https://www.stuff.co.nz/world/americ...f-donald-trump
That's a bit of a dismantling of Trump by an Aussie reporter.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/world/americ...f-donald-trump
That's a bit of a dismantling of Trump by an Aussie reporter.
Is that really a problem or crime though? I think in order for it to be, you'd have to prove that Russian created a scenario that damaged Clinton. Just having possession of information and sharing it can't be remotely illegal, can it?
I can't answer that (that's what Mueller is for), but it's yet another in a long string of them lying until caught. To me, it establishes a pattern of colluding with a government that, until recently, has had an adversarial relationship with us, and lying about it until the evidence is too strong to lie about.
If there wasn't anything to hide, why the hell do they keep hiding these things until some news source breaks it open?
Hilariously, this conversation unfolds a lot like the Clinton email server conversation, so in the interest of fairness I will suggest that the Trumps are hiding their conversations with Russians because it's a witch hunt and they are trying to limit the details and control the narrative.
That said, I think Clinton knowingly broke the law when she set up her email server and at the least showed callous disregard for information safety and at worst did it so she could negotiate shady deals without any government oversight. And I think Trump absolutely colluded with the Russians and at the least showed callous disregard for the sanctity of our highest election and at worst participated in a system designed to disrupt it.
Oh, for fuck's sake, we've been through this. Clinton did not break the law. She was not a member of the military, as secretary of state she was a civilian. She may have violated company policy, but she didn't break the law by routing emails through a private server so she could get them on her phone.
Last edited by Tom Servo; July 9th, 2017 at 08:26 PM.
On a purely technical level, that makes zero sense so you'll understand why I am dubious of the intent. But, you are certainly allowed to believe whatever you'd like. It's in the past, it doesn't matter now.
I honestly didn't understand that answer in the slightest. Nonetheless, if you equate funneling email through a private server to colluding with a country we have sanctions against that may have interfered with elections, I'm going to disagree that they are equal even if the counter-claims around it have similar wording.
In the end, I disagree with your statement that she "knowingly broke the law" as the FBI disagrees that she broke the law, so I find it hard to believe that she knowingly did something that she apparently didn't do.
Last edited by Tom Servo; July 9th, 2017 at 08:43 PM.
Aiding a foreign state to influence our election is treason. That's a pretty serious crime, if I recall. If DT Jr. went into the meeting knowing that he would be given information from Russia to use during the election (obviously gained through spycraft/hacking), how is that not treason?
I was not equating the two actions in terms of cost or severity, only pointing out that it's interesting that when there's a conspiracy theory about someone people like it's a very different reaction to when there is a conspiracy theory don't like. Just an observation.
I didn't and don't want to have the email server conversation. It was a simile and nothing more. You are entitled to believe whatever you'd like to believe about it.
What is that obviously? Why could it not just be information read or seen or passed along? I'm not saying it wasn't nefarious, but a Russian talking to an American is not illegal, a Russian talking to an American about an election isn't illegal, and a Russian talking to an American about facts that could help that American isn't illegal. You can't assume the helpful facts were illicitly gained (or created).Originally Posted by Freude am Fahren
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote