, Kushner and Manafort were complicit. By discussing adoptions and sanctions, the Logan Act was again broken. Sanctions Trump also tried to remove as early as his first week in office.

None of this is in any way debatable.

demfad

recedite wrote: »

That law states...
Its not about "co-ordinating" or receiving truthful information, its about political donations. Its a ban on political fundraising abroad.
I think it was a British national who solicited Trump Junior. Not Trump soliciting a Russian. But either way we have a foreign national soliciting the Trump campaign with information, which was not delivered. So, not a crime.

All the other examples in your list would indeed be illegal. If they had actually happened. But as you will probably admit yourself, they are all makey uppy examples. CNN would probably be happy to run with them though; I suggest you e-mail the list to them.

Do you have an opinion on information gained on a US citizen as a result of espionage by a hostile foreign power on said US citizen? That is what Don JR got/thought he was getting.
Quid pro quo: Hacking/espionage by Russia to help DJT win election in exchange for softening GOP position on Ukraine, deflecting towards Baltic NATO money 'owed' to US, possible payments via Rosneft etc.
None of us here are qualified or know enough to speculate in the illegality of that meeting. We can agree that Don Jr is a scumbag I am sure?
What is pretty certain is that Jared Kushner committed a felony on his security forms by not declaring this meeting. That's 10 years in jail.

Professor Moriarty

demfad wrote: »

Do you have an opinion on information gained on a US citizen as a result of espionage by a hostile foreign power on said US citizen? That is what Don JR got/thought he was getting.
Quid pro quo: Hacking/espionage by Russia to help DJT win election in exchange for softening GOP position on Ukraine, deflecting towards Baltic NATO money 'owed' to US, possible payments via Rosneft etc.
None of us here are qualified or know enough to speculate in the illegality of that meeting. We can agree that Don Jr is a scumbag I am sure?
What is pretty certain is that Jared Kushner committed a felony on his security forms by not declaring this meeting. That's 10 years in jail.

Unless he cuts a deal and throws a few others under the bus.

B0jangles

ThisRegard wrote: »

He's getting more and more out of touch with reality. Either that, or has had a fallen out with Fox. Wait, he couldn't have, as he's retweeted them a few times today already.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/885131482397908992

You'll never in a million years guess what apparently triggered Trump into sending that tweet:

https://twitter.com/BraddJaffy/status/885133603105116160

Yep, he was responding to something he just saw on the telly...

Billy86

Even Breitbart editors agree it's collusion

Raheem Kassam, editor-in-chief of Breitbart London, reacted to the story of Donald Trump Jr.'s newly-released emails in a way that wouldn't typically be expected from someone at the far-right outfit, which is a reliable supporter of President Trump.

"So like, this is straight up collusion," he wrote in the news outlet's internal Slack, according to a transcript of the conversation obtained by CNN. "Right?"

Minutes before, Donald Trump Jr. had disclosed on Twitter an email exchange from June 2016 in which he'd agreed to meet with someone he'd been told was a "Russian government attorney" about "very high level and sensitive information" that would "incriminate" Hillary Clinton.

The text of the emails sent shockwaves through most newsrooms. At Breitbart, not everyone was on the same page.

Some staffers were seemingly left astonished. Writing in the company Slack, senior editor Rebecca Mansour reacted with only one word: "Wow." Amanda House, the outlet's deputy politics editor, wrote only, "???????"

It's been genuine comedy for all the wrong reasons watching the desperate scrambling to try and cover this whole thing up from the right, to be honest. And there's probably more to come.

Zubeneschamali

Billy86 wrote: »

And there's probably more to come.

Absolutely. It is quite clear that Donald Sr. knew about the collusion and approved of it.

Christy42

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Absolutely. It is quite clear that Donald Sr. knew about the collusion and approved of it.

The difficulty will be getting something solid on him. His inner circle will protect him and the odds of him having any direct dealings are slim. It will be the Kushners and Manaforts of the world that will have been in direct contact and reporting these things back. Best chance is in finding one of those communications if some where electronic.

A Little Pony

B_Wayne wrote: »

A Little Pony wrote: »

I remember people saying this guy would be like Hitler. That certainly hasn't came to fruition. The funniest politician in history, yes. A genocidal dictator, no.

He has single handedly destroyed America's reputation in the international community, the 'Trump train' used be a thing, he's proven himself to be a train wreck who only seems to be capable of damaging the reputation of the office of the President. It is a spectacular achievement but embarrassingly so. Look at how Macron is viewed as the President of France, he's 40 years younger than Trump but comes across as a highly capable diplomat. The same won't be said of Trump.

America has been ruining it's reputation since the 19th century getting involved in wars, don't worry most of the world hasn't had much time for the yankees for a long time. The worst thing that happened to America was when the Federal government became all powerful and the sovereignty of the states lessened. That was the nail in the coffin. Thomas Jefferson wouldn't believe what has happened to country he helped build.

But then again in his day most people saw their state as their own country.

Water John

DT Jnr will trip himself up under interrogation. He'll end up saying yes and no to the same Q. He's stupid.

Interesting that some poster here, pointed him out as the weak link, last week.

I'll stay focussed on the present incumbent.

B_Wayne

A Little Pony wrote: »

America has been ruining it's reputation since the 19th century getting involved in wars, don't worry most of the world hasn't had much time for the yankees for a long time. The worst thing that happened to America was when the Federal government became all powerful and the sovereignty of the states lessened. That was the nail in the coffin. Thomas Jefferson wouldn't believe what has happened to country he helped build.

But then again in his day most people saw their state as their own country.

We're discussing the present day, under Obama the US reputation had improved substantially since Obama. International relations does matter, we're not in an age where protectionism is realistic. Anyway, we've moved on substantially since I made that point, him being a leader in 12 months is quickly dwindling as a possibility.

In terms of federal state rhetoric, personally I prefer a federal state. Slavery was federally abolished, the civil rights act was federal. Federal governments are guilty of many terrible things but I'd strongly prefer to what a deep South state might do if they could. LGBT rights for example if individual states were given free reign?

A Little Pony

B_Wayne wrote: »

A Little Pony wrote: »

America has been ruining it's reputation since the 19th century getting involved in wars, don't worry most of the world hasn't had much time for the yankees for a long time. The worst thing that happened to America was when the Federal government became all powerful and the sovereignty of the states lessened. That was the nail in the coffin. Thomas Jefferson wouldn't believe what has happened to country he helped build.

But then again in his day most people saw their state as their own country.

We're discussing the present day, under Obama the US reputation had improved substantially since Obama. International relations does matter, we're not in an age where protectionism is realistic. Anyway, we've moved on substantially since I made that point, him being a leader in 12 months is quickly dwindling as a possibility.

In terms of federal state rhetoric, personally I prefer a federal state. Slavery was federally abolished, the civil rights act was federal. Federal governments are guilty of many terrible things but I'd strongly prefer to what a deep South state might do if they could. LGBT rights for example if individual states were given free reign?

Obama wasn't that liked by many country leaders, Russia and China leaders spring to mind. Trump is not a politician, he doesn't really know how government works which is pretty obvious. But I am still highly skeptical that some think he will be impeached.

I personally don't see it happening. I retain my position that he will do the 4 years.

ECO_Mental

Slightly off topic, interview on CNN now with a filmmaker who has just made a documentary on jullian Assange a behind the scenes thing. Anyway it's plainly obvious from the documentary that he's another narrcistic selfseving arsehole (surprise surprise) and now he trying to get this documentary stopped, cease and decist orders etc. Makes me laugh he doesn't like it when his secrets are exposed....

The documentary is called "Risk"

GLaDOS

First articles of impeachment filed

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-impeachment-bill-obstruction-justice-democrats-file-house-russia-investigation-a7838141.html?cmpid=facebook-post

MadYaker

Not gonna happen as long as the republicans in congress still support him. But it must be approaching the point now where continued support for trump is going start costing republicans their seats in the 2018 mid terms.

He'll never actually be impeached anyway, he'll resign before it can happen.

InTheTrees

A Little Pony wrote: »

don't worry most of the world hasn't had much time for the yankees for a long time.

How did Ireland fare during the last recession?

