Russiagate

[Schmelzer]

So you don't feel that a group trying to elevate a man to the highest office in the country needs to be under more scrutiny to make sure said person isn't beholden to a hostile foreign government?

If this is a free democratic society (LOL), the scrutiny should be that of the general law. Nothing more nothing less. So, if there is freedom of information in agreement with the human rights convention, then Trump Jun. should be free to seek information, to get it and distribute it as he like, talking with sources of whatever nationality.

So you are claiming that it is "irrelevant" if someone wishes to intentionally endanger another person?

It is irrelevant for what is discussed here, because nobody did intentionally endanger another person. Trump has, of course, tried to win the election, which, of course, created some discomfort for Hillary Clinton, but it did not endanger her.

Are you intentionally being dishonest, or did you fail to notice and/or understand the comma between "undermine the US government" and "impose regime change"? They don't have to do both - just one of them suffices to fall into that bucket.

Is the government undermined if a new president is elected? Is regime change imposed if a new president is elected? In above cases, I would suggest the US to reformulate the law, because for common sense, presidential elections are neither undermining US government nor imposing regime change.

Stolen property does not just mean physical - in other words, if I hack into your computer, and steal your email, then sell them to a marketing firm after advising said marketing firm I have obtain said emails by hacking your computer, I am guilty of selling stolen property, and the marketing firm is guilty of buying stolen property.

Fine. The point being? Who has stolen which information and sold it to which person?

Payment in the instance of Trump Jr and Co being their gaining of power in the US government that can then be used to further line their pockets (as has been done repeatedly, such as Trumps use of Trump properties for government business, et al - he has dumped MILLIONS into his own coffers this way)

LOL.

I'm really not sure why you are so determined to twist yourself into a pretzel to avoid the obvious and logical conclusion here, except that you have an ulterior motive...

Ulterior motives? I have a lot of fun seeing Americans defending totalitarian law in their own country, for themselves. I know, this is cynical. Laughing when you see other people harming themselves out of stupidity. A moral person should show much more compassion in this case. I have to admit that I don't have any compassion in this case. Instead, I have fun.

The question isn't whether there's fire; it's who'll be burned and how severely.

Yes. The actual state of US law allows a simple strategy which will ultimately burn some people. I have described that strategy already before (but maybe not in this forum, so no link).
1.) The media invent some fake news. No necessity for any proofs.
2.) Some investigation will be started.
3.) As part of the investigation, many people can and will be questioned a lot of time under oath.
4.) Unavoidable, somebody will simply hide something private but known by the NSA. Or remember something inaccurately where the NSA has the full record.
5.) The NSA gives the information to the investigators, and that unfortunate person can now be blackmailed.
6.) To save his hide, he will tell now something useful against Trump.

 

[iceaura]

If this is a free democratic society (LOL), the scrutiny should be that of the general law. Nothing more nothing less. So, if there is freedom of information in agreement with the human rights convention, then Trump Jun. should be free to seek information, to get it and distribute it as he like, talking with sources of whatever nationality.

Nonsense. No human rights convention agrees that the US should be allowed to bribe and rob and blackmail and threaten and corrupt and undermine another country's government, for example - even with the cooperation of its more corrupt citizens eager to betray their countrymen for personal advantage.

Is the government undermined if a new president is elected? Is regime change imposed if a new president is elected?

Depends on how that was accomplished. In this case, yes.

Fine. The point being? Who has stolen which information and sold it to which person?

For the third time:
The Russian government has stolen - and altered, edited, etc - a lot of email and other archived information, and sold the use of some of it to Donald Trump and his administration, while reserving some for themselves.

1.) The media invent some fake news. No necessity for any proofs.

So far, none of the anti-Trump news has proved to be fake. And none of it was invented.
Only the pro-Trump news, and anti-Clinton news, has been faked and invented.

4.) Unavoidable, somebody will simply hide something private but known by the NSA. Or remember something inaccurately where the NSA has the full record.
5.) The NSA gives the information to the investigators, and that unfortunate person can now be blackmailed.

Nothing like that has happened, or is threatened.

6.) To save his hide, he will tell now something useful against Trump

Like what?

But at least you do recognize the potential for blackmail in such behavior by information gathering entities with bad motives - which is the current threat involving Trump and his administration. They can all be blackmailed by the Russian government.

