Say, you want pickle with that nothing burger?

[luisb...@aol.com]

I searched high and low on the NY Times front page for anything about Jr's intvw with Hannity about the biggest story in the press right now. In vain. The Times, bearing an ever closer resemblance to Soviet-era Izvestia than Trump ever was to Russia, does not seem to believe it reaches the level of high journalistic importance that would get it on page one.

Would you expect anything less? As the newspaper editor tells James Stewart at the end of The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, "when the legend becomes fact, print the legend."

I had to look on the surprisingly ideological Politico for some info about this intvw. Now I see why there's no mention of it--Trump Jr. did nothing wrong meeting with the record producer and the Russian lawyer. It is not a crime to express interest in information that could discredit your opponent. In fact, if the information is a revelation of some kind, your could be making news. Alas, that was not to happen from that meeting.

From his father's viewpoint, it would be a crime NOT to meet with someone who was offering juicy tidbits, particularly when it had to do with illegal activities she might have been involved with as US Secretary of State affecting--I don't know--Ukranian elections, uranium, and activities we don't even know about. Hillary, as we now know, turned out to be a pretty shady character. The offer from the record producer probably sounded believable given her track record.

Still, Jr fucked up royally by denying the meeting, then lying that it was about adoptions. In fact, the word adoption doesn't come up once in the email chain. Lying about a supposedly pointless meeting when you have the email chain in your possession is an incredibly stupid to do. As Comey has already admitted, the Intel State is on the move and it leaks to the Times. Why would Trump and Co think it would be any different with this email chain?

I feel for Jr. A former alcoholic--a familiar situation on this board-- his father would come up to visit him at college and slap him across the face in front of his dorm mates because he wasn't ready the minute Sr. arrived. Those beatings were nothing compared to what he's getting now, you can be sure.

Unless the Feds have told him not to leave the country, there are probably Trump properties in very far away lands that Don Jr could start managing pretty soon--on site. The pace is slower out in the S. Pacific, and he could probably use the rest anyway. And telcommuting from off shore is so common and easy now that he wouldn't have to miss a beat overseeing the main office.

IT seems that he's in a pickle. But this smoking gun you keep reading about in the MSM? That's all about the allegation that Trump colluded with the Kremlin to help the Russians manipulate this election. Sorry, if these emails are all there is and Jr isn't lying about other stuff, that isn't what happened at the meeting at all. Blowing smoke is more like it.

If it's collusion with the Russians that the media is really so worried about, far more damaging and serious is the collusion between the Russians and US environmental groups to undermine the American energy economy. The head of the House Science Committee has already said, "Russia is funding U.S. environmental groups in an effort to suppress our domestic oil and gas industry, specifically hydraulic fracking. They have established an elaborate scheme that funnels money through shell companies in Bermuda. This scheme may violate federal law and certainly distorts the U.S. energy market."

Obviously, you won't find this on page one of Izv...I mean, the Times, either. Let's face it, in politics there's collusion and then there's collusion.

[robert...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, July 12, 2017 at 1:08:27 AM UTC-4, luisb...@aol.com wrote:

> From his father's viewpoint, it would be a crime NOT to meet with someone who
> was offering juicy tidbits, particularly when it had to do with illegal
> activities she might have been involved with as US Secretary of State

Stuart Stevens, Mitt Romney's chief strategist, tweeted this:

"When Gore campaign was sent Bush debate brief book, they called FBI. If foreign interests offer you info on former SOS, you call the FBI."


Richard Painter, a Bush lawyer, agreed:

"When a Russian agent calls to offer dirt on a political opponent, a loyal American will call the FBI."


The National Review, the conservative journal founded by William F. Buckley, offered this editorial:

"To repeat, it now looks as if the senior campaign team of a major-party presidential candidate intended to meet with an official representative of a hostile foreign power to facilitate that foreign power’s attempt to influence an American election. Russian collusion claims are no longer the exclusive province of tinfoil-hat conspiracy theorists. No American — Democrat or Republican — should defend the expressed intent of this meeting.

"Going further, at long last we can now put to bed the notion that the Russia investigation is little more than frivolous partisan harassment, and it casts in an entirely different light the president’s fury and frustration at its continued progress. As recently as last week, it appeared that the 'collusion narrative' had lost steam, and that the so-called 'Russia scandal' had morphed into an attack on Donald Trump’s handling of the investigation, rather than the investigation itself. If you had told me last week that there existed an e-mail chain where a Trump contact explicitly tried to set up a meeting between a purported Russian official and the Trump senior team to facilitate official Russian efforts to beat Clinton, I’d have thought you’d been spending too much time in the deranged corners of Twitter.

"As of now, we should have zero confidence that we know all or even most material facts. We should have zero confidence that Trump’s frustration is entirely due to his feeling like an innocent man caught in the crosshairs of crazed conspiracy theorists. It now appears that his son, son-in-law, and campaign chair met with a lawyer who they were told was part of an official Russian government effort to impact the presidential election. The Russian investigation isn’t a witch hunt anymore, if it ever was. It’s a national necessity."

[Just Kidding]

If you're planning a legal career I suggest that you don't quit your
day job. While some legal experts have expressed doubt as to the
criminality of Trump Jr.'s actions, the prevailing opinion is that
he's clearly in jeopardy of, at the least, violating campaign finance
laws:

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/07/11/donald-trump-jr-may-well-have-committed-a-federal-crime-experts-say.html

"The law states that no person shall knowingly solicit or accept from
a foreign national any contribution to a campaign of an item of
value," explains Ryan Goodman, a former Defense Department special
counsel and current editor of the legal site Just Security. "There is
now a clear case that Donald Trump Jr. has met all the elements of the
law, which is a criminally enforced federal statute."

[Earl Browder]

But there are First Amendment problems with treating information as just "a thing of value," equivalent to money. If someone receives information about a presidential candidate's misdeeds or crimes, is he or she really prohibited under penalty of law from reporting that information to the American people simply because it was provided by a non-American source?

You can easily find lawyers who have no trouble with banning foreign campaign contributions in presidential elections, but strongly balk at the idea of banning the flow of information because it originates from a foreign source. The odds are actually quite good that any such interpretation of campaign finance law would be declared unconstitutional under the First Amendment. In any event, this would hardly be a slam dunk case, assuming it was ever even prosecuted. It's almost certainly more of a political problem for Trump and Trump Jr. than a legal one.

http://lawnewz.com/opinion/sorry-but-the-constitution-actually-protects-trump-jr-from-prosecution/

[DianeE]

Nice to see you here, Professor, and I hope you're enjoying Luis's
collection of Polack [sic] jokes.
DianeE



<robert...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1d6ed74e-48b8-4073...@googlegroups.com...

On Wednesday, July 12, 2017 at 1:08:27 AM UTC-4, luisb...@aol.com wrote:

> From his father's viewpoint, it would be a crime NOT to meet with someone
> who
> was offering juicy tidbits, particularly when it had to do with illegal
> activities she might have been involved with as US Secretary of State


Stuart Stevens, Mitt Romney's chief strategist, tweeted this:

"When Gore campaign was sent Bush debate brief book, they called FBI. If
foreign interests offer you info on former SOS, you call the FBI."


Richard Painter, a Bush lawyer, agreed:

"When a Russian agent calls to offer dirt on a political opponent, a loyal
American will call the FBI."


The National Review, the conservative journal founded by William F. Buckley,
offered this editorial:

"To repeat, it now looks as if the senior campaign team of a major-party
presidential candidate intended to meet with an official representative of a
hostile foreign power to facilitate that foreign power's attempt to
influence an American election. Russian collusion claims are no longer the

exclusive province of tinfoil-hat conspiracy theorists. No American -
Democrat or Republican - should defend the expressed intent of this meeting.

[DianeE]

"Earl Browder" <earl.bro...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:e3d0181e-5971-433a...@googlegroups.com...

But there are First Amendment problems with treating information as just "a
thing of value," equivalent to money. If someone receives information about
a presidential candidate's misdeeds or crimes, is he or she really
prohibited under penalty of law from reporting that information to the
American people simply because it was provided by a non-American source?

