OT: Looks like Don Jr may have stepped in it :)

[hon...@yahoo.com]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/07/11/russian-lawyer-who-met-with-donald-trump-jr-denies-kremlin-connection.html

[bloggs.fred...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, July 11, 2017 at 9:19:23 AM UTC-4, hon...@yahoo.com wrote:
> http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/07/11/russian-lawyer-who-met-with-donald-trump-jr-denies-kremlin-connection.html

The DNC was doing the same thing. It is not against the law.

[hon...@yahoo.com]

I'm not so sure about that. Find the interview with Richard Painter, a former ethics lawyer for GW Bush and a self described Republican.

[bloggs.fred...@gmail.com]

This Russian crap is chump change:

https://consortiumnews.com/2017/07/10/forgetting-the-dirty-dossier-on-trump/
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/notes-indicate-nixon-interfered-1968-peace-talks-180961627/
https://consortiumnews.com/2014/04/09/reagan-bush-ties-to-iran-hostage-crisis/

[k...@notreal.com]

On Tue, 11 Jul 2017 06:19:15 -0700 (PDT), hon...@yahoo.com wrote:

>http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/07/11/russian-lawyer-who-met-with-donald-trump-jr-denies-kremlin-connection.html

That's what they've been saying, every stinkin' day, for a year. "This
time...".

[Mikko OH2HVJ]

Looking from finnish perspective this show looks exactly what and how
the russians were 'interacting' with our politics for decades.

We've got even a word describing the russian person in this kind of setting.

Gotta re-read the history books and get some popcorn!

--
mikko

[Mark Storkamp]

In article <1f31bf87-1a0e-4018...@googlegroups.com>,

<http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/13/hillary-clintons-team-met-rus
sian-ambassador-says-kremlin-spokesman/>

With everyone so upset that Russia may have tried to influence our
election, what about:

<https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/may/04/barack-obama-backs-macron-
in-last-minute-election-intervention>

[k...@notreal.com]

Or:
<http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jul/12/obama-admin-sent-taxpayer-money-oust-netanyahu/>

Or:
<https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/apr/24/leave-campaign-obama-trade-warning-eu-referendum>

[Mark Storkamp]

In article <gkbamcd1oug6oj7mg...@4ax.com>,

He's made quite a habit of violating the Logan Act.

[bloggs.fred...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, July 11, 2017 at 9:19:23 AM UTC-4, hon...@yahoo.com wrote:
> http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/07/11/russian-lawyer-who-met-with-donald-trump-jr-denies-kremlin-connection.html

https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderickgregory/2017/02/18/no-one-mentions-that-the-russian-trail-leads-to-democratic-lobbyists/#6f192ba13991

[hon...@yahoo.com]

On Tuesday, July 11, 2017 at 6:10:06 PM UTC-5, bloggs.fred...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 11, 2017 at 9:19:23 AM UTC-4, hon...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/07/11/russian-lawyer-who-met-with-donald-trump-jr-denies-kremlin-connection.html

Of course she's going to deny it.

>
> https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderickgregory/2017/02/18/no-one-mentions-that-the-russian-trail-leads-to-democratic-lobbyists/#6f192ba13991

Ok, so there's Russian connections to Democratic lobbyists. Is this illegal? It's sounding like what Donald Jr has done may have broken some laws. Have the lobbyists broken any laws? I'm not seeing any mention of that.

[bloggs.fred...@gmail.com]

Everyone keeps shooting their mouth off about treason and breaking laws. The United States Code is not a secret, it's open to the public. So give us the cite of the violation.

[John Robertson]

Dealing with a hostile foreign power during an election campaign to aid
your candidate? How is this a thing?

Why did the Russians want to help Trump get elected? How does Trump
becoming president help Russia's interests?

Have you thought about that at all?

John

[hon...@yahoo.com]

Oh boy, where do I start. First have you read the emails posted on Jr's own Twitter account? Some excerpts for those of you who don't want to read:

"Emin asked that I schedule a meeting with you and the RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT ATTORNEY WHO IS FLYING OVER FROM MOSCOW"

"This is obviously very high level and sensitive information BUT IS PART OF THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT'S SUPPORT FOR MR TRUMP"

This is from https://transition.fec.gov/pages/brochures/foreign.shtml:

"The Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) prohibits any foreign national from contributing, donating or spending funds in connection with any federal, state, or local election in the United States, either directly or indirectly. It is also unlawful to help foreign nationals violate that ban or to solicit, receive or accept contributions or donations from them. Persons who knowingly and willfully engage in these activities may be subject to fines and/or imprisonment."

Jr. keeps saying he received no useful information, but this is irrelevant. He went to this meeting with the CLEAR intent of receiving information to help Trump's campaign. That would be like someone trying to rob a convenience store, they pull a gun, get the employee to open the register, but there's nothing in there. So the assailant uses the excuse that they didn't gain anything. Would they be charged despite leaving with no loot? Absolutely!

Nobody can cry "fake news": this information is STRAIGHT from Jr's twitter feed and the Federal Elections Commission.

[dagmarg...@yahoo.com]

On Thursday, July 13, 2017 at 7:57:49 AM UTC-4, hon...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 12, 2017 at 8:14:39 PM UTC-5, bloggs.fred...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Wednesday, July 12, 2017 at 7:26:59 AM UTC-4, hon...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, July 11, 2017 at 6:10:06 PM UTC-5, bloggs.fred...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, July 11, 2017 at 9:19:23 AM UTC-4, hon...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > > > http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/07/11/russian-lawyer-who-met-with-donald-trump-jr-denies-kremlin-connection.html
> > >
> > > Of course she's going to deny it.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderickgregory/2017/02/18/no-one-mentions-that-the-russian-trail-leads-to-democratic-lobbyists/#6f192ba13991
> > >
> > > Ok, so there's Russian connections to Democratic lobbyists. Is this illegal? It's sounding like what Donald Jr has done may have broken some laws. Have the lobbyists broken any laws? I'm not seeing any mention of that.
> >
> > Everyone keeps shooting their mouth off about treason and breaking laws. The United States Code is not a secret, it's open to the public. So give us the cite of the violation.
>
> Oh boy, where do I start. First have you read the emails posted on Jr's own Twitter account? Some excerpts for those of you who don't want to read:
>
> "Emin asked that I schedule a meeting with you and the RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT ATTORNEY WHO IS FLYING OVER FROM MOSCOW"
>
> "This is obviously very high level and sensitive information BUT IS PART OF THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT'S SUPPORT FOR MR TRUMP"
>
> This is from https://transition.fec.gov/pages/brochures/foreign.shtml:
>
> "The Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) prohibits any foreign national from contributing, donating or spending funds in connection with any federal, state, or local election in the United States, either directly or indirectly. It is also unlawful to help foreign nationals violate that ban or to solicit, receive or accept contributions or donations from them. Persons who knowingly and willfully engage in these activities may be subject to fines and/or imprisonment."