 

[Schmelzer]

No human rights convention agrees that the US should be allowed to bribe and rob and blackmail and threaten and corrupt and undermine another country's government, for example - even with the cooperation of its more corrupt citizens eager to betray their countrymen for personal advantage.

And what does this have to do with Trump Jr. right to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers?

For the third time: The Russian government has stolen - and altered, edited, etc - a lot of email and other archived information, and sold the use of some of it to Donald Trump and his administration, while reserving some for themselves.
So far, none of the anti-Trump news has proved to be fake.

Whatever Russia had done (your believing fake news is your problem), what does this have to do with Trump Jr. right to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers?

Like what?

Who cares? It should be sufficient to impeach, this is all what matters. If not, it should be at least sufficient to investigate him, asking him a lot of things many times under oath. After this, find some contradiction among the many claims, and this will be already sufficient for impeachment.

But at least you do recognize the potential for blackmail in such behavior by information gathering entities with bad motives - which is the current threat involving Trump and his administration. They can all be blackmailed by the Russian government.

What I recognize, and what I try to explain you all the time without success, is the potential for blackmail by having a lot of laws with horribly large, disproportionate penalties. And where various forms of cooperation with the police, like admitting some minor offenses or telling something against others, is the usual and accepted way to reduce these penalties. Who will use these possibilities for blackmail? As if this would matter much. The very possibility is the problem.

 

[Tiassa]

#dangerouslynonsensicalbehavior | #WhatTheyVotedFor​

​

1.) The media invent some fake news. No necessity for any proofs.
2.) Some investigation will be started.
3.) As part of the investigation, many people can and will be questioned a lot of time under oath.
4.) Unavoidable, somebody will simply hide something private ....

Sounds like you're describing the Arkansas Project, though we should also note that, in the end, simply making it up as they go also works. Like the atrocity comitted against Susan McDougal, whose case ought to count as a human rights violation under the designation of political prisoner.

However, you're certainly not describing the #Russiagate debacle. Think of it this way: In any case, lying in security applications—e.g., Flynn, Sessions, Kushner—isn't something the media needed to drum up, or hire a bunch of people to make up out of thin air.

Consider a Republican complaint from last year, that the King of Bahrain got an audience with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and only could have done so by donating to her family foundation, because, you know, hosting the Fifth Fleet of the United States Navy certainly wouldn't be sufficient.

Yeah, there were no mainstream takers on that one. Especially after years of murder conspiracies, druglord rumormongering, and a billionaire elitist newspaper owner coordinating false witness against the Clinton family. They did their damage; this time Republicans needed some foreign assistance to stop Hillary Clinton, and that's the kind of thing that will eventually come out. I mean, we all get why so many people in President Trump's association just happened to conveniently forget what were—purely coincidentally—really important events, or their obligations under law, or, you know, the basics of professionalism. That is to say, if they reported all their contacts, it would have been compelling enough to look, all things considered. They chose not to, and are being appropriately called out for the omissions.

So, at a time when people are trying to figure out what's going on, someone with both power and vested interest is both refusing to cooperate and actively going out of his way to muck things up; that's the sort of thing that gets noticed.

Because political novice or not, one need not be a White House attorney to know that, facing investigation, the one thing you simply don't do is screw with the investigators. No, really, you don't need to be a career Beltway attorney to know that; in the U.S., simply being an attorney is enough that it is formally expected of you―e.g., Marc Kasowitz ought to already know to (A) not advise his client to tamper with a federal investigation, and (B) not go bragging about actually doing so. If you are a bar-certified attorney in the United States, you are expected to know that advising your client to tamper with a federal investigation is both a disbarrable offense and a crime.

This crew is beyond Keystone slapstick; it's one thing to ride Scaife's legacy and misplaced conservative bawling about "fake news", but consider Roger Stone, a long-infamous political operator known as "Nixon's dirty trickster", bragging that he was in touch with Russian hackers who attacked the DNC. You raise the Scaife model for fake news driving investigations, but overlook the actual behavior of Team Trump, throughout.