You can easily find lawyers who have no trouble with banning foreign
campaign contributions in presidential elections, but strongly balk at the
idea of banning the flow of information because it originates from a foreign
source. The odds are actually quite good that any such interpretation of
campaign finance law would be declared unconstitutional under the First
Amendment. In any event, this would hardly be a slam dunk case, assuming it
was ever even prosecuted. It's almost certainly more of a political problem
for Trump and Trump Jr. than a legal one.

http://lawnewz.com/opinion/sorry-but-the-constitution-actually-protects-trump-jr-from-prosecution/

-------------
Earl Browder's son is most definitely a high-quality person.

DEM

[DianeE]

...And as for the Biggest Witch Hunt In History, with apologies to the Book
Of Esther, I cannot *wait* to see Donald Trump burned at the stake he so
happily and underhandedly prepared for Hillary Clinton.

DEM

[Just Kidding]

I didn't mean to imply that the case would be a slam dunk by any
means, but there are certainly plenty of legal experts out there who
believe that Jr. may well have violated the campaign finance law in
question. The one I've linked to below is from Bob Bauer, formerly
Obama's White House Counsel and a well-respected political and
campaign law attorney (of course, he is a Democrat). His article
addresses the First Amendment issue that you raise:

http://www.moresoftmoneyhardlaw.com/2017/06/collusion-foreign-government-becomes-crime/

[Just Walkin']

On Wednesday, July 12, 2017 at 9:44:15 PM UTC-5, Just Kidding wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Jul 2017 11:14:18 -0700 (PDT), Earl Browder
>

It's obvious by now that the dominant faction of America's ruling class has been trying to discipline Trump and has been using the investigation and its media and democratic party nomenklatura to try to bring him into line. The real smoking gun - the evidence that puts Trump and his family away once and for all - will not be found unless and until this faction runs out of patience, sees its power diminish, or becomes displaced by an insurgent faction.

All wheels are in motion; watch the backfield for clues...

[luisb...@aol.com]

On Wednesday, July 12, 2017 at 9:41:11 AM UTC-4, robert...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 12, 2017 at 1:08:27 AM UTC-4, luisb...@aol.com wrote:
>
> > From his father's viewpoint, it would be a crime NOT to meet with someone who
> > was offering juicy tidbits, particularly when it had to do with illegal
> > activities she might have been involved with as US Secretary of State
>
>
> Stuart Stevens, Mitt Romney's chief strategist, tweeted this:
>
> "When Gore campaign was sent Bush debate brief book, they called FBI. If foreign interests offer you info on former SOS, you call the FBI."
>
>
> Richard Painter, a Bush lawyer, agreed:
>
> "When a Russian agent calls to offer dirt on a political opponent, a loyal American will call the FBI."
>
>
> The National Review, the conservative journal founded by William F. Buckley, offered this editorial:
>
> "To repeat, it now looks as if the senior campaign team of a major-party presidential candidate intended to meet with an official representative of a hostile foreign power to facilitate that foreign power’s attempt to influence an American election.

No it doesn't.

>...Russian collusion claims are no longer the exclusive province of tinfoil-hat conspiracy theorists. No American — Democrat or Republican — should defend the expressed intent of this meeting.

Is this an attack on their patriotism or a legal claim? If legal, collusion is not a term that shows up on legal books as far as I know. Do you and TNR know differently?

>
> "Going further, at long last we can now put to bed the notion that the Russia investigation is little more than frivolous partisan harassment, and it casts in an entirely different light the president’s fury and frustration at its continued progress. As recently as last week, it appeared that the 'collusion narrative' had lost steam, and that the so-called 'Russia scandal' had morphed into an attack on Donald Trump’s handling of the investigation, rather than the investigation itself. If you had told me last week that there existed an e-mail chain where a Trump contact explicitly tried to set up a meeting between a purported Russian official and the Trump senior team to facilitate official Russian efforts to beat Clinton, I’d have thought you’d been spending too much time in the deranged corners of Twitter.

Who is writing this idiocy anyway?

>
> "As of now, we should have zero confidence that we know all or even most material facts. We should have zero confidence that Trump’s frustration is entirely due to his feeling like an innocent man caught in the crosshairs of crazed conspiracy theorists. It now appears that his son, son-in-law, and campaign chair met with a lawyer who they were told was part of an official Russian government effort to impact the presidential election. The Russian investigation isn’t a witch hunt anymore, if it ever was. It’s a national necessity."

