Notes on Denial
Click because it's more entertaining to do so.
First of all it is ridiculous, given that I have not made it.
As I said, your argument circumstantially requires that societies have no right to elect their own leaders and must allow hostile foreign nations to participate:
•
"UDHR art. 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. (#336↑)
•
"I simply assume that it does not follow in a way obvious to Trump Jr. that the information offered had something to do with DNC at all. So, whatever one thinks about DNC is irrelevant for the case of Trump Jr." (#305↑)
•
"Here we have a nice example for the last question. We have the UHDR, art. 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. And we have a guy, who has heard that somebody has some valuable information for him and wants to talk with him, and has accepted this. And all you cry 'hang him', nobody even cares about his own rights. And all this simply because he is a political enemy." (#294↑)
•
"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." (#276↑)
•
"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." (#266↑)
•
"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?" (#263↑)
Meanwhile,
Bells↑ went and made the point about a nation's elections,
vis à vis Article 21, and it's easy enough to notice
you skipped out↑.
You keep overlooking some basic facts:
(1) Taking the meeting was itself illegal, according to Donald Jr.'s own descriptions in some of his accounts, and the email chain he released.
(2) One participant and member of the Trump administration, Jared Kushner, has furthermore broken the law by omitting the meeting from his SF-86 clearance application; it turns out Mr. Kushner omitted multiple contacts with foreign nationals. Not all of these meetings are inherently illegal, but omitting them from the SF-86 was.
(3) Another participant in the meeting, then a campaign manager for Donald Trump, has broken the law by failing to register as a foreign agent; we also know that Paul Manafort has been blackmailed, ostensibly over his participation with the Yanukovych administration.
(4) Meanwhile, we also have a bizarre story swiriling in which a longtime GOP operative sought out the Wall Street Journal to assert his efforts in pursuit of Hillary Clinton's email, which he believed to be in the hands of Russian-sponsored hackers. Everything about the story is weird, but it has outside corroboration, and we now have a witness asserting that, in addition to simply boasting cooperation with Mike Flynn and the Trump campaign, he saw some manner of paper document that could at this point either be real with its full implications, real as part of a swindle run by Peter Smith and therefore untrue, or an invention of the witness, naming Steve Bannon, Kellyanne Conway, Sam Clovis (now at Agriculture), Mike Flynn, and the CEO of ALEC, Lisa Nelson.
(5) And, oh, yeah, we also need to include that Mike Flynn apparently committed crimes by omitting contacts from his SF-86 and failing to register as a foreign agent.
At this point it's worth looking back to
#261↑ and your conspiracy theory list that opens with, "The media invent some fake news. No necessity for any proofs." As
I said↑ then, it sounds like you're describing the Arkansas Project. Nobody needs to make up fake news to warrant the attention the known crimes have garnered, nor the increasing weariness and wariness people are showing the Trump administration and family about that weird phenomenon that is either extraordinary and in some cases potentially pathological lying, or else a bizarre outcome akin to a statistically impossible string of perfect accidents.
Your insistence on trying to frame the issue as mere information exchange functionally rejects the right of a nation to reserve its elections to its own people:
• "And this is what I'm arguing about. If what Trump Jr. has done, according to the emails, is illegal, then your government infringes your human rights. If you don't care, feel free to ignore my postings about this."
Donald Trump, Jr., in a statement released with the emails, explained that he thought the Russian meeting would bring political opposition research, and that, in a political campaign, is unquestionably a thing of value. Attempting to collect this thing of value from a foreign resource violates the campaign laws that reserve the election to Americans. This is further complicated by his direct invitation of the campaign itself. Donald the Younger's campaign role is actually described as surrogate, which means the attempt to collect a thing of value to interfere with the election would have been just his problem, such as it was, but then he brought Kushner and Manafort into the loop, and that makes it Manafort's problem, Kushner's problem, the Trump campaign's problem, and Donald Trump's problem both personally and as President of the United States. And, you know, there is, of course, the whole bit directly implicating Trump père, when Goldstone suggests he can send the information directly via Rhona, that is to say, a longtime personal secretary and assistant to Donald the Elder who is apparently still within the Trump private-sector organization.
Indeed, the one thing that really does stand out in all of this is the ludicrous blatancy of the emails, and of Donald Trump Jr.'s ridiculously confessional response to the issue; furthermore, that the White House itself is caught up in the clodhopping conceits is worth noting, as that adds another vector by which President Trump is entangled.
Trying to deceive by pretending the obvious aspect your argument requires, and makes precisely no sense without, is somehow irrelevant is hardly innovative behavior.
No, I support contract law. You are obliged to do what you accept by signing contracts. Contract law can be enforced by reputation, and does not require any world government. Has the US signed the UDHR or not? If yes, it is obliged to follow it. If they don't, they are contract breakers.
Once again, your argument circumstantially requires that societies have no right to elect their own leaders and must allow hostile foreign nations to participate.
Whatever they are does not matter. One can sign contracts with the mafia too. And one would be obliged to follow them even in this case - with the penalty of losing reputation. Even if you have broken a contract with some evil force, I would be stupid to believe you are not ready to break a contract with me too. And the same holds for the mafia. If a mafia gang is known to hold contracts, it will have advantages from this.
That says more about you than anything else, Schmelzer.
• Reputation — This is one of the stupidest things about your pathetic, antisocial tantrum: What in the history of human civilization suggests people will choose "reputation" over greed or perceptions of self-preservation? This article of faith is utterly laughable.
• Evil force — Most would worry about the fact of having entered into a contract with some evil force. The exception, however, is if one had no reasonable way of knowing they were entering into a contract with an evil force, and in that case, your sense of honor would appear to advocate evil, Schmelzer, and, you know, good on you—that's just super.
• Mafia gang known to hold contracts — Recognizing the principle of honor among thieves is hardly innovative; most people, these days, seem rather quite wary of the notion since so many thieves have shown themselves willing to pretend honor in order to advance their dishonest work—we are wise to view the convention as unstable.
You can't just keep wandering around trying to say the complications you can't deal with simply don't matter.
―End Part I―
1) Taking the meeting was itself illegal, according to Donald Jr.'s own descriptions in some of his accounts, and the email chain he released.