Maddow↱ got NYT Washington investigations editor Mark Mazzetti for an interview Tuesday night, and one of the questions was whether or not the reporting pushed Trump Jr.'s release of the emails, and it sounds like the case. It's worth noting in that context that, yes, what the Times had seemed to have pushed the situation, because at one point we were supposed to believe Donald the Younger called Kushner and Manafort to the meeting without telling them who or what, which was itself a really suspicious line, and now we know that he forwarded the Goldstone message to them.

In this case, your thesis runs awry at point one; these jokers were going to get caught. I don't know if it's that they didn't really expect to win, so they weren't giving the shenanigans their all, or what's up, but they really are like two-bit, wannabe mobsters who can't manage to do a damn thing right. For all they and their supporters complain about the media, the amount and nature of self-inflicted damage the Trump administration and family alike have accomplished are astonishing.

And point five, by the way—"and that unfortunate person can now be blackmailed"—would appear to lend sympathy to criminals. Anecdotally: Once upon a time, when I was ten or eleven, my brother convinced me government satellites could see me whack off; I actually remember fretting for a short while until it occurred to me I wouldn't want, were I a prosecutor, to explain where I got the orbital video of some dude whacking off. Look, what, in your dystopiate fantasy, are they holding over the "unfortunate person"? An affair? An HIV diagnosis? If the federal government was doing that, the wheels would have come off a long time ago; there comes a point at which any such manner of conspiracy theory requires extraordinary discipline and efficiency among government actors.

I have punch line about how the people who think I don't have a sense of humor are the same as those who don't laugh at my jokes. I think through various security scandals over the years, and recall how people were astonished that Hillary Clinton wasn't charged while someone who did something completely different was, and it's true I generally don't mention that if I wanted to feel paranoid I could worry about (A) federal officials announcing their resignations and explicitly making the point that they aren't being forced out, and (B) who has what on which members of Congress, like the bizarre behavior from Nunes and Chaffetz in the House.

Then again, paranoia doesn't suit me; the departing officials are sending up different flares, and nobody needs to blackmail Congressional Republicans in order to compel dangerously nonsensical behavior.

Oh, right: And nobody needs to make up fake news to warrant these investigations, or mounting suspicions about various people's behavior. Consider disgraced former NSA Flynn: He concealed both foreign contacts and agency, the latter in violation of law regardless of appointment to NSA. Mr. Flynn has since asked for immunity; it might simply be about those violations, but it turns out the Vice President of the United States, in being asked about Flynn, lied. Donald Trump publicly approved of the behavior in an attempt to shift focus from the wrong aspect of the problem, and even that was so clumsy as to dig deeper.
____________________

Notes:

Maddow, Rachel. "NYTimes Trump Jr. reporting 'not closed by any measure'". The Rachel Maddow Show. msnbc. 11 July 2017. msnbc.com. 12 July 2017. http://on.msnbc.com/2sOG9Hp

 

[iceaura]

Whatever Russia had done (your believing fake news is your problem), what does this have to do with Trump Jr. right to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers?

Nothing. He of course has that right, no problem. Just as I do, and exercise freely. What's your point?

If not, it should be at least sufficient to investigate him, asking him a lot of things many times under oath. After this, find some contradiction among the many claims, and this will be already sufficient for impeachment.

So change to Trump Sr, ok:
Like what - what do you imagine as sufficient for impeachment here, in these contradictions you imagine will be presented under the duress of abusive questioning under oath you imagine Trump subjected to some day?

Who cares? It should be sufficient to impeach, this is all what matters.

So let's see you come up with some examples relevant to the situation.

What I recognize, and what I try to explain you all the time without success, is the potential for blackmail by having a lot of laws with horribly large, disproportionate penalties.

Which you somehow imagine as being relevant to this situation. Why?

 

[Schmelzer]

Do I have sympathy for criminals? Not really. Those who violate laws doing what they have a right to do following the human rights charta, namely if they "seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers", have my support, in this particular question, despite the fact that they are criminals. Because the law they have violated in this case itself violates their human rights. I would support somebody who simply uses his basic human rights even if I would hate him. That's classical liberal (ok, only European liberal) tradition.

Remember also my (5) The NSA gives the information to the investigators, and that unfortunate person can now be blackmailed.
Here, we seem to have a case of such blackmail. A variant of it, where some unknown source has given private emails to NYT, which has resulted in a successful blackmail, as "one of the questions was whether or not the reporting pushed Trump Jr.'s release of the emails" suggests. So, let's add this variant:
5.) The NSA gives the information to the investigators or the media, and that unfortunate person can now be blackmailed.

He of course has that right, no problem.

No problem? I see, up to now, nothing but him using this right. He seeks some information, which could damage Hillary, and tries to get it using all sources available to him.

what do you imagine as sufficient for impeachment here, in these contradictions you imagine will be presented under the duress of abusive questioning under oath you imagine Trump subjected to some day?

A contradiction means that or one claim was false, or the other, contradicting one. Anyway, a false claim under oath. Wasn't the false claim about no sex with Monica the point of the Clinton impeachment procedure?

So let's see you come up with some examples relevant to the situation.
Which you somehow imagine as being relevant to this situation. Why?

My point is the simple scheme to get rid of Trump which I see working here, nicely. I think that such a simple scheme works nicely would be something you should better care about. But this is, of course, your problem. Not my. I would think twice before entering such state where this works even for a weekend trip, that's all.

 

[ElectricFetus]

Thing I have to wonder is... how long will this go on, and how far will his popularity fall, before someone goes Lee Harvey Oswald on him?

He is only doing ~40% approval as of now, Bush Jr, got to half of that once and is still alive, in fact there is all this strange nostalgia now of Bush Jr going around, not being so bad because Trump's offensive stupidity makes Bush Jr stupidity look adorable and quaint.

 

[Kittamaru]

If this is a free democratic society (LOL), the scrutiny should be that of the general law. Nothing more nothing less. So, if there is freedom of information in agreement with the human rights convention, then Trump Jun. should be free to seek information, to get it and distribute it as he like, talking with sources of whatever nationality.

It is irrelevant for what is discussed here, because nobody did intentionally endanger another person. Trump has, of course, tried to win the election, which, of course, created some discomfort for Hillary Clinton, but it did not endanger her.

Really now? So you would have no problem if I were to, say, collaborate with a girl to feign interest in you with the purpose of garnering access to your medical records? After all, from what you are saying, it would be on YOU to ensure her intentions were pure.

Is the government undermined if a new president is elected? Is regime change imposed if a new president is elected? In above cases, I would suggest the US to reformulate the law, because for common sense, presidential elections are neither undermining US government nor imposing regime change.

It is indeed, especially when the electoral process itself is undermined. How you could possibly fail to see that is a mystery - I can only conclude you are willingly blinding yourself to it in order to further praise your cheeto.

Fine. The point being? Who has stolen which information and sold it to which person?

Russian agents had potentially damaging information they wished to use to aid Trump in winning. If you don't think they expected some sort of payment for this (such as, perhaps, removal of sanctions) then you are incredibly naive.

LOL.

Ulterior motives? I have a lot of fun seeing Americans defending totalitarian law in their own country, for themselves. I know, this is cynical. Laughing when you see other people harming themselves out of stupidity. A moral person should show much more compassion in this case. I have to admit that I don't have any compassion in this case. Instead, I have fun.

So, you admit you are trolling. Excellent. Now those of us looking for actual and honest conversation can ignore your bullshit Thanks!

Yes. The actual state of US law allows a simple strategy which will ultimately burn some people. I have described that strategy already before (but maybe not in this forum, so no link).
1.) The media invent some fake news. No necessity for any proofs.
2.) Some investigation will be started.
3.) As part of the investigation, many people can and will be questioned a lot of time under oath.
4.) Unavoidable, somebody will simply hide something private but known by the NSA. Or remember something inaccurately where the NSA has the full record.
5.) The NSA gives the information to the investigators, and that unfortunate person can now be blackmailed.
6.) To save his hide, he will tell now something useful against Trump.

Once again, you are using the "ACK! I DON'T LIKE IT, IT'S FAKE NEWS!!! *foam at the mouth*" method...

 

[ElectricFetus]

There are no such "moderates and swing voters", there aren't going to be any such "high paying jobs" if Trump finishes his term of office, and so forth.

We been over this, your wrong, about the moderate and swing voters, I pull out references, everything, you simply refuse to believe the sky is blue. As for Trump and jobs as long as the economy keeps going as it is, yes by 2020 trump "you will be tired of winning" strategy will be a undeniable lie to all those that voted for him on the premise they would start "winning".