Your citation would apply if the Trump campaign solicited money from the
Russians. Did they?

> Jr. keeps saying he received no useful information, but this is irrelevant. He went to this meeting with the CLEAR intent of receiving information to help Trump's campaign. That would be like someone trying to rob a convenience store, they pull a gun, get the employee to open the register, but there's nothing in there. So the assailant uses the excuse that they didn't gain anything. Would they be charged despite leaving with no loot? Absolutely!

A closer analogy would be Jr. showing up for a free promotional hotdog and
the store being out of hotdogs.

Jr. didn't assault anyone with a weapon to get something against their will.
He was invited to a meeting by someone offering something, legally, and
for free.

> Nobody can cry "fake news": this information is STRAIGHT from Jr's twitter feed and the Federal Elections Commission.

It's definitely "fake news," not because it's fake, but because it's not
news.

Someone claiming to be affiliated with the Russian government offered Jr.
"opposition information" on Hillary. So what? That's not illegal.

Cheers,
James Arthur

[bloggs.fred...@gmail.com]

If you can't cite the applicable violation in the U.S.C., you have no case, just talk. That's the way our system works.

[bloggs.fred...@gmail.com]

Last time I checked, information is not funds. Guess again.

[George Herold]

If it wasn't my country, I'd find it more amusing. :^)

I have no idea what happened, but methinks Trump
doth protest too much.

George H.

>
> --
> mikko

[hon...@yahoo.com]

On Thursday, July 13, 2017 at 7:49:38 AM UTC-5, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Thursday, July 13, 2017 at 7:57:49 AM UTC-4, hon...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > On Wednesday, July 12, 2017 at 8:14:39 PM UTC-5, bloggs.fred...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, July 12, 2017 at 7:26:59 AM UTC-4, hon...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, July 11, 2017 at 6:10:06 PM UTC-5, bloggs.fred...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > On Tuesday, July 11, 2017 at 9:19:23 AM UTC-4, hon...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > > > > http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/07/11/russian-lawyer-who-met-with-donald-trump-jr-denies-kremlin-connection.html
> > > >
> > > > Of course she's going to deny it.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderickgregory/2017/02/18/no-one-mentions-that-the-russian-trail-leads-to-democratic-lobbyists/#6f192ba13991
> > > >
> > > > Ok, so there's Russian connections to Democratic lobbyists. Is this illegal? It's sounding like what Donald Jr has done may have broken some laws. Have the lobbyists broken any laws? I'm not seeing any mention of that.
> > >
> > > Everyone keeps shooting their mouth off about treason and breaking laws. The United States Code is not a secret, it's open to the public. So give us the cite of the violation.
> >
> > Oh boy, where do I start. First have you read the emails posted on Jr's own Twitter account? Some excerpts for those of you who don't want to read:
> >
> > "Emin asked that I schedule a meeting with you and the RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT ATTORNEY WHO IS FLYING OVER FROM MOSCOW"
> >
> > "This is obviously very high level and sensitive information BUT IS PART OF THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT'S SUPPORT FOR MR TRUMP"
> >
> > This is from https://transition.fec.gov/pages/brochures/foreign.shtml:
> >
> > "The Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) prohibits any foreign national from contributing, donating or spending funds in connection with any federal, state, or local election in the United States, either directly or indirectly. It is also unlawful to help foreign nationals violate that ban or to solicit, receive or accept contributions or donations from them. Persons who knowingly and willfully engage in these activities may be subject to fines and/or imprisonment."
>
> Your citation would apply if the Trump campaign solicited money from the
> Russians. Did they?

Doesn't have to be money.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/11/110.20

"Prohibition on contributions, donations, expenditures, independent expenditures, and disbursements by foreign nationals"

>
> > Jr. keeps saying he received no useful information, but this is irrelevant. He went to this meeting with the CLEAR intent of receiving information to help Trump's campaign. That would be like someone trying to rob a convenience store, they pull a gun, get the employee to open the register, but there's nothing in there. So the assailant uses the excuse that they didn't gain anything. Would they be charged despite leaving with no loot? Absolutely!
>
> A closer analogy would be Jr. showing up for a free promotional hotdog and
> the store being out of hotdogs.

That's cute, but showing up for a hotdog is not even close to resembling anything illegal. Meeting with an adversary for purposes of assisting with an election is.

>
> Jr. didn't assault anyone with a weapon to get something against their will.
> He was invited to a meeting by someone offering something, legally, and
> for free.

LOL sure.

>
> > Nobody can cry "fake news": this information is STRAIGHT from Jr's twitter feed and the Federal Elections Commission.
>
> It's definitely "fake news," not because it's fake, but because it's not
> news.
>

Whether something is news or not is clearly subjective.

> Someone claiming to be affiliated with the Russian government offered Jr.
> "opposition information" on Hillary. So what? That's not illegal.
>
> Cheers,
> James Arthur

If I felt like finding an image of someone sticking their head in the sand, I'd post it for you.

[hon...@yahoo.com]

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/11/110.20

"(b)Contributions and donations by foreign nationals in connection with elections. 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."

Information is a thing of value. If you don't trust Cornell, it's also on www.gpo.gov. I rest my case.

[bloggs.fred...@gmail.com]

They're talking about money. If you want another interpretation of the law, go to the Supreme Court.That's the way things work here. Statements of criminal law have to be specific and unambiguous, you can't charge anyone otherwise.