I'm afraid the saying that "america sneezes and the rest of the world catches the flu" still has truth.

Maybe this trump presidency will be the turning point?

ECO_Mental

GLaDOS wrote: »

First articles of impeachment filed

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-impeachment-bill-obstruction-justice-democrats-file-house-russia-investigation-a7838141.html?cmpid=facebook-post

Jaysus.....i suppose they have nothing to loose. Either the GOP will impeach him or they will have to back him and come out in support of him. They can use this against them in then in 2018.....

Itssoeasy

I'm just watching the rte news and I see that Donald trump has tweeted that it's "a Witch hunt" against his son.

Does Donald trump know what a witch hunt is ?

eire4

A Little Pony wrote: »

Obama wasn't that liked by many country leaders, Russia and China leaders spring to mind. Trump is not a politician, he doesn't really know how government works which is pretty obvious. But I am still highly skeptical that some think he will be impeached.

I personally don't see it happening. I retain my position that he will do the 4 years.

What happens in the 2018 mid term elections will go a long way to deciding when and if there are impeachment proceedings. If the Republicans do not maintain control of both houses there will be impeachment proceedings if they retain control of one but lose the other it is up in the air.

Having said the above what we know now suggests to me that history will look back on the present Republican party in a very negative light for putting their own petty political interests ahead of their country in this whole sordid affair.

Water John

If, as rumour has it, Doanld Snr, knew the contents of the false denial, written on the plane coming home from the G20, then that's obstruction.

BillyBobBS

The president is doing a good job with the economy. As long as that continues he'll be fine.

listermint

Any thoughts on the release of the emails to the public in a bid to sully any trial against him as unfair due to all information being fully public and any jury being preconceived

Water John

That could be a line, if he's legal advisor insisted.
I looks more like that he's stupid enough to think he did little wrong. As he said that's what they do in business. all the time, get dirt of someone, any way they can. Not scrupolous about the source.

She was both bait and a Trogan Horse. He was had, once he said yes, to the meeting.

If they don't act on Kuschner, straight away, you really know they have lost the compass.

aloyisious

Don has an interview in W/H with Pat Robertson and tells him that Putin would have been happier withClinton in the White House instead of him [Don]. Pat doesn't even blink an eyelid. His opinion on Hillary the War Hawk is interesting...

Edit; the interview on 1st screen is part 1, I'm not sure about the interview sequence of 2nd screen and 3rd screen.

https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjZuonq5oTVAhVsJcAKHUEnCiAQqUMILjAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww1.cbn.com%2Fcbnnews%2Fpolitics%2F2017%2Fjuly%2Fpresident-trump-to-s-pat-robertson-putin-would-have-been-happier-with-clinton&usg=AFQjCNHxkQ3OXAonMK_YJxknT31WkNUKtQ

Water John

Does he think everyone is stupid? Everyone knows Putin hates Hillary and it's personal.

Deflect, deflect.

Billy86

Most (or all) of us have never heard of Michael McFaul, he is a former US ambassador to Russia. Here he is giving his testimony at the U.S. House Foreign Affairs Committee Hearing: “U.S. Policy Towards Putin’s Russia.” on June 14, 2016, five days after Trump Jr (son of Trump), Kushner (son in law of Trump and close adviser to him) and Manafort (Trump campaign manager at the time) met with Natalia Veselnitskaya seeking to collude and discussing sanctions.

But it's not McFaul I want you to pay attention to... look directly behind him. Guess who that is who is extremely interested in what is on his laptop?



Yup, Natalia Veselnitskiya. But how did she manage to get a front row centre seat, placed directly behind him and his laptop for an event like this? Well, McFaul had this to say about it today:

https://twitter.com/McFaul/status/885146485049835522

Does that name, Rohrabacher, ring any bells? It might if you remember the leaked conversation between Paul Ryan and US House Representative Kevin McCarthy from a few weeks back:

McCarthy: There’s…there’s two people, I think, Putin pays: Rohrabacher and Trump…[laughter]…swear to God.

Ryan: This is an off the record…[laughter]…NO LEAKS…[laughter]…alright?!