The question is not so much of impeachment as information. If the nature of the Trump presidency is clear, the question of what to do about it becomes a Republican problem. Trump may be hard to touch - his family less so. There is no reason Kushner should not be denied security clearance, likewise Donald Jr, over these dealings with foreign powers. And so forth.

Here is the republican strategy: say your "concerned", then do nothing.

 

[Schmelzer]

Really now? So you would have no problem if I were to, say, collaborate with a girl to feign interest in you with the purpose of garnering access to your medical records? After all, from what you are saying, it would be on YOU to ensure her intentions were pure.

I would have a problem only with the person who has access to my medical records, and obliged not to give them away because this is part of her job, but nonetheless giving it away. If somebody cheats me, I blame myself.

It is indeed, especially when the electoral process itself is undermined. How you could possibly fail to see that is a mystery - I can only conclude you are willingly blinding yourself to it in order to further praise your cheeto.

If some person has hacked a server to steal data, blame that person for stealing data. Stealing data is not covered by the human rights. Distributing information other people have given you voluntarily is covered. How else could whistleblowing work, if the media would be forbidden to publish what they have told them?

Russian agents had potentially damaging information they wished to use to aid Trump in winning. If you don't think they expected some sort of payment for this (such as, perhaps, removal of sanctions) then you are incredibly naive.

LOL. As if Russia would care about the sanctions. Don't forget, Putin is, at least in part, also supporting protectionism. Sanctions are nice for protectionists. Putin has already used the EU sanctions to throw the EU out of the Russian agriculture market. And he hopes a lot that the EU will continue them, so that he does not have to stop the counter-sanctions. This is a game Russia likes to play. Say, some people in Russia were quite uncomfortable with Russia allowing adoptions of Russian children by Americans. And, timely, there came the Magnitzky Act. I nice justification to stop this.

And if Russia would have been interested in Trump winning the elections, they would have given all the anti-Hillary infos for free.

 

[Kittamaru]

I would have a problem only with the person who has access to my medical records, and obliged not to give them away because this is part of her job, but nonetheless giving it away. If somebody cheats me, I blame myself.

... wow. Just wow.

If some person has hacked a server to steal data, blame that person for stealing data. Stealing data is not covered by the human rights. Distributing information other people have given you voluntarily is covered. How else could whistleblowing work, if the media would be forbidden to publish what they have told them?

Thankfully for the rest of civilized society, you on't get the make the rules. Purchasing goods you know are stolen is a punishable crime, as it should be.

LOL. As if Russia would care about the sanctions. Don't forget, Putin is, at least in part, also supporting protectionism. Sanctions are nice for protectionists. Putin has already used the EU sanctions to throw the EU out of the Russian agriculture market. And he hopes a lot that the EU will continue them, so that he does not have to stop the counter-sanctions. This is a game Russia likes to play. Say, some people in Russia were quite uncomfortable with Russia allowing adoptions of Russian children by Americans. And, timely, there came the Magnitzky Act. I nice justification to stop this.

Really? Russia doesn't care?
http://www.latimes.com/politics/was...-sanctions-abruptly-1498069279-htmlstory.html

Moscow announced Wednesday that it was canceling Shannon's meeting with Russia's deputy foreign minister, Sergei Ryabkov.
The reason: language issued the day before by the Treasury Department that updated the sanctions against Russia, first imposed in 2014 when it annexed Crimea and backed rebellion in eastern Ukraine.
A State Department spokeswoman, Heather Nauert, said the U.S. regretted Moscow's decision to "turn away from an opportunity to discuss bilateral obstacles that hinder U.S.-Russia relations."

She described the new language on sanctions as a "maintenance package" that updates the measures, something the U.S. does twice a year.
"If the Russians seek an end to these sanctions, they know very well the U.S. position: Our sanctions... will remain in place until Russia fully honors its obligations" to withdraw from the Crimean peninsula, she said in a statement.
The meeting was canceled days after the Senate voted 98-2 to approve tougher Russian sanctions. The measure also requires Congress to review any effort by the Trump administration to loosen the current sanctions.

So I guess Russia was just like "lol nope!" and cancelled the meeting out of hand, right?

And if Russia would have been interested in Trump winning the elections, they would have given all the anti-Hillary infos for free.