[hon...@yahoo.com]

http://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-jr-emails-illegal-campaign-2017-7

"Brendan Fischer, the director of the Federal Election Commission reform program at the Campaign Legal Center, told Business Insider that the FEC had previously interpreted the definition of "other thing of value" to include NONMONETARY contributions in relation to the foreign national ban.

"So getting opposition research or dirt on Hillary Clinton, or however they tried to portray it, would constitute a contribution both on the definition of a contribution and on the foreign-national contribution ban," he said. "And then solicitation: Did Trump Jr. solicit the contribution? I think there the answer is also yes."

Do a Google search on this; there's MANY references to law experts saying basically the same thing. But I don't know, maybe you know more about law than these people.

[rickman]

bloggs.fred...@gmail.com wrote on 7/13/2017 10:48 AM:
> On Thursday, July 13, 2017 at 10:41:51 AM UTC-4, hon...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> On Thursday, July 13, 2017 at 9:10:30 AM UTC-5, bloggs.fred...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Thursday, July 13, 2017 at 7:57:49 AM UTC-4, hon...@yahoo.com wrote:

That's a load of applesauce. The law often is not defined until a case
reaches court and a judgement is made.

Some simple examples I have seen first hand are the definition of stopping
for a stop sign. The Maryland law gives various descriptions of where you
must stop depending on what is present, stop line, crosswalk, etc. The
wording uses "and" to connect conditions in a way that is not completely
clear and judges have ruled that it means you must stop twice, once for each
condition. Obviously this is not clear and yet is enforced.

"Unless otherwise directed by a police officer or traffic control signal,
the driver of a vehicle approaching a stop sign at an intersection shall
stop at the near side of an intersection and, if there is no crosswalk, at
the nearest point before entering the intersection that gives the driver a
view of traffic approaching on the intersecting roadway."

There are many laws that are not at all clear. It is seldom the court will
rule a law to be so vague as to be unenforceable.

--

Rick C

[bill....@ieee.org]

On Thursday, July 13, 2017 at 4:38:51 PM UTC+2, hon...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Thursday, July 13, 2017 at 7:49:38 AM UTC-5, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > On Thursday, July 13, 2017 at 7:57:49 AM UTC-4, hon...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, July 12, 2017 at 8:14:39 PM UTC-5, bloggs.fred...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, July 12, 2017 at 7:26:59 AM UTC-4, hon...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > > > On Tuesday, July 11, 2017 at 6:10:06 PM UTC-5, bloggs.fred...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > On Tuesday, July 11, 2017 at 9:19:23 AM UTC-4, hon...@yahoo.com wrote:

<snip>

> > Someone claiming to be affiliated with the Russian government offered Jr.
> > "opposition information" on Hillary. So what? That's not illegal.

If it is "something of value" and since anything that can be used to smear an opponent clearly is of value (see Karl Rove) it would seem that it was illegal.

> > Cheers,
> > James Arthur
>
> If I felt like finding an image of someone sticking their head in the sand, I'd post it for you.

James Arthur starts from the proposition that no Republican has ever done anything wrong, and reasons back from there. Nixon was terribly misunderstood.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[dagmarg...@yahoo.com]

On Thursday, July 13, 2017 at 10:38:51 AM UTC-4, hon...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Thursday, July 13, 2017 at 7:49:38 AM UTC-5, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > On Thursday, July 13, 2017 at 7:57:49 AM UTC-4, hon...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, July 12, 2017 at 8:14:39 PM UTC-5, bloggs.fred...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, July 12, 2017 at 7:26:59 AM UTC-4, hon...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > > > On Tuesday, July 11, 2017 at 6:10:06 PM UTC-5, bloggs.fred...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > On Tuesday, July 11, 2017 at 9:19:23 AM UTC-4, hon...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > > > > > http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/07/11/russian-lawyer-who-met-with-donald-trump-jr-denies-kremlin-connection.html
> > > > >
> > > > > Of course she's going to deny it.
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderickgregory/2017/02/18/no-one-mentions-that-the-russian-trail-leads-to-democratic-lobbyists/#6f192ba13991
> > > > >
> > > > > Ok, so there's Russian connections to Democratic lobbyists. Is this illegal? It's sounding like what Donald Jr has done may have broken some laws. Have the lobbyists broken any laws? I'm not seeing any mention of that.
> > > >
> > > > Everyone keeps shooting their mouth off about treason and breaking laws. The United States Code is not a secret, it's open to the public. So give us the cite of the violation.
> > >
> > > Oh boy, where do I start. First have you read the emails posted on Jr's own Twitter account? Some excerpts for those of you who don't want to read:
> > >
> > > "Emin asked that I schedule a meeting with you and the RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT ATTORNEY WHO IS FLYING OVER FROM MOSCOW"
> > >
> > > "This is obviously very high level and sensitive information BUT IS PART OF THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT'S SUPPORT FOR MR TRUMP"
> > >
> > > This is from https://transition.fec.gov/pages/brochures/foreign.shtml:
> > >
> > > "The Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) prohibits any foreign national from contributing, donating or spending funds in connection with any federal, state, or local election in the United States, either directly or indirectly. It is also unlawful to help foreign nationals violate that ban or to solicit, receive or accept contributions or donations from them. Persons who knowingly and willfully engage in these activities may be subject to fines and/or imprisonment."
> >
> > Your citation would apply if the Trump campaign solicited money from the
> > Russians. Did they?
>
> Doesn't have to be money.
>
> https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/11/110.20
>
> "Prohibition on contributions, donations, expenditures, independent expenditures, and disbursements by foreign nationals"

Reading the code, are you saying Jr. asked the Russians for an office
building? Solicited funds? Asked Russians to run TV ads? That's what
that statute prohibits.

This is silly.

> > > Jr. keeps saying he received no useful information, but this is irrelevant. He went to this meeting with the CLEAR intent of receiving information to help Trump's campaign. That would be like someone trying to rob a convenience store, they pull a gun, get the employee to open the register, but there's nothing in there. So the assailant uses the excuse that they didn't gain anything. Would they be charged despite leaving with no loot? Absolutely!
> >
> > A closer analogy would be Jr. showing up for a free promotional hotdog and
> > the store being out of hotdogs.
>
> That's cute, but showing up for a hotdog is not even close to resembling anything illegal.

Exactly.