Paul Ryan's spokesperson then adamantly stated to the press that this conversation never happened and so was fake nooz... until it came out that the conversation was recorded at this point their story changed to (no sh*t)... "we were only joking!"

Who was prosecuting this case McFaul was providing testimony for? US attorney Preet Bhahara, who Trump promptly fired from his role after what Bhahara described as a series of "unusual" and "inappropriate" phone calls from Trump. Bhahara is extremely well known for his work on money laundering and financial fraud cases, want to guess what other cases he has worked on? The Magnitsky Act that brought about the sanctions Trump Jr, Manafort and Kushner would have discussed with Natalia Veselnitskiya only five days before the picture above.

And how did this come about? Because Democrats have been asking in writing why the DOJ suddenly dropped a Russian money laundering case against Denis Katsyv (another client of Veselnitskiya's) which ran through Donnie's very own home town on New York, and who were heavily implicated in the $230mn fraud that Sergei Magnitsky was investigating upon his mysterious death that led to the act and the sanctions and that Trump Jr, Kushner and Manafort would have been discussed with her only five days previous (which Trump Sr commented on only hours after that meeting was confirmed, boasting about the damaging info he would be unveiling about Clinton in the coming days).

These nothingburgers are f***ing delicious!

aloyisious

This nominee for the Federal Reserve Board seems to be in line with Don's appointment style [as shown by his choice for Sec of the Interior].... http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-banks-regulation-quarles-idUSKBN19X2ZT

aloyisious

Don had a more recent interview with Reuters tonight, apparently by twitter.... The two interviews [1st to a receptive audience and the 2nd to a non-US international media agency] shows how Don is now playing the media game.

I don't have a twitter account so can't see the interview, just the page....

https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiW6-7o7YTVAhVlDsAKHVYJCCsQgFQINg&url=https%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2Fsearch%3Fq%3Dtrump%2Binterview%2Bwith%2Breuters%26ref_src%3Dtwsrc%255Egoogle%257Ctwcamp%255Eserp%257Ctwgr%255Esearch&usg=AFQjCNGzKOUhDpoBqBBRrMk7BLjmtmsicA

Igotadose

sReq | uTeK wrote: »

Leroy42 wrote: »

52 U.S. Code § 30121 - Contributions and donations by foreign nationals

Again though, no contribution was made as he clearly states, and it's been corroborated by all parties involved, including the russian lawyer, no contribution was made..

So I'll ask again, unless taking a meeting with someone from a different country is a crime, where did he break the law?

Also is information deemed a contribution? surely if there was actual evidence there that Hilary Clinton was working with foreign entities the US would want to know about it?

By the way, i'll add I'm not a Trump supporter and shocked he was elected, but this just seems like a storm in a tea cup.  I hear the word treason being thrown around also, safe to say they need to be at war for treason to occur, as for purgery, well I don't think he took the stand and swore an oath.

It's so far removed its beyond silly.

Remember, of course, no law has been broken until proven so in court. That day may come; it'd be up to a Grand Jury to indict (if that's who does treason indictments, IANAL but it's probably not your run-of-the-mill jury.)

Running around asking for proof, too, is a bit of a dodge - it's not proof till proven. 

This article, in Slate, details why the POTUS's handling of the Comey interaction and firing is a 'slam dunk' : http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2017/07/the_obstruction_of_justice_case_against_trump_is_already_a_slam_dunk.html. Quote: "[font=sl-Apres, helvetica, sans-serif]. Looking at the entire affair from the standpoint of strict legal analysis, there’s just one conclusion: All available evidence says he did."[/font]

[font=sl-Apres, helvetica, sans-serif]The author's bio: "S[/font][font=sl-Apres, helvetica, sans-serif]amuel W. Buell is the Bernard M. Fishman professor of law at Duke University and was the lead prosecutor for the Department of Justice’s Enron Task Force."[/font]

[font=sl-Apres, helvetica, sans-serif]So, I don't think he's just some commentariat yahoo, but someone that actually understands the laws involved.[/font]

[font=sl-Apres, helvetica, sans-serif]And, as he points out (and is relevant in this other case, too), it doesn't really matter because Congress still has to impeach the POTUS: "[/font][font=sl-Apres, helvetica, sans-serif]One thing is worth reiterating: The question of prosecutorial discretion on obstruction of justice will not be before Mueller while President Trump remains in office. Given the [/font][font=sl-Apres, helvetica, sans-serif]near[/font][font=sl-Apres, helvetica, sans-serif]-consensus that a sitting president should not be indicted, any court of law in this matter will have to await a private citizen Trump."[/font]

ThisRegard

BillyBobBS wrote: »

The president is doing a good job with the economy. As long as that continues he'll be fine.