Now I know you are just lying outright, especially given that we have email correspondence SHOWING that Russia wanted Trump to win.

Nobody is buying is Schmelzer... your schit Schtinks.

 

[Kittamaru]

Also of note: Trump Sr. knew...

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/11/us/politics/russia-trump.html

As Air Force One jetted back from Europe on Saturday, a small cadre of Mr. Trump’s advisers huddled in a cabin helping to craft a statement for the president’s eldest son, Donald Trump Jr., to give to The New York Times explaining why he met last summer with a lawyer connected to the Russian government. Participants on the plane and back in the United States debated how transparent to be in the statement, according to people familiar with the discussions.

Ultimately, the people said, the president signed off on a statement from Donald Trump Jr. for The Times that was so incomplete that it required day after day of follow-up statements, each more revealing than the last. It culminated on Tuesday with a release of emails making clear that Mr. Trump’s son believed the Russian lawyer was seeking to meet with him to provide incriminating information about Hillary Clinton as “part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump.”

 

[Schmelzer]

Really? Russia doesn't care?
http://www.latimes.com/politics/was...-sanctions-abruptly-1498069279-htmlstory.html
So I guess Russia was just like "lol nope!" and cancelled the meeting out of hand, right?

If America makes some unfriendly sounds, there will be, of course, some similar unfriendly diplomatic response. If you think this tells much about how much Russia cares about sanctions you are wrong.

Now I know you are just lying outright, especially given that we have email correspondence SHOWING that Russia wanted Trump to win.

First, learn to read. If I write "If X then ..." it tells nothing about if X is true or not. I have simply no opinion about this. Maybe Putin wanted Trump, maybe not. Putin knows, I don't know, and the question is not interesting for me at all. If you think these emails tell something about what Russia wanted, instead of simply telling us that this lawyer wanted a meeting with Trump Jr., ok, feel free to believe. BTW, I have a bridge to sell.

Nobody is buying is Schmelzer... your schit Schtinks.

No, the bridge I have to sell you is a really beautiful one, no sh...

 

[Bells]

Sorry, no, that Trump Jun. has participated in hacking is new to me. What I have seen was only that he was talking with some evil person who promised to tell some evil information about Clinton, which could have been used in the campaign.

The information, as he was duly informed in the emails, was from the Russian government, whom you blithely declared were merely gathering information, ignoring the fact that they hacked into the DNC and stole said information..

You missed that from the email he released?

If the only question is that you, as a free person, have the right to talk with that person, to receive the evil information, and to distribute it, then, yes, the source has to be irrelevant in a free society. To decide if this person has done something illegal or not, is not your obligation before talking to somebody.

Perhaps that is how it is in the cave you live in.

Out in the real world, if you a) suspect that a foreign nation is interfering with an election which even 5 year olds understand is illegal and b) that foreign nation contacts you because they want to give you the info they gathered through their interference with the election to help you win, then no, only a moron would think that they have a right to talk to that person or agent of said foreign nation.

Put simply, say you are in negotiations with someone to buy a TV, and that person tells you that the TV is stolen. Knowingly buying that TV that you know is stolen is a crime.

Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 19.
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Now tell me where in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, does it advocate breaking the law and colluding with a foreign nation to interfere in an election? I mean, talk about taking Article 19 out of context..

I have seen people attempt to apply stupid interpretations to Article 19. Yours is up there.

You should perhaps refer to Article 21 (3). Pay particular attention to the words "genuine elections". A foreign nation actively colluding with one party and illegally hacking and stealing from the other party with the express bid of ensuring their preferred party one does not fall under the banner of "genuine elections". In fact, it is in direct contradiction to not only Article 19, but also Article 21 (3) at a bare minimum. Theft, collusion, illegal acts, are not covered by the Declaration. Sorry to disappoint you.

 

[Kittamaru]

If America makes some unfriendly sounds, there will be, of course, some similar unfriendly diplomatic response. If you think this tells much about how much Russia cares about sanctions you are wrong.

First, learn to read. If I write "If X then ..." it tells nothing about if X is true or not. I have simply no opinion about this. Maybe Putin wanted Trump, maybe not. Putin knows, I don't know, and the question is not interesting for me at all. If you think these emails tell something about what Russia wanted, instead of simply telling us that this lawyer wanted a meeting with Trump Jr., ok, feel free to believe. BTW, I have a bridge to sell.