Fox news...yes that Fox news...has an excellent article I read about the cast of Russian characters involved. It's far more interesting than anything the NY Times has reported, which at the moment consists of gossip about the Hunger Games-like atmosphere inside the Executive Mansion.

[luisb...@aol.com]

Yeah, maybe those legal experts might want to think about the usefulness of their legal careers. (Btw, I'm not thinking of switching to law, though I have a lot of admiration for great legal minds. RIP Tonino Scalia.) So, what exactly do you think carries even an ounce of water in the era of Federal elections? I've heard the arguments. Now I'd like to hear you defend them.

>
> "The law states that no person shall knowingly solicit or accept from
> a foreign national any contribution to a campaign of an item of
> value," explains Ryan Goodman, a former Defense Department special
> counsel and current editor of the legal site Just Security. "There is
> now a clear case that Donald Trump Jr. has met all the elements of the
> law, which is a criminally enforced federal statute."

Oh...you're just going to quote some politically-driven attorney without any critical thinking whatsoever?

[luisb...@aol.com]

I think you are exactly right. Criminalizing contact with foreigners is dangerous. Let's flip the characters and imagine that Obama is running for president. His political enemies are running around claiming that he was Kenyan born. One of Obama's campaign officers makes a trip to Kenya to get to the bottom of this and finds out that no birth records exist for baby Barack. Conversely, one of Romney's guys goes over to Nairobi and, lo and behold, discovers a birth certificate for baby Barack in Nairobi General. In either case, a pretty significant finding that has a major impact on the election.

[luisb...@aol.com]

How quickly they turn.

[luisb...@aol.com]

On Wednesday, July 12, 2017 at 2:14:21 PM UTC-4, Earl Browder wrote:

I think most thinking people agree it's a political problem for Trump, though there is every sign that Jr will be taking the fall for Dad. Whether he actually will or not is another question.

Where it would stop being a political question and get far more interesting in my judgment, is if Aston Kutcher's data firm had been supplying precinct information to Russian firms so they could target social media in PA and battleground blue states in the upper midwest. During the election there was a huge pro-Russian presence in social media, much of it in very bad English, and I remember wondering at the time whether they also had a ground game in the rural parts of those states.

[Jake D Jude]

Keep dreaming, bitch.

All this is doing is showing the real Americans what a bunch of juvenile
wankers the libtards are. The Republican majority will continue to
increase whilst the petulant snowflakes will continue to be isolated at
the coasts.

Trump will continue to repeal all the socialist bullshit Obozo enacted
and the Supreme Court will be conservative for generations. Hopefully
fitting Clinton in an orange jumpsuit.

MAGA 2017

[DianeE]

<luisb...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:97b1fbe2-018c-40c4...@googlegroups.com...

-------------
New evidence, new conclusions.

[Just Kidding]

Sure you did. I remember all the posts you made here about that.

[Jake D Jude]

On 13-Jul-17 09:23, P-Dub wrote:

> The Demofraud party is the obstructionist party. They have no intention of doing anything to help a single American. Their only objective is to stop Trump. They have no interest in tax reform, stimulating (and helping) business and industry, controlling the national debt, securing our homeland, strengthening our future.
>
> I have absolutely no respect for the demofrauds, or the programmed lefties and their media stooges.
>
> Keep fighting for America First, Mr. Trump. Actual Americans have your back.

Correct on all counts.

The dickhead Tim Kane is now talking "treason". Really? What an ass.

Thankfully there is no longer a monopoly on news reporting like there
was when Nixon was railroaded. There are already stories out about worse
things Clinton did and all the obstruction from the Obozo cabinet during
the election last year that will offset the disgusting commie libtard
propaganda out there. So Stephie Stephanopolous, Rachel Madcow, and Joe
Shitborough can cry to the moon all they want but they are just as
discredited as the Clinton News Network.

[Earl Browder]

Finally worked my way through Bauer's argument and found it far more convoluted and strained than Banzhaf's. In some fashion I don't really follow, the fact that non-Americans don't have First Amendment rights is said to diminish the First Amendment rights of Americans who are in communication with them. I must say that this argument reminded me of the contortions the right-wing used to go through in the 1940s and 1950s to chip away at the free speech rights of "undeserving people" (mainly American Communists).

That's not to say that Bauer's view might not prevail (the Supreme Court approved for quite some time sending Communists to prison for conspiring to advocate Marxist revolution), but if and when such a case were to wind up in this Supreme Court, I think they'd find Banzhaf's straightforward defense of the First Amendment much more appealing than Bauer's argument that would reduce its scope and applicability in political campaigns.

I must admit, however, that I'm really curious to see where the ACLU comes down on this one. It surprised a lot of people with its vigorous support of the Citizens United decision in 2010 and it might do so again.

[Just Kidding]

On Thu, 13 Jul 2017 07:42:50 -0700 (PDT), Earl Browder

Yeah, I agree that the 1st Amendment part of his essay was a little
difficult to follow. My sense of what he was saying is that foreign
agents don't have free speech rights in the context of participating
in a U.S. election. I don't have enough of a legal background to say
one way or another if that's true, although it sounds like at least a
plausible argument to this lay person.

>
>That's not to say that Bauer's view might not prevail (the Supreme Court approved for quite some time sending Communists to prison for conspiring to advocate Marxist revolution), but if and when such a case were to wind up in this Supreme Court, I think they'd find Banzhaf's straightforward defense of the First Amendment much more appealing than Bauer's argument that would reduce its scope and applicability in political campaigns.

It would be interesting to find out how the SC would come down on this
issue but truth be told, I somehow doubt that it'll ever get that far.
For one thing, I can easily see the possibility of Trump Sr. pardoning
Jr. and his "accomplices" before any legal proceedings against them
ever get anywhere.

>
>I must admit, however, that I'm really curious to see where the ACLU comes down on this one. It surprised a lot of people with its vigorous support of the Citizens United decision in 2010 and it might do so again.

Knowing how things have shaken out since Citizens, do you think the SC
would rule the same way again today?

[Earl Browder]

On Thursday, 13 July 2017 11:16:58 UTC-4, Just Kidding wrote:
>
> Yeah, I agree that the 1st Amendment part of his essay was a little
> difficult to follow. My sense of what he was saying is that foreign
> agents don't have free speech rights in the context of participating
> in a U.S. election. I don't have enough of a legal background to say
> one way or another if that's true, although it sounds like at least a
> plausible argument to this lay person.

I guess that's my main problem with Bauer's argument. I don't think too many people have a problem with the idea that non-Americans (campaign finance law doesn't distinguish between "foreign agents" and ordinary people who just don't happen to be Americans) should not be allowed to make monetary donations (or their equivalent) to election campaigns. But I just don't see how the fact that non-Americans aren't protected by the First Amendment can be employed as a justification to diminish the First Amendment rights of Americans. And that's what happens if you seek to criminalize the flow of information between non-Americans and Americans.

> Knowing how things have shaken out since Citizens, do you think the SC
> would rule the same way again today?

Guess that depends on what is meant by "how things have shaken out." The Court might, after all, heartily agree with the analysts who have concluded that the predicted evil effects of Citizens United have never actually materialized.

As an article in the NY Times Magazine reported a few years after the decision, "Even so, the Supreme Court’s ruling really wasn’t the sort of tectonic event that Obama and his allies would have you believe it was. “I’d go so far as to call it a liberal delusion,” Ira Glasser, the former executive director of the A.C.L.U. and a liberal dissenter on Citizens United, told me."