> Meeting with an adversary for purposes of assisting with an election is.

It's not the slightest bit illegal listen to someone offering information.

Assisting with an election? In what way?

> > Jr. didn't assault anyone with a weapon to get something against their will.
> > He was invited to a meeting by someone offering something, legally, and
> > for free.
>
> LOL sure.
>
> >
> > > Nobody can cry "fake news": this information is STRAIGHT from Jr's twitter feed and the Federal Elections Commission.
> >
> > It's definitely "fake news," not because it's fake, but because it's not
> > news.
> >
> Whether something is news or not is clearly subjective.
>
>
> > Someone claiming to be affiliated with the Russian government offered Jr.
> > "opposition information" on Hillary. So what? That's not illegal.
> >
>

> If I felt like finding an image of someone sticking their head in the sand, I'd post it for you.

And I'd send you some aluminum foil and a copy of the Constitution.
This is silly stuff, not serious.

Hillary and Obama and Comey and Loretta Lynch did some seriously illegal
stuff, but not Trump AFAICT.

Cheers,
James Arthur

[dagmarg...@yahoo.com]

Right, they're talking about money and things that could be used as a
substitute for money, such as paying for a campaign's rent or running
ads for the campaign so the campaign won't have to.

By contrast, Al Gore actively solicited foreign donations (Google "No
controlling legal authority"), and Obama's campaign had special websites
designed to allow foreigners to donate without checking.

"Despite the disclaimer on the campaign site stating that foreign nationals
cannot donate to Obama, the suspicion remains that Roche’s vigilance in
assuring that Obama.com is on the Internet throughout the world has led
to a significant influx of foreign cash into the coffers of the president’s
reelection effort.

Roche, by the way, has visited the White House 11 times during Obama’s
tenure, according to the visitor log."

http://thehill.com/opinion/columnists/dick-morris/261109-obamas-foreign-donors

*That's* illegal.

Cheers,
James Arthur

[bill....@ieee.org]

On Thursday, July 13, 2017 at 5:44:40 PM UTC+2, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Thursday, July 13, 2017 at 10:38:51 AM UTC-4, hon...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > On Thursday, July 13, 2017 at 7:49:38 AM UTC-5, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > On Thursday, July 13, 2017 at 7:57:49 AM UTC-4, hon...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, July 12, 2017 at 8:14:39 PM UTC-5, bloggs.fred...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > On Wednesday, July 12, 2017 at 7:26:59 AM UTC-4, hon...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > > > > On Tuesday, July 11, 2017 at 6:10:06 PM UTC-5, bloggs.fred...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > On Tuesday, July 11, 2017 at 9:19:23 AM UTC-4, hon...@yahoo.com wrote:

> > Meeting with an adversary for purposes of assisting with an election is.
>
> It's not the slightest bit illegal listen to someone offering information.
>
> Assisting with an election? In what way?

Dishing out dirt on the opponent. The hacking of the Democratic e-mails didn't help Hillary Clinton.

> > > Jr. didn't assault anyone with a weapon to get something against their
> > > will. He was invited to a meeting by someone offering something, legally,
> > > and for free.
> >
> > LOL sure.
> >
> > > > Nobody can cry "fake news": this information is STRAIGHT from Jr's twitter feed and the Federal Elections Commission.
> > >
> > > It's definitely "fake news," not because it's fake, but because it's not
> > > news.
> > >
> > Whether something is news or not is clearly subjective.
> >
> > > Someone claiming to be affiliated with the Russian government offered Jr.
> > > "opposition information" on Hillary. So what? That's not illegal.

It was definitely something of value to the Trump campaign, and correspondingly illegal.

> > If I felt like finding an image of someone sticking their head in the sand, I'd post it for you.
>
> And I'd send you some aluminum foil and a copy of the Constitution.
> This is silly stuff, not serious.
>
> Hillary and Obama and Comey and Loretta Lynch did some seriously illegal
> stuff, but not Trump AFAICT.

James Arthur has been to right-wing re-education camp, which means that he can't tell when Republican are doing seriously illegal stuff - a conditioned reflex freezes his brain until the relvant information passes out of sight.

The idea that Democrats are doing seriously illegal stuff is equally well ingrained.

Orwell had his sheep bleating "four legs good, two legs bad". James Arthur is a member of a different flock.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[bloggs.fred...@gmail.com]

The press doesn't know what they're talking about 99.999% of the time. It's a waste of time reading their drivel.

[rickman]

What part of the world would *not* be able to access Obama.com without
"Roche's vigilance"???

--

Rick C

[bloggs.fred...@gmail.com]

Just stop right there. You're screaming your ignorance to the world, and not worth listening to.

[hon...@yahoo.com]

Ok I see. You've gotten to the point where you're backed into a corner, and now it's time to discount 99.999% of the press because somehow you know more than all of them combined. Perhaps you'd trust Richard Painter, a former ethics lawyer for GW Bush and a self proclaimed Republican? He is also saying Jr broke the law. Oh wait, no, he's also wrong, because you don't like the answer.

Some people will never trust anything but their own voices in their head.

[dca...@krl.org]

On Thursday, July 13, 2017 at 10:41:51 AM UTC-4, hon...@yahoo.com wrote:

>

> https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/11/110.20
>
> "(b)Contributions and donations by foreign nationals in connection with elections. 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."
>

Don't you love it. Citizens are encouraged to make contributions in connection with Federal, state , and local elections. But if a foreigner does it , it is illegal. But if the foreigner is not in the U.S. then the law is not going to affect them. Isn't it great that we have such a worthless law.

Dan

[hon...@yahoo.com]

Whether Obama et al did anything illegal is beside the point. Maybe they did, maybe they didn't, but you're trying to divert attention to something else.

I'll post it for you too:
http://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-jr-emails-illegal-campaign-2017-7

"Brendan Fischer, the director of the Federal Election Commission reform program at the Campaign Legal Center, told Business Insider that the FEC had previously interpreted the definition of "other thing of value" to include nonmonetary contributions in relation to the foreign national ban."

NONMONETARY, it's right there. Also, not the slightest bit illegal offering information? How about insider trading? Is using information obtained through that method illegal?

And "Assisting with an election? In what way?"