No, the bridge I have to sell you is a really beautiful one, no sh...

Hahaha, oh man oh man... I think I'm done dealing with you. I prefer those that actually stick to reality.

Go beg your beloved Putin for favors, you won't find any here.

To set the record back on track from Schmelzers attempted diversion: potential charges include criminal or civil violations of campaign finance laws that prohibit accepting anything of value from a foreign government or a foreign national. The promised Russian “documents" and "information” would have been an illegal campaign contribution from a foreign government — and a priceless one at that.

 

[Schmelzer]

The information, as he was duly informed in the emails, was from the Russian government, whom you blithely declared were merely gathering information, ignoring the fact that they hacked into the DNC and stole said information.. You missed that from the email he released?

Yes. All what I was able to see there was that some Emin claimed to some Rob that there exists some information.
The "fact" that it was the Russian government which has hacked the DNC I ignore, of course, like all fake news.

Put simply, say you are in negotiations with someone to buy a TV, and that person tells you that the TV is stolen. Knowingly buying that TV that you know is stolen is a crime.

Yes. So what? Was there any claim that Trump Jr. has paid some money for this?
Moreover, I'm not sure if the press is not allowed to pay informants, simply because they have got their information in some not very legal ways.

Now tell me where in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, does it advocate breaking the law and colluding with a foreign nation to interfere in an election? I mean, talk about taking Article 19 out of context..

LOL. The point of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is not about the right of individual persons to break laws. It is about the obligation of states who have signed it, that they should not have laws which forbid to do the things they have a right to do.

In case you have not recognized: I do not care at all about the fate of poor Trump Jr. If you, following some old local traditions, hang them after tarring and feathering, so be it. All I tell you is, you don't have the rights you can read about in that fantasy named declaration of human rights. Just in case you have believed you have such rights.

 

[Kittamaru]

Yes. All what I was able to see there was that some Emin claimed to some Rob that there exists some information.
The "fact" that it was the Russian government which has hacked the DNC I ignore, of course, like all fake news.

You ignore it because you dislike it... unfortunately for you, this does not change reality. I suggest you get used to dealing in reality, rather than your pathetic little fantasy land.

Yes. So what? Was there any claim that Trump Jr. has paid some money for this?
Moreover, I'm not sure if the press is not allowed to pay informants, simply because they have got their information in some not very legal ways.

If you believe that Russian agents are going to hand over that information without some form of payment, then you are a bigger fool than I thought.

LOL. The point of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is not about the right of individual persons to break laws. It is about the obligation of states who have signed it, that they should not have laws which forbid to do the things they have a right to do.

In case you have not recognized: I do not care at all about the fate of poor Trump Jr. If you, following some old local traditions, hang them after tarring and feathering, so be it. All I tell you is, you don't have the rights you can read about in that fantasy named declaration of human rights. Just in case you have believed you have such rights.

Yet what you are claiming now is that you feel there should be NO LAW that can inhibit what you perceive to be a right...

Well, I feel I should have the right to walk into the grocery store and walk out with a cart full of food I didn't pay for. Oops, guess what, just like what you have posited, me wanting something doesn't' make it a right!

 

[Schmelzer]

You ignore it because you dislike it... unfortunately for you, this does not change reality.

LOL, yet another person who speculates about what I think.

I ignore it because I have insufficient information. There could have been good reasons for Putin to support Clinton. Clinton was known to be corrupt, what would be better than a corrupt president of the enemy? And, moreover, it does not matter. It may matter for Trump-fans. I'm not. I support Trump as less evil, that's all. If Putin has really hacked DNC, or voting machines or whatever, my comment would be nice job, FSB.

If you believe that Russian agents are going to hand over that information without some form of payment, then you are a bigger fool than I thought.

If you think they would have to care at that time about receiving some promise to get something in exchange, then you are the fool. If Trump would have been elected, based on such information, Russia could expect something good even without such a promise.

Yet what you are claiming now is that you feel there should be NO LAW that can inhibit what you perceive to be a right...

There should be, indeed, NO LAW that would inhibit the rights described in the Human Rights declaration. This is the point of the declaration. Else, it would be simply a peace of paper from Stalin time not worth to be read except by historians or researchers of propaganda techniques.

Well, I feel I should have the right to walk into the grocery store and walk out with a cart full of food I didn't pay for.

Based on which article of the declaration of Human Rights?

 

[Kittamaru]

LOL, yet another person who speculates about what I think.

Hardly any need to speculate - your actions and words speak plainly for all to see.

I ignore it because I have insufficient information. There could have been good reasons for Putin to support Clinton. Clinton was known to be corrupt, what would be better than a corrupt president of the enemy? And, moreover, it does not matter. It may matter for Trump-fans. I'm not. I support Trump as less evil, that's all. If Putin has really hacked DNC, or voting machines or whatever, my comment would be nice job, FSB.

Point 1 - Collusion between Team Trump and Russia has already been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The only question now is "how much".
Point 2 - There is no good reason for Putin to support Clinton (what are you even babbling about?)
Point 3 - In what was was Clinton "corrupt" as you claim? Because she got paid for giving speeches, as many other pubic figures have in the past?
Point 4 - It does matter.
Point 5 - You support Trump. He is not "less evil" than Clinton. He is using the presidential office to enrich himself and his friends and family... which is illegal.
Point 6 - What "if"? I believe every US intelligence agency has said the same thing, as have multiple other worldwide agencies. I'm going to guess at this point you won't believe it unless Putin himself says it happened (since, you know, a Russian spokesperson has already admitted it in those emails...)
Point 7 - "nice job"... yeah, a Russian Apologist like yourself would only say that...

There should be, indeed, NO LAW that would inhibit the rights described in the Human Rights declaration. This is the point of the declaration. Else, it would be simply a peace of paper from Stalin time not worth to be read except by historians or researchers of propaganda techniques.

http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/

Okay, so, if NO LAW can inhibit these rights, then I guess we need to let all the rapists, murderers, child pornographers, and numerous other violent criminals out of prison... after all, OUR LAWS are infringing on THEIR RIGHT to freedom (article 1), privacy (article 12), their property (article 17), the right to not belong to an association (article 20), the right to work, to free choice of employment, and remuneration (article 23).

After all, that is what you JUST SAID - NO LAW would inhibit those rights.

Based on which article of the declaration of Human Rights?

Articles 25 and 27 -
Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

and

Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.

I believe it to be my cultural right to do so. (go ahead, prove me wrong) I also find myself financially pinched, and so cannot pay for the nourishing and nutritious food that my body needs.

 

[iceaura]

I would have a problem only with the person who has access to my medical records, and obliged not to give them away because this is part of her job, but nonetheless giving it away. If somebody cheats me, I blame myself.

If somebody cheats your parents, your brothers and sisters, your friends, your grandmother - that's ok too?
(btw: since you care about them in particular: access to medical records is involved here - Putin's agents, as we may now describe Russian hackers in general, have apparently stolen them as well).

If you think they would have to care at that time about receiving some promise to get something in exchange, then you are the fool. If Trump would have been elected, based on such information, Russia could expect something good even without such a promise.

Exactly. That's why it's illegal.

He seeks some information, which could damage Hillary, and tries to get it using all sources available to him.

He seeks to coordinate with the Russian mob and agents of the Russian government, pay them to commit a crime from which he benefits and share with them in the proceeds.

My point is the simple scheme to get rid of Trump which I see working here, nicely. I think that such a simple scheme works nicely would be something you should better care about.

I do care. I'm very worried that this scheme - enforcement of even clear and damaging violations of very basic law against someone powerful and wealthy - will not work any more, in the US. Because I see it not working - I see reputation supplanting law, at the very highest levels of US government. And fear is the most effective reputation there is.

So you should worry as well. Because if so, the people no longer subject to law have nuclear weapons and belligerent, self-aggrandizing, shortsighted agendas in your town even more than in mine.

No problem? I see, up to now, nothing but him using this right

Your famous eyesight again - the most comical source of information about what isn't supposed to exist in the real world on this forum. (Then again, how else would we know? It's not like the events and circumstances come with tags on them saying which of them didn't happen and don't exist).

Ever play peek-a-boo with a small child, who covers their eyes to hide themselves? There's a German version, the adult says iirc "Wo bist du".

I say to you: There you are.