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/22/magazine/how-much-has-citizens-united-changed-the-political-game.html

And we know that in the 2016 presidential election, Hillary Clinton spent $1.4 billion to Donald Trump's $960 million, a difference of about $440 million. Some of that disparity resulted from super PACs making independent expenditures of $204 million on behalf of Clinton, but only $79 million on behalf of Trump. Nonetheless, Trump won. I don't know why such results would or should particularly trouble the Court's Citizens United majority. Citizens United seems largely irrelevant to that election outcome. That was also true in 2012, the first presidential election after the Citizens United decision.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/2016-election/campaign-finance/

Finally, there have really only been two changes on the Court since 2010. Neil Gorsuch replaced Antonin Scalia and Elena Kagan replaced John Stevens. There's no reason to think Gorsuch differs significantly from Scalia on the Citizens United issues. However, since Kagan was the Solicitor General when Citizens United was before the Court, she defended McCain-Feingold on behalf of the Justice Department. That means she might well have to recuse herself if the same issue arose today. So, instead of a 5-4 vote overturning McCain-Feingold, it might well be 5-3 if the identical issues were re-litigated today.

[luisb...@aol.com]

I did?? I don't remember that. As I recall, the only thing I posted in this site was that Hillary would never be president. The usual hoodlums argued with me and demanded to know how I could speak so presumptuously and act like I knew so much more than their avatar Nate Silver. Like they still do. However, I never for a second thought that this was a "collusion" thing. Let's see if I'm proven right...yet again and whether Ashton Kutcher did do some coordination. You'd probably sniff at this as inside baseball, but I find it quite interesting.

[luisb...@aol.com]

On Thursday, July 13, 2017 at 1:21:56 PM UTC-4, Earl Browder wrote:
> On Thursday, 13 July 2017 11:16:58 UTC-4, Just Kidding wrote:
> >
> > Yeah, I agree that the 1st Amendment part of his essay was a little
> > difficult to follow. My sense of what he was saying is that foreign
> > agents don't have free speech rights in the context of participating
> > in a U.S. election. I don't have enough of a legal background to say
> > one way or another if that's true, although it sounds like at least a
> > plausible argument to this lay person.
>
>
> I guess that's my main problem with Bauer's argument. I don't think too many people have a problem with the idea that non-Americans (campaign finance law doesn't distinguish between "foreign agents" and ordinary people who just don't happen to be Americans) should not be allowed to make monetary donations (or their equivalent) to election campaigns. But I just don't see how the fact that non-Americans aren't protected by the First Amendment can be employed as a justification to diminish the First Amendment rights of Americans. And that's what happens if you seek to criminalize the flow of information between non-Americans and Americans.
>
>
> > Knowing how things have shaken out since Citizens, do you think the SC
> > would rule the same way again today?
>
>
> Guess that depends on what is meant by "how things have shaken out." The Court might, after all, heartily agree with the analysts who have concluded that the predicted evil effects of Citizens United have never actually materialized.
>
> As an article in the NY Times Magazine reported a few years after the decision, "Even so, the Supreme Court’s ruling really wasn’t the sort of tectonic event that Obama and his allies would have you believe it was. “I’d go so far as to call it a liberal delusion,” Ira Glasser, the former executive director of the A.C.L.U. and a liberal dissenter on Citizens United, told me."
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/22/magazine/how-much-has-citizens-united-changed-the-political-game.html

This article is from summer 2012, even before the general election was run. A great deal has happened since then. I'd venture to say that a great deal of anti-Citizens United commentary concerns the presidential and senatorial races. But the impact of Citizens has been felt more in local races, with many very conservative, pro-energy, anti-environmental social welfare groups leading the charge. I think there's a strong case to be made that the wave of GOP victories at the local level since 2010 paved the way for a Donald Trump to reach the presidency. I would actually be very interested to hear someone interview him and hear his honest reflections about this.

[DianeE]

On 7/13/2017 12:11 AM, luisb...@aol.com wrote:

>
> I think you are exactly right. Criminalizing contact with foreigners is dangerous. Let's flip the characters and imagine that Obama is running for president. His political enemies are running around claiming that he was Kenyan born. One of Obama's campaign officers makes a trip to Kenya to get to the bottom of this and finds out that no birth records exist for baby Barack. Conversely, one of Romney's guys goes over to Nairobi and, lo and behold, discovers a birth certificate for baby Barack in Nairobi General. In either case, a pretty significant finding that has a major impact on the election.
>

-------------------
You're implying that Romney lost by overestimating the decency and
intelligence of his voters!

[luisb...@aol.com]

I believe he lost because he didn't have his party's support and was basically a Democrat. I'm not totally certain about the first part.

[Rachel]

Get it Right !