The economy is doing alright in spite of him, but more importantly, it's on the back of the last administration.

aloyisious

There's been an interesting chat between Anderson Cooper of CNN and Sebastian Gorka [Deputy Advisor to Don] about Don Jnr, the Russian lawyer meeting and his emails. Seb expertly batted away Anderson's questions with a poker face and few blinks. I'm now getting the idea that Don's PR team has been completely made-over, probably explaining Don's last two interviews. I'm not sure what Sebastian is the advisor on.

It's when Don is in France meeting with the French President [and the international press there] that will show/define how much Don's way of meeting the press has changed or remains the same. There'd be very little chance there of a PR person whispering-to or guiding Don on what not to say then. I'm waiting to see what happens there, or if there will be an open meet with Don at all. The French president might have a lot to say in the running of it, as Don is his guest and has to be protected.

Noel82

This broke on the hill earlier, it collaberates Donald juniors story to a degree. Plausible deniability perhaps?

http : //thehill . com / homenews / administration / 341788 -exclusive-doj-let-russian-lawyer-into-us-before-she-met-with-trump

"Just five days after meeting in June 2016 at Trump Tower with Donald Trump Jr., presidential son-in-law Jared Kushner and then Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, Moscow attorney Natalia Veselnitskaya showed up in Washington in the front row of a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing on Russia policy, video footage of the hearing shows.

She also engaged in a pro-Russia lobbying campaign and attended an event at the Newseum in Washington, D.C. where Russian supporters showed a movie that challenged the underpinnings of the U.S. human rights law known as the Magnitysky Act, which Russian leader Vladimir Putin has reviled and tried to reverse...

Interviews with a half dozen Americans who came in contact with Veselnitskaya or monitored her U.S. activities in 2016 make clear that one of her primary goals was to see if the Congress and/or other political leaders would be interested in repealing the 2012 Magnitsky Act punishing Russia or at least ensure the Magnitsky name would not be used on a new law working its way through Congress in 2016 to punish human rights violators across the globe."

Some surrogates are now accusing the Ukranian government of interfering in the election. According to this report DNC operatives were meeting with Ukrainian officials regulary and exchanging information. They were also working with the media.


http / www . politico . com /story/2017/01/ukraine-sabotage-trump-backfire-233446

"Donald Trump wasn’t the only presidential candidate whose campaign was boosted by officials of a former Soviet bloc country.
Ukrainian government officials tried to help Hillary Clinton and undermine Trump by publicly questioning his fitness for office. They also disseminated documents implicating a top Trump aide in corruption and suggested they were investigating the matter, only to back away after the election. And they helped Clinton’s allies research damaging information on Trump and his advisers, a Politico investigation found.

A Ukrainian-American operative who was consulting for the Democratic National Committee met with top officials in the Ukrainian Embassy in Washington in an effort to expose ties between Trump, top campaign aide Paul Manafort and Russia, according to people with direct knowledge of the situation.

The Ukrainian efforts had an impact in the race, helping to force Manafort’s resignation and advancing the narrative that Trump’s campaign was deeply connected to Ukraine’s foe to the east, Russia.

While it’s not uncommon for outside operatives to serve as intermediaries between governments and reporters, one of the more damaging Russia-related stories for the Trump campaign — and certainly for Manafort — can be traced more directly to the Ukrainian government."

Noel82

Another exert from the hill exclusive. Perhaps a bit more than plausible deniability.

"The Russian lawyer who penetrated Donald Trump’s inner circle was initially cleared into the United States by the Justice Department under “extraordinary circumstances” before she embarked on a lobbying campaign last year that ensnared the president’s eldest son, members of Congress, journalists and State Department officials, according to court and Justice Department documents and interviews...