Are you serious? If the Trumps obtained information from the Russians, or even attempted to, in order to influence the election, which is CLEAR from Jr's own email chain:

"This is obviously very high level and sensitive information BUT IS PART OF THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT'S SUPPORT FOR MR TRUMP"

....then that is obviously trying to influence the election!

I mean, really.....I'm simply reading emails Donald Jr. posted and reading the law. You've got to be pretty dense to see he didn't cross a pretty serious line.

But I suppose you're one of those that assumes the Trumps have never and will never do anything questionable.

[hon...@yahoo.com]

I'm not necessarily here to defend the law, as it is what it is. But it makes sense to a point: if you're not part of the group being governed by the political position, you have no business being involved in it.

[rickman]

bloggs.fred...@gmail.com wrote on 7/13/2017 12:41 PM:
>
> Just stop right there. You're screaming your ignorance to the world, and not worth listening to.

So you aren't interested in the facts, just your own opinion?

How about the definition of "Eminent Domain"? Was it clear that it included
taking of personally owned real estate for "economic development" *before*
the Supreme Court ruled on it? Obviously not or there would not have been
the case in the first place.

Son, you are screaming your own ignorance and lack of reasoning.

--

Rick C

[dca...@krl.org]

On Thursday, July 13, 2017 at 7:37:23 PM UTC-4, hon...@yahoo.com wrote:


> I'm not necessarily here to defend the law, as it is what it is. But it makes sense to a point: if you're not part of the group being governed by the political position, you have no business being involved in it.

Are you referring to out of state money donated to the recent Georgia election?

It seems to me that a law restricting out of state contributions would make more sense than one prohibiting foreigners contributing to U.S. elections. At least the out of state contributors would be under the jurisdiction of the Federal Government.

Dan

[hon...@yahoo.com]

This is the guy who believes "The press doesn't know what they're talking about 99.999% of the time". Anyone with some logic would know that statement is ridiculous. I agree some of what the press comes up with is garbage, but it is nowhere near even 99%.

Maybe it's because he doesn't like 99.999% of what the real news is.

[hon...@yahoo.com]

On Thursday, July 13, 2017 at 7:52:26 PM UTC-5, dca...@krl.org wrote:
> On Thursday, July 13, 2017 at 7:37:23 PM UTC-4, hon...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>
> > I'm not necessarily here to defend the law, as it is what it is. But it makes sense to a point: if you're not part of the group being governed by the political position, you have no business being involved in it.
>
> Are you referring to out of state money donated to the recent Georgia election?
>

I was not aware of this and didn't follow that election.

> It seems to me that a law restricting out of state contributions would make more sense than one prohibiting foreigners contributing to U.S. elections. At least the out of state contributors would be under the jurisdiction of the Federal Government.
>
> Dan

I don't see how much good can come of allowing foreigners to contribute to US elections, as you could easily end up with foreign governments supporting a specific candidate. Maybe it's not illegal for them to contribute per se, as they cannot be prosecuted if they don't reside in the US, but it's definitely illegal for the candidate to accept contributions from them.

[dagmarg...@yahoo.com]

On Thursday, July 13, 2017 at 1:03:25 PM UTC-4, hon...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Thursday, July 13, 2017 at 10:44:40 AM UTC-5, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > On Thursday, July 13, 2017 at 10:38:51 AM UTC-4, hon...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > On Thursday, July 13, 2017 at 7:49:38 AM UTC-5, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:

> > > > Someone claiming to be affiliated with the Russian government offered Jr.
> > > > "opposition information" on Hillary. So what? That's not illegal.
> > > >
> > >
> > > If I felt like finding an image of someone sticking their head in the sand, I'd post it for you.
> >
> > And I'd send you some aluminum foil and a copy of the Constitution.
> > This is silly stuff, not serious.
> >
> > Hillary and Obama and Comey and Loretta Lynch did some seriously illegal
> > stuff, but not Trump AFAICT.
> >
>

> Whether Obama et al did anything illegal is beside the point. Maybe they did, maybe they didn't, but you're trying to divert attention to something else.

My point was that the complainers aren't sincere lovers of the rule
of law, but corrupt perverters of it. They're desperate to smear,
even criminalize ANYONE associated with Trump for harmless behavior,
but not at all concerned about actual wrong-doing where it doesn't
serve their purpose.

You want actual collusion with the Russians?

o How about when Obama was caught promising Putin concessions ("more
flexibility") if Obama were re-elected in 2012? How is that not
"Help me and I'll help you (by doing things the American people wouldn't
allow if they knew first)"? And, re-elected, Obama delivered.

o Bill Clinton was invited to Russia and received absurd speaking fees,
conveniently after Hillary made Russia-favorable decisions as Sec'y
of State. Outright bribery.

You want interference with an election and in-kind contributions? How
about the deplorable Susan Rice and Obama's administration unmasking
and leaking surveillance information on their opponents? Or Atty. Gen.
Loretta Lynch's instructions to Comey (his testimony) via a via Hillary?

Hillary diverted her State Dept. e-mails from their proper place of custody,
a felony for each count. (18 U.S.C. 793(f)). She (eventually) admitted
she did it. She jeopardized national security.

THOSE are big deals. Not this trumped up Trump stuff.

Now we have people seriously trying to sell us that Hillary exposing
national security info to compromise was harmless and lawful, but
someone guessing their lame DNC passwords and reading their personal
e-mails is the crime of the century, a "hack" that threatens our "democracy."

It's ridiculous on its face.

> I'll post it for you too:
> http://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-jr-emails-illegal-campaign-2017-7
>
> "Brendan Fischer, the director of the Federal Election Commission reform program at the Campaign Legal Center, told Business Insider that the FEC had previously interpreted the definition of "other thing of value" to include nonmonetary contributions in relation to the foreign national ban."
> NONMONETARY, it's right there.

"Non-monetary contributions" means contributing tangible value in lieu of
cash, such as donating bumper stickers, buying office supplies, or providing
an office, phone banks, and free food to a campaign's operations.

If it meant what you're trying to make it mean--"not being allowed to listen
to someone whispering in your ear"--it would be unconstitutional.

> Also, not the slightest bit illegal offering information? How about insider trading? Is using information obtained through that method illegal?

It's perfectly legal to receive insider information. It's not legal for
certain people in responsible positions to *act* on it, in specific
circumstances.

> And "Assisting with an election? In what way?"
>
> Are you serious? If the Trumps obtained information from the Russians, or even attempted to, in order to influence the election, which is CLEAR from Jr's own email chain:
>
> "This is obviously very high level and sensitive information BUT IS PART OF THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT'S SUPPORT FOR MR TRUMP"
>
>
> ....then that is obviously trying to influence the election!

The candidates aren't supposed to try to influence the outcome of the
election? That's pretty much the point of a campaign, isn't it? They
spend lots of money, run ads, talk to lots of people, and listen to
lots of people.

> I mean, really.....I'm simply reading emails Donald Jr. posted and reading the law. You've got to be pretty dense to see he didn't cross a pretty serious line.

Jr. didn't get any information, and it wouldn't have been illegal (or even
unethical) if he had. He could've even gotten information and *used* it
without crossing any lines. But none of that even happened, so this
faux controversy is beyond silly.

> But I suppose you're one of those that assumes the Trumps have never and will never do anything questionable.

Trump has already done at least two seriously illegal things, both consisting
of continuing Obama "policies"--DACA (illegally ignoring immigration law),
and continuing Obama's flatly illegal cost-sharing reduction payments to
insurers (shoring up Obamacare).

Obama should've been impeached and removed from office over those. But he
wasn't. Apparently laws just don't really matter any more.

If you were up in arms about those, I'd back you all the way.

Cheers,
James Arthur

[dca...@krl.org]

On Friday, July 14, 2017 at 7:19:33 AM UTC-4, hon...@yahoo.com wrote:

> Dan
>
> I don't see how much good can come of allowing foreigners to contribute to US elections, as you could easily end up with foreign governments supporting a specific candidate. Maybe it's not illegal for them to contribute per se, as they cannot be prosecuted if they don't reside in the US, but it's definitely illegal for the candidate to accept contributions from them

Macht nix. The foreigners can just pay for TV adds on their own. No actual contact with the candidate.

Dan

[dagmarg...@yahoo.com]

Well, China, for example, if they didn't support Obama. Or Russia. Burma.
Etc. They state-censor their internets, you know.

Cheers,
James Arthur

[hon...@yahoo.com]

I guess you're trying to turn this into what Obama did, and that's a different topic.

Regardless of whether you think nonmonetary contributions include information (and a lot of legal experts, i.e. lawyers, think it does), why did the Trump campaign deny any contact with the Russians until now? Manafort, Priebus, Conway, and Trump himself all denied any involvement. Now it's pretty clear those were lies.

Why did they lie about it? What were they hiding? Maybe this meeting Jr has admitted to is only the tip of the iceberg.

[bill....@ieee.org]

On Friday, July 14, 2017 at 1:48:20 PM UTC+2, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Thursday, July 13, 2017 at 1:03:25 PM UTC-4, hon...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > On Thursday, July 13, 2017 at 10:44:40 AM UTC-5, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > On Thursday, July 13, 2017 at 10:38:51 AM UTC-4, hon...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, July 13, 2017 at 7:49:38 AM UTC-5, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > > > > Someone claiming to be affiliated with the Russian government offered Jr.
> > > > > "opposition information" on Hillary. So what? That's not illegal.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > If I felt like finding an image of someone sticking their head in the sand, I'd post it for you.
> > >
> > > And I'd send you some aluminum foil and a copy of the Constitution.
> > > This is silly stuff, not serious.
> > >
> > > Hillary and Obama and Comey and Loretta Lynch did some seriously illegal
> > > stuff, but not Trump AFAICT.
> > >
> >
> > Whether Obama et al did anything illegal is beside the point. Maybe they did, maybe they didn't, but you're trying to divert attention to something else.
>
> My point was that the complainers aren't sincere lovers of the rule
> of law, but corrupt perverters of it.

Sounds rather like a description of James Arthur.

> They're desperate to smear, even criminalize ANYONE associated with Trump for > harmless behavior,

Behaviour which James Arthur has decided is "harmless" which in practice means "likely to get a Republican elected". Not a point of view that everybody agrees with, particularly when the Republican involved is Trump.

> but not at all concerned about actual wrong-doing where it doesn't
> serve their purpose.

"Actual wrong-doing" being "anything likely to get a Democrat elected".

> You want actual collusion with the Russians?
>
> o How about when Obama was caught promising Putin concessions ("more
> flexibility") if Obama were re-elected in 2012?

"More flexibility" just means "it might be worth negotiating".

> How is that not
> "Help me and I'll help you (by doing things the American people wouldn't
> allow if they knew first)"?

"More flexibility" doesn't explicitly include anything about " doing things the American people wouldn't allow if they knew first", and James Arthur hasn't bothered to list any of the things that the American people - as opposed to James Arthur - might not have allowed.

> And, re-elected, Obama delivered.

What? Spell it out. What an indoctrinated right-winger might see as "being likely to be disallowed by the American people as a whole" might not seem quite so obviously suspect to a more rational observer.

> o Bill Clinton was invited to Russia and received absurd speaking fees,
> conveniently after Hillary made Russia-favorable decisions as Sec'y
> of State. Outright bribery.

Ex-presidents of the US get absurd speaking fees all over. What James Arthur sees as a Russia-favourable decision is quite likely to look perfectly sensible to a more rational observer.

> You want interference with an election and in-kind contributions? How
> about the deplorable Susan Rice and Obama's administration unmasking
> and leaking surveillance information on their opponents? Or Atty. Gen.

> Loretta Lynch's instructions to Comey (his testimony) vis a vis Hillary?

James Arthur is very sensitive to anything that might have made it less likely for a Republican to have won an election - more sensitive than any actual prosecutor could get away with.

> Hillary diverted her State Dept. e-mails from their proper place of custody,
> a felony for each count. (18 U.S.C. 793(f)). She (eventually) admitted
> she did it. She jeopardized national security.

She should have left them where Snowden could have got at them. Her predcessor - Condoleezza Rice had just reformed and restructured the State Department, as well as US diplomacy as a whole, and Hillary Clinton could well have been worried that what had suited Condoleezza might not have suited her all that well - restructering is a great opportunity to put your own moles in an organisation.