...And Veselnitskaya also attended a dinner with the chairman of the House subcommittee overseeing Russia policy, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.) and roughly 20 other guests at a dinner club frequented by Republicans.

In an interview with The Hill on Wednesday, Rohrabacher said, “There was a dinner at the Capitol Hill Club here with about 20 people. I think I was the only congressman there. They were talking about the Magnitysky case. But that wasn’t just the topic. There was a lot of other things going on. So I think she was there but I don’t remember any type of conversation with her between us. But I understand she was at the table.”

Rohrabacher said he believed Veselnitskaya and her U.S. colleagues, which included former Democratic Congressman Ronald Dellums, were lobbying other lawmakers to reverse the Magnitysky Act and restore the ability of Americans to adopt Russian children that Moscow had suspended.

“I don’t think this was very heavily lobbied at all compared with the other issues we deal with,” he said.

As for his former congressional colleague Dellums, Rohrabacher said he recalled having a conversation about the Magnitsky Act and the adoption issue, “Ron and I like each other … I have to believe he was hired a lobbyist but I don’t know."

Veselnitskaya did not return a call seeking comment Wednesday at her Moscow office. Dellums also did not return a call to his office seeking comment."

SeamusFX

Water John wrote: »

She was both bait and a Trogan Horse. He was had, once he said yes, to the meeting.

Why is everyone assuming nothing came out of this meeting? Just because an unscrupulous proven liar and a Russian spy said so? Now they may never be able to prove it, but I suspect a deal was done and the Wikileak dump and a team of Russian hackers creating fake news about HRC was the payment in exchange for lifting sanctions and whatever else!

aloyisious

Noel82 wrote: »

Another exert from the hill exclusive. Perhaps a bit more than plausible deniability.

"The Russian lawyer who penetrated Donald Trump’s inner circle was initially cleared into the United States by the Justice Department under “extraordinary circumstances” before she embarked on a lobbying campaign last year that ensnared the president’s eldest son, members of Congress, journalists and State Department officials, according to court and Justice Department documents and interviews...


...And Veselnitskaya also attended a dinner with the chairman of the House subcommittee overseeing Russia policy, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.) and roughly 20 other guests at a dinner club frequented by Republicans.

In an interview with The Hill on Wednesday, Rohrabacher said, “There was a dinner at the Capitol Hill Club here with about 20 people. I think I was the only congressman there. They were talking about the Magnitysky case. But that wasn’t just the topic. There was a lot of other things going on. So I think she was there but I don’t remember any type of conversation with her between us. But I understand she was at the table.”

Rohrabacher said he believed Veselnitskaya and her U.S. colleagues, which included former Democratic Congressman Ronald Dellums, were lobbying other lawmakers to reverse the Magnitysky Act and restore the ability of Americans to adopt Russian children that Moscow had suspended.

“I don’t think this was very heavily lobbied at all compared with the other issues we deal with,” he said.

As for his former congressional colleague Dellums, Rohrabacher said he recalled having a conversation about the Magnitsky Act and the adoption issue, “Ron and I like each other … I have to believe he was hired a lobbyist but I don’t know."

Veselnitskaya did not return a call seeking comment Wednesday at her Moscow office. Dellums also did not return a call to his office seeking comment."

Most of the info relating to the lawyer and the Magnitsky Act she was pushing to have repealed seem to indicate she was doing so from a Pro-Russian Govt position. The act was a bipartisan bill passed by the Senate and signed into law by Obama in 2012 to prevent Russian Govt officials complicit in the death of Mr Magnitsky from entering the US.

Mr Magnitsky was held in a Russian prison as a result of his investigations into crooked Russian Govt officials, where he fell ill & denied medical treatment for a year before being taken to hospital where he was reportedly beaten to death by OMON officers, instead of getting medical care for his illnesses.

One of the strange things about the lawyer, if she is/was a sort of DNC double-agent seeking to ensnare republicans, and not a Russian Govt operative, was her ability to come and go from Russia at will. not exactly what one would expect when it's Govt is headed by an ex-KGB Lt-colonel [retired & entered politics in 1991].

Ref Paul Manafort and his resignation as manager of the Trump election team, it seems that he was being criticized for some weeks for poor performance as manager by Don. The resignation came after revelations from Ukrainian Govt people that he was taking emoluments from Pro-Russian leaders in the Ukraine. If those revelations can be classed as interference, then [IMO] the lawyer's actions can definitely be classed as interference by the Russian Govt.

Edit: one oddity I saw in the Don Jnr/Goldstone Emails was a reference to Crown Prosecutor. Russia does not have any such titled position, thought Goldstone, being of british background, may have supplanted his understanding of UK Govt legal titles onto Russian legal agency positions. Given how the revolution overthrew the Russian Royal Govt system, I can't see a Crown Prosecutor existing in Russia.

Leroy42

SeamusFX wrote: »

Why is everyone assuming nothing came out of this meeting? Just because an unscrupulous proven liar and a Russian spy said so? Now they may never be able to prove it, but I suspect a deal was done and the Wikileak dump and a team of Russian hackers creating fake news about HRC was the payment in exchange for lifting sanctions and whatever else!

Its crazy isn't it. It's like it is totally accepted as the truth, despite Trump Jr and the WH being shown to have lied in every step of this affair.

A 20 minute meeting where nothing came of it? Not even a follow up to Goldstone as to why he believed the Russian government favoured Trump as he had claimed?

And still no one has been able to answer why Trump never mentioned HC e-mail prior to that date but tweeted constantly after the meeting. TJr has access to Trump Twitter so surely when he saw the 1st one he would have said something to Trump to calm it down, or where did he get the info?

But the story from TJr and the WH is nothing came from the meeting and they never discussed it again.

Recall in June 16 that HC was odds on to win. Nobody gave Trump a chance. They are battling the political behemoth in HC. And here comes news that Russian is actively working to help Trump win. What a coup. What a game changer. This could be the help we need to bury HC.

And we are supposed to believe that TJr simply ignores it. Never even mentions it to his Dad? That they didn't try to set up some sort of channel to work with Russia to obtain maximum benefit?

Water John

I think, from the posts above, I'd pick one. A picture tells a thousand words.
It's unbelievable, she's just sitting there, eyeing his computer.

Great pick up, Billy.

seamus

Water John wrote: »

I think, from the posts above, I'd pick one. A picture tells a thousand words.
It's unbelievable, she's just sitting there, eyeing his computer.

Great pick up, Billy.

I wonder is she FIS.

No, you don't have to be James Bond to look at a computer screen, but she was hardly placed there accidentally and without her knowledge. Why would someone who's just a lawyer get involved in espionage, unless she was on the FIS payroll?

Leroy42

seamus wrote: »

I wonder is she FIS.

No, you don't have to be James Bond to look at a computer screen, but she was hardly placed there accidentally and without her knowledge. Why would someone who's just a lawyer get involved in espionage, unless she was on the FIS payroll?

Its a red herring being put out there by Trump defenders trying to turn the conversation onto her rather than Trump.

It doesn't matter if she actually is a spy or not.

Trump Jr clearly believed she worked for the Russian government and the hand over of intel was part of an effort by the Russians to help Trump to win the election.

Whether she was or not is irrelevant to anybody but the FBI/CIA.

He knew he she was being portrayed as and should have gone straight to the FBI with that info. He didn't. He not only didn't do that, he actively tried to engage with her to get the stolen intel.

Intel that was stolen by the Russian government from a US citizen, and Trump Jr thought nothing of it.

Water John

I'll take both stories. They are not exclusive to one another.

The pic reminds me of the time, Farge was spotted coming out of the Ecudorian embassy. Gotcha.

Zubeneschamali

Christy42 wrote: »

His inner circle will protect him

You think they will go to jail rather than make a deal? I don't.

aloyisious

While trying to find out what Paul Manafort is doing to earn a living business-wise now, seeing as how he was probably the first thrown under the bus by the Trumps {Aug 2016 - two months after the meeting in Trump Tower] the item in the FIRST link below, from Politico, came up....

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/07/12/trump-jr-email-chain-paul-manafort-senate-judiciary-240459

Incidentally he might been obliged to register as a Foreign Agent under the Foreign Agents Registration Act, same as Gen Flynn [after both had been forced to leave the employ of Don Trump]. LA Times report dated 12 April 2017.....

https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwidvfLK94XVAhUCJ8AKHYfkBSoQFggqMAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.latimes.com%2Fpolitics%2Fwashington%2Fla-na-essential-washington-updates-belatedly-manafort-may-register-as-1492035304-htmlstory.html&usg=AFQjCNGh5w-7lnC4ATJc86RBNK1Tb3wvNg

A question comes to mind: How much loyalty must/would a dumped manager have to his former employer when it comes to giving testimony under oath before a Senate hearing? How much would Don expect from Manafort?

Christy42

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

You think they will go to jail rather than make a deal? I don't.

Presidential pardons away. They can protect him from being impeached and he can stop them going to jail. He won't get impeached over a few pardons. They need the Republicans to break with him but I guess they figure the worst publicity they can have is to have the 2 presidents forced out of office. They could be wrong or right in that regard but it seems to be whst they are going with.

LeinsterDub

Is a presidential pardon irrevocable?

B0jangles

Christy42 wrote: »

Presidential pardons away. They can protect him from being impeached and he can stop them going to jail. He won't get impeached over a few pardons. They need the Republicans to break with him but I guess they figure the worst publicity they can have is to have the 2 presidents forced out of office. They could be wrong or right in that regard but it seems to be whst they are going with.

Apparently there is legal precedent that receiving a presidential pardon removes the pardonee's right to plead the 5th amendment, so anyone Trump pardons can be compelled later to give evidence. That might give him pause for thought...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burdick_v._United_States

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/06/02/if-youre-pardoned-can-you-be-compelled-to-testify-about-your-crime/?utm_term=.e6fa28ea072b

If you’re pardoned, can you be compelled to testify about your crime?
By Eugene Volokh June 2

1. A friend of mine asked me this question, so I researched it; the answer, turns out, is yes: A person may refuse to testify, even when subpoenaed, on the grounds that the testimony may expose him to criminal liability. But if the prospect of criminal liability disappears — whether because he has been granted adequate immunity by prosecutors, or because he has accepted a presidential pardon — then the privilege against self-incrimination also disappears. “f the witness has already received a pardon, he cannot longer set up his privilege, since he stands with respect to such offence as if it had never been committed.” Brown v. Walker (1895); see also, e.g., Nixon v. Sampson (D.D.C. 1975) (yes, that Nixon). (Remember that, as with President Richard Nixon, a pardon can preclude future criminal prosecutions, and not just erase past ones.)

Really Interested

B0jangles wrote: »

Apparently there is legal precedent that receiving a presidential pardon removes the pardonee's right to plead the 5th amendment, so anyone Trump pardons can be compelled later to give evidence. That might give him pause for thought...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burdick_v._United_States

Very interesting of course you cant plead the 5th at you at no risk of prosecution.

A Little Pony

eire4 wrote: »

A Little Pony wrote: »

Obama wasn't that liked by many country leaders, Russia and China leaders spring to mind. Trump is not a politician, he doesn't really know how government works which is pretty obvious. But I am still highly skeptical that some think he will be impeached.

I personally don't see it happening. I retain my position that he will do the 4 years.

What happens in the 2018 mid term elections will go a long way to deciding when and if there are impeachment proceedings. If the Republicans do not maintain control of both houses there will be impeachment proceedings if they retain control of one but lose the other it is up in the air.

Having said the above what we know now suggests to me that history will look back on the present Republican party in a very negative light for putting their own petty political interests ahead of their country in this whole sordid affair.

People are kidding themselves with this. The Republican Party and the Democratic Party are two cartels with the establishment backing up both parties and creating a carve up. Nothing will change once Trump era is over and both parties will carry on competing to see who can win over the special interests of donors and corporations.

Do not expect to see any revolutionary happenings taking place. America will continue playing war games and the industrial arms complex will carry on making monumental war profits along with the banks.