The bleating about "proper place of custody" seems likely to translate as "she put them where I couldn't get at them". "Jeopardising national security" is more of the same. Nobody was game to actually prosecute her, so presumably it is mostly beaucratic pique - though Clinton might have pointed out that if anybody tried to prosecute her she'd spill the beans on her actual motivation.

> THOSE are big deals. Not this trumped up Trump stuff.

Only for one-eyed pro-Republicans.

> Now we have people seriously trying to sell us that Hillary exposing
> national security info to compromise was harmless and lawful,

Theoretically exposing her e-mails. In practice they were actually more secure where she'd put them, but the beaucrats involved aren't going to admit that - particularly when they were - in practice - more of a threat than any foreign power.

> but
> someone guessing their lame DNC passwords and reading their personal
> e-mails is the crime of the century, a "hack" that threatens our "democracy."

The Democratic e-mails really were hacked. that's an ctual crime. Clinton's e-mails as Secretary of State don't seem to have been hacked, so your whining is a little off the mark.

> It's ridiculous on its face.

The egg is actually all over your face, but your bias is so well-ingrained that you haven't noticed.

> > I'll post it for you too:
> > http://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-jr-emails-illegal-campaign-2017-7
> >
> > "Brendan Fischer, the director of the Federal Election Commission reform program at the Campaign Legal Center, told Business Insider that the FEC had previously interpreted the definition of "other thing of value" to include nonmonetary contributions in relation to the foreign national ban."
> > NONMONETARY, it's right there.
>
> "Non-monetary contributions" means contributing tangible value in lieu of
> cash, such as donating bumper stickers, buying office supplies, or providing
> an office, phone banks, and free food to a campaign's operations.

Dirt on the opposition is of tangible value to any campaign. The fact that you haven't bothered listing it doesn't make it any less valuable. Republican supporters spent a great deal on the Swift Boat campaign against John Kerry, but while it was a classic Karl Rove smear, nobody was ever able to nail him for it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swift_Vets_and_POWs_for_Truth

> If it meant what you're trying to make it mean--"not being allowed to listen
> to someone whispering in your ear"--it would be unconstitutional.

Dream on.

> > Also, not the slightest bit illegal offering information? How about insider trading? Is using information obtained through that method illegal?
>
> It's perfectly legal to receive insider information. It's not legal for
> certain people in responsible positions to *act* on it, in specific
> circumstances.
>
> > And "Assisting with an election? In what way?"
> >
> > Are you serious? If the Trumps obtained information from the Russians, or even attempted to, in order to influence the election, which is CLEAR from Jr's own email chain:
> >
> > "This is obviously very high level and sensitive information BUT IS PART OF THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT'S SUPPORT FOR MR TRUMP"
> >
> >
> > ....then that is obviously trying to influence the election!
>
> The candidates aren't supposed to try to influence the outcome of the
> election? That's pretty much the point of a campaign, isn't it? They
> spend lots of money, run ads, talk to lots of people, and listen to
> lots of people.

Sure. But getting the Russians on your side, and watching them doing dirty tricks that help you and disadvantage your opponent?

> > I mean, really.....I'm simply reading emails Donald Jr. posted and reading the law. You've got to be pretty dense to see he didn't cross a pretty serious line.
>
> Jr. didn't get any information, and it wouldn't have been illegal (or even
> unethical) if he had. He could've even gotten information and *used* it
> without crossing any lines. But none of that even happened, so this
> faux controversy is beyond silly.

We don't know what Jnr. got. We just know what he expected to get.

> > But I suppose you're one of those that assumes the Trumps have never and will never do anything questionable.
>
> Trump has already done at least two seriously illegal things, both consisting
> of continuing Obama "policies"--DACA (illegally ignoring immigration law),
> and continuing Obama's flatly illegal cost-sharing reduction payments to
> insurers (shoring up Obamacare).
>
> Obama should've been impeached and removed from office over those. But he
> wasn't. Apparently laws just don't really matter any more.

Or perhaps you are just reading them wrong. Obama has legal training, and had staff to vet those kinds of question. You lack both legal training and any kind of objectivity.

> If you were up in arms about those, I'd back you all the way.

Of course you would. You'd be wrong, but ever so sincere.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[rickman]

You ignored the issue of Roche being able to do something about it. So what
could Roche do to change China's policy? Was obama.com blocked in China?
Did Roche get that changed?

Oh, that's right. You didn't say anything happened, you simply mentioned
there was "suspicion" by someone, somewhere.

--

Rick C

[k...@notreal.com]

On Fri, 14 Jul 2017 04:19:28 -0700 (PDT), hon...@yahoo.com wrote:

>On Thursday, July 13, 2017 at 7:52:26 PM UTC-5, dca...@krl.org wrote:
>> On Thursday, July 13, 2017 at 7:37:23 PM UTC-4, hon...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>>
>> > I'm not necessarily here to defend the law, as it is what it is. But it makes sense to a point: if you're not part of the group being governed by the political position, you have no business being involved in it.
>>
>> Are you referring to out of state money donated to the recent Georgia election?
>>
>I was not aware of this and didn't follow that election.

More money came from California than Georgia. Over 90% of the money
Ossof got came from out of state. ...and he didn't even vote!

>> It seems to me that a law restricting out of state contributions would make more sense than one prohibiting foreigners contributing to U.S. elections. At least the out of state contributors would be under the jurisdiction of the Federal Government.
>>
>> Dan
>
>I don't see how much good can come of allowing foreigners to contribute to US elections, as you could easily end up with foreign governments supporting a specific candidate. Maybe it's not illegal for them to contribute per se, as they cannot be prosecuted if they don't reside in the US, but it's definitely illegal for the candidate to accept contributions from them.

The same point can be made for money coming from out of the district.

[dagmarg...@yahoo.com]

That's a bizarre interpretation.

You're for criminalizing harmless behavior and ignoring actual wrong-doing.

Since we seem to have lost the ability to differentiate, I provided examples
of actual wrong-doing for reference, so we can all remember what wrong-doing
actually looks like.

It's instructive to take a step back and ask, "Suppose it were all true and
Vladimir Putin personally gave Trump a back-rub, some factual evidence against
Hillary, and Trump used the evidence to discredit Hillary. Where's the harm?"

There isn't any. If the information is truthful, Americans finding out about
their candidate hurts who, exactly?

> Regardless of whether you think nonmonetary contributions include information (and a lot of legal experts, i.e. lawyers, think it does), why did the Trump campaign deny any contact with the Russians until now? Manafort, Priebus, Conway, and Trump himself all denied any involvement. Now it's pretty clear those were lies.
>
> Why did they lie about it? What were they hiding? Maybe this meeting Jr has admitted to is only the tip of the iceberg.

Hillaryites aren't worried Hillary might've done something wrong--no, that's
not a problem--but that it might've been exposed. That's just weird.

After a year of investigations desperate to derail Trump's election bid,
with all of Obama's DOJ and intelligence agencies' wire-taps and surveillance
of their political opponents, we still don't have an accusation a crime was
even committed (much less by Trump), only anonymous leaks and smears, and
none of them ever pan out.

That's the scandal.

Cheers,
James Arthur

[dagmarg...@yahoo.com]

Roche, a Shanghai-based Obama crony, created a website frequented
by foreigners, and provided a link for mostly foreign visitors to make
unvetted donations to Barack Obama.

If he didn't want foreigners donating to Obama, Roche could've simply
refrained from making a website encouraging a mostly foreign audience
to donate to Obama.

Cheers,
James Arthur

[bill....@ieee.org]

On Saturday, July 15, 2017 at 4:05:20 PM UTC+2, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Friday, July 14, 2017 at 9:01:19 AM UTC-4, hon...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > On Friday, July 14, 2017 at 6:48:20 AM UTC-5, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > On Thursday, July 13, 2017 at 1:03:25 PM UTC-4, hon...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, July 13, 2017 at 10:44:40 AM UTC-5, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > > > On Thursday, July 13, 2017 at 10:38:51 AM UTC-4, hon...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > > > > On Thursday, July 13, 2017 at 7:49:38 AM UTC-5, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > >
> > > > > > > Someone claiming to be affiliated with the Russian government offered Jr.
> > > > > > > "opposition information" on Hillary. So what? That's not illegal.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If I felt like finding an image of someone sticking their head in the sand, I'd post it for you.
> > > > >
> > > > > And I'd send you some aluminum foil and a copy of the Constitution.
> > > > > This is silly stuff, not serious.
> > > > >
> > > > > Hillary and Obama and Comey and Loretta Lynch did some seriously
> > > > > illegal stuff, but not Trump AFAICT.

One-eyed Republican supporters find it difficult to notice when Trump is up to no good.

> > > > Whether Obama et al did anything illegal is beside the point. Maybe they did, maybe they didn't, but you're trying to divert attention to something else.
> > >
> > > My point was that the complainers aren't sincere lovers of the rule
> > > of law, but corrupt perverters of it. They're desperate to smear,
> > > even criminalize ANYONE associated with Trump for harmless behavior,
> > > but not at all concerned about actual wrong-doing where it doesn't
> > > serve their purpose.

<snipped list of stuff that looks illegal to James Arthur, but never got prosecuted>

> > > THOSE are big deals. Not this trumped up Trump stuff.

Ask any one-eyed Republican supporter. More objective observers are more realistic.

> > > Now we have people seriously trying to sell us that Hillary exposing
> > > national security info to compromise was harmless and lawful, but
> > > someone guessing their lame DNC passwords and reading their personal
> > > e-mails is the crime of the century, a "hack" that threatens our
> > > "democracy."

Odd that Hillary's e-mails were "exposed to compromise" but never hacked, while the DNC e-mails were.

Perhaps Hillary's e-mails weren't quite as exposed as you like to think - so there wasn't any actual crime there for you - or anybody else ton get excited about, while the hacking of the DNC files was a crime, which you want to ignore.

> > > It's ridiculous on its face.

Your attitude is ridiculous, and I'm ridiculing it. You've just lost a lot of face (if you had any left).

Or James Arthur's idea of what is illegal is less than reliable.

> > > If you were up in arms about those, I'd back you all the way.
> >

> > I guess you're trying to turn this into what Obama did, and that's a different topic.
>
> That's a bizarre interpretation.
>
> You're for criminalizing harmless behavior and ignoring actual wrong-doing.

But James Arthur's definition of harmless is "something that got Republican's elected" and his definition of actual wrong-doing is "anything that Democrats did".

> Since we seem to have lost the ability to differentiate, I provided examples
> of actual wrong-doing for reference, so we can all remember what wrong-doing
> actually looks like.
>
> It's instructive to take a step back and ask, "Suppose it were all true and
> Vladimir Putin personally gave Trump a back-rub, some factual evidence against
> Hillary, and Trump used the evidence to discredit Hillary. Where's the harm?"

The Russians influenced a US election. Trump is totally unqualified for the job of being president of the Unites States, which makes his election harmful.

His decision to tell the world that he was a Republican when he ran for the job didn't make him a better choice.

> There isn't any. If the information is truthful, Americans finding out about
> their candidate hurts who, exactly?

Americans didn't get any the dirt the Russians had on Trump. That hurt Hillary's chances quite a lot.

> > Regardless of whether you think nonmonetary contributions include information (and a lot of legal experts, i.e. lawyers, think it does), why did the Trump campaign deny any contact with the Russians until now? Manafort, Priebus, Conway, and Trump himself all denied any involvement. Now it's pretty clear those were lies.
> >
> > Why did they lie about it? What were they hiding? Maybe this meeting Jr has admitted to is only the tip of the iceberg.
>
> Hillaryites aren't worried Hillary might've done something wrong--no, that's
> not a problem--but that it might've been exposed. That's just weird.

Leaked e-mails are always ther eal deal.

> After a year of investigations desperate to derail Trump's election bid,
> with all of Obama's DOJ and intelligence agencies' wire-taps and surveillance
> of their political opponents, we still don't have an accusation a crime was
> even committed (much less by Trump), only anonymous leaks and smears, and
> none of them ever pan out.

There's no evidence that the surveillance was ever directed against Trump. The surveillance was directed against Russian intilligence, and their contacts with Trump were what got leaked.

> That's the scandal.

You like to think so.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney