Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Thursday, August 09, 2018

Wednesday night, MSNBC anchor Rachel Maddow aired audio leaked from a fundraiser hosted by Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA) for Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers' (R-WA) reelection campaign. Per Maddow, the audio was obtained by a progressive group called "Fuse Washington" and comes from a closed-door, private event for donors in Spokane.

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

4) On a less serious note: Even Nunes, one of Trump's most stalwart defenders, sometimes cringes at the President's tweets:

" ... you know you have a mixed bag on the tweets right? Sometimes we love the President's tweets and sometimes we cringe on the President's tweets, but they're trying to make a political -- this is all political as to why that story ran the "New York Times" on the tweets."

#1 | Posted by qcp at 2018-08-09 11:28 AM | Reply

Nunes is financially or sexually compromised by someone. His fanaticism for Trump is neatly explained by being much too much like Donald for his own damned good.

If the House flips in November, the roaches will be scurrying for cover. That is, scurrying even more desperately than they are now.

#2 | Posted by Zed at 2018-08-09 11:31 AM | Reply

Nunes is a traitor defending our President who is a traitor who just had a letter delivered to his boss by traitor Rand Paul.

#3 | Posted by danni at 2018-08-09 11:38 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

The GOP Senate will not impeach Trump, Pelosi knows this. The GOP are entirely compromised. The only way to get rid of Trump is to vote him out in 2020. The traitors supporting him should be voted out in 2018 though.

#4 | Posted by bored at 2018-08-09 12:12 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2


... Nunes is worried that without the blind and unconditional protection of a Republican majority, the President will be in serious legal jeopardy from Special Counsel Robert Mueller's probe. ...

So it looks like Rep Nunes is admitting that he feels Pres Trump is guilty, and that the only thing that will save Pres Trump is for the Republicans to put party over Country.

#5 | Posted by LampLighter at 2018-08-09 12:22 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

Think about the fact that trump and manafort are both objective morons. Imagine the crimes other, more intelligent GOP members are getting away with.

#6 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2018-08-09 02:08 PM | Reply

WOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! He is telling them to vote republican. My God, he can't do that!!!!!!!!!!!!

#7 | Posted by Sniper at 2018-08-09 02:36 PM | Reply

WOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! He just called Humpy Trumpy a criminal! My God, he can't do that!!!!!!!!!!!!

#8 | Posted by donnerboy at 2018-08-09 05:32 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

WOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! He just admitted that sometimes even Republicans cringe at Humpy Trumpuy's tweets! My God, he can't do that!!!!!!!!!!!!

#9 | Posted by donnerboy at 2018-08-09 05:33 PM | Reply

WOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! He just revealed they really are going to try and impeach Rosenstein (after the election and Kavanaugh sworn in) ... because "it's a matter of timing" ! My God, he can't do that!!!!!!!!!!!!

#10 | Posted by donnerboy at 2018-08-09 05:37 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Well, his career is done.

#11 | Posted by Sycophant at 2018-08-09 05:41 PM | Reply

The only way to get rid of Trump is to vote him out in 2020. The traitors supporting him should be voted out in 2018 though.

#4 | Posted by bored

We can make him a lame duck until then by getting him indicted. Imagine... a sitting US President indicted for crimes against the state.

Now there is a legacy to be proud of Republicans.

#12 | Posted by donnerboy at 2018-08-09 05:51 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

All of this traitor and impeachment talk by the libs is just a further sign of their TDS. How was Trump a traitor? Oh, the collusion that you all assumed would be proven by now. I see. No collusion, no obstruction to be found. Sorry. So, it then was impeach over family separations. You are looking more and more hysterical by the day.

#13 | Posted by ihatethedotard at 2018-08-09 09:36 PM | Reply | Funny: 3

"Oh, the collusion that you all assumed would be proven by now"

Attempted collusion/conspiracy has been proven. Junior admitted it. Bungled attempted conspiracy is still attempted conspiracy.

Obstruction has been proven as well, by Junior's--er, Trump's--set of lies dictated from Air Force One.

#14 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-08-09 09:44 PM | Reply

I like how it's a "bombshell" when someone states the obvious.

#15 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-08-09 10:04 PM | Reply

"Attempted collusion/conspiracy has been proven."

So, again, no collusion actually occurred.

"Junior admitted it."

Yes, they tried to get dirt just like every other political campaign in history. They were not successful like the Dems were with the fake dossier provided by the Ukrainian government.

"Bungled attempted conspiracy is still attempted conspiracy."

Your entire democrat narrative since the election is that Trump colluded with the Russians to enable him to win the election thereby making his compromised by the Russians and the election illegitimate. Have you forgotten already why you demanded this probe? By your own admission now, that assumption was false.

Your level of TDS is scary. Perhaps a padded room and high doses of lithium are in order for you.

#16 | Posted by ihatethedotard at 2018-08-09 10:16 PM | Reply

"So, again, no collusion actually occurred."

That's like saying you didn't attempt to rob the bank because it turned out they didn't have any money like you thought they would.

"Your entire democrat narrative since the election is that Trump colluded with the Russians..."

Not mine. It's that he's a large-scale money launderer. The pathological narcissistic liar part is icing on the cake.

"Your level of TDS is scary."

Only topped by your appetite for being played like a chump by a guy who believes you should feast on his lies every day.

BYW, weren't you the guy who guaranteed Gates would not testify in the Manafort trial? Only took days for you to look clueless.

#17 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-08-09 10:29 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

"just like every other political campaign in history. "

Do you know the difference between getting that info from an American vs, say, the Russian government?

And all those times Team Trump lied to you about all things Russia, was that like every other campaign, too?

#18 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-08-09 10:32 PM | Reply

""Your entire democrat narrative since the election is that Trump colluded with the Russians..."
Not mine."

Wow, so you finally admit that this whole Mueller probe was BS from the beginning. You should tell your fellow brain dead libbies because they are still squawking about Russian collusion.

#19 | Posted by ihatethedotard at 2018-08-09 10:33 PM | Reply

"Do you know the difference between getting that info from an American vs, say, the Russian government?
#18 | POSTED BY DANFORTH"

I guess I don't understand. So, please tell me the difference between getting them from an American vs the Ukrainian government, which we know actually did occur.

#20 | Posted by ihatethedotard at 2018-08-09 10:35 PM | Reply

"vs the Ukrainian government, which we know actually did occur."

Riiiiiiiight.

"So, please tell me the difference"

One is legal and one is illegal.

#21 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-08-09 10:50 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

"so you finally admit that this whole Mueller probe was BS from the beginning. "

Not at all. I think everyone from Team Trump lying about everything Russia proves they've got a lot to hide. What does it mean in your world?

#22 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-08-09 10:52 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

""So, please tell me the difference"
One is legal and one is illegal.
#21 | POSTED BY DANFORTH "

So it is illegal to get dirt from the government of Ukraine? When are they going to lock up Hillary? My guess is never because it is completely normal to get dirt on your political rivals. But hey, maybe you are right.

#23 | Posted by ihatethedotard at 2018-08-09 11:00 PM | Reply

"I think everyone from Team Trump lying about everything Russia proves they've got a lot to hide.
#22 | POSTED BY DANFORTH "

I don't know what lies you are talking about.

#24 | Posted by ihatethedotard at 2018-08-09 11:01 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

"So it is illegal to get dirt from the government of Ukraine? "

It's illegal to receive or solicit anything of value from a foreign national. Hacked emails, released at the right time during a campaign is certainly something of value.

Don't they report this stuff on the news you watch?

"When are they going to lock up Hillary?"

As soon as the first Republican finds the first crime. God knows they've been searching for 30 years.

#25 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-08-09 11:03 PM | Reply

"It's illegal to receive or solicit anything of value from a foreign national."

The DNC paid Steele, a foreign national to write the dossier. So, we have a direct payment (which proves the DNC thought it was of value) and we have a foreign national providing it - and best yet, it is all 100% proven that this has occurred and already admitted to the government.

So, if it is an actual crime, why has nothing been done yet? The only logical conclusions are:

1.) The investigators are hopelessly biased
2.) It is not really a crime that is ever enforced

So, which one is it?

#26 | Posted by ihatethedotard at 2018-08-09 11:08 PM | Reply

"I don't know what lies you are talking about."

We never met with any Russians.
Well, we met with some Russians.
Okay, we met with a lot of Russians, but it was about adoptions.
Okay, it was about conspiring, but we're not guilty because we're inept.
Conspiring isn't a crime.

Meanwhile, what version of "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth" is Attorney General Jefferson Beauregard Sessions on by now? Version 3.0, last I looked.

#27 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-08-09 11:14 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

But hey, maybe you are right.
#23 | POSTED BY IHATETHEDOTARD

He is right and both HRC and Trump are guilty, IMO. Only difference between the two is that Trump us POTUS, which poses the greatest risk to both you and me. Therefore, investigating Trump with full resources takes precedence. Hillary ain't going no where.

#28 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2018-08-09 11:14 PM | Reply

I don't know what lies you are talking about.
#24 | POSTED BY IHATETHEDOTARD

"My campaign had zero -- ZERO! -- contact with Russians!" - POTUS DJT

#29 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2018-08-09 11:16 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"which proves the DNC thought it was of value)"

Well, lock them up. Trump violating the law doesn't mean others didn't. Similarly, if HRC committed crimes, that doesn't nullify any crimes Trump committed.

Whataboutism notwithstanding.

#30 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-08-09 11:16 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

#26 | POSTED BY IHATETHEDOTARD

Hopelessly biased considering the evidence!!!! Think of this in the sense of triage and you just might get a clue.

#31 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2018-08-09 11:18 PM | Reply

#30

NW

My point exactly!

#32 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2018-08-09 11:20 PM | Reply

#26 | POSTED BY IHATETHEDOTARD

Why do you only want Hillary investigated and locked up? Are you THAT partisan?

#33 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2018-08-09 11:21 PM | Reply

"He is right and both HRC and Trump are guilty, IMO. Only difference between the two is that Trump us POTUS, which poses the greatest risk to both you and me. Therefore, investigating Trump with full resources takes precedence. Hillary ain't going no where.
#28 | POSTED BY RSTYBEACH11"

At least you are honest enough to admit that the DNC is guilty of the same things they accuse Trump of doing, so you get my respect for that. That said, pretending that we criminalize and foreign citizen that comments on our elections or provide dirt is a dangerous precedent to set, which is why it has never been enforced to date.

For me, seeking dirt from any source really does not outrage me about what occurred in 2016. What outraged me was the DNC using this fake dossier to then weaponize the deep state to spy on a political campaign. That is the thing that needs to be stomped out forever and all those involved should be in jail. We either need to have complete faith in our intelligence agencies or they should be disbanded because no agencies should have that kind of power without any oversight/accountability on their actions.

#34 | Posted by ihatethedotard at 2018-08-09 11:22 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

"...using this fake dossier to then weaponize the deep state..."

You forgot chemtrails, staging the moon landing, and the Sandy Hook hoax.

#35 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-08-09 11:26 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

The statute in question is 52 USC 30121, 36 USC 510 -- the law governing foreign contributions to US campaigns. There are two key passages that apply here. This is the first:

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.

The crucial phrase here is "other thing of value" (...) It means that the law extends beyond just cash donations. Foreigners are also banned from providing other kinds of contributions that would be the functional equivalent of a campaign donation, just provided in the form of services rather than goods. Like, say, damaging information the Russian government collected about Hillary Clinton.

www.vox.com

#36 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-08-09 11:30 PM | Reply

From the same link:

Here's the second important passage of the statute: "No person shall knowingly solicit, accept, or receive from a foreign national any contribution or donation prohibited by [this law]."

The key word from Trump Jr., according to University of California Irvine election law expert Rick Hasen, is "solicit," which has a very specific meaning in this context. To quote the relevant statute:

A solicitation is an oral or written communication that, construed as reasonably understood in the context in which it is made, contains a clear message asking, requesting, or recommending that another person make a contribution, donation, transfer of funds, or otherwise provide anything of value.


"If it's what you say, I love it"

#37 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-08-09 11:33 PM | Reply

At least you are honest enough to admit that the DNC is guilty of the same things they accuse Trump of doing, so you get my respect for that.

Why wouldn't I be? Do NOT mistake me for some libbie Hillary supporter or Bernie Bro. Your assumptions are your own failures.

That said, pretending that we criminalize and foreign citizen that comments on our elections or provide dirt is a dangerous precedent to set, which is why it has never been enforced to date.

This implies you're aware of conduct similar and on the same level of conspiracy as HRC and Trump. Especially as it relates to Trump considering Trump neglected to inform the FBI about foreign government representatives soliciting information on a political candidate to said candidate's opponent. Please link.

For me, seeking dirt from any source really does not outrage me about what occurred in 2016. What outraged me was the DNC using this fake dossier to then weaponize the deep state to spy on a political campaign.

Why are you ignoring the evidence unrelated to the dossier? With a narrative like that, you should be able to identify the portions of the dossier that have been proven as being fabricated. Can you?

#38 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2018-08-09 11:34 PM | Reply

"You forgot chemtrails, staging the moon landing, and the Sandy Hook hoax.
#35 | POSTED BY DANFORTH "

This is why liberals are losing and will continue to lose. You are so bought into your party line, that you are willing to lie to protect that. Let me show you - I think Trump is a piece of human garbage. He lies, he is boastful, he cheats on his wives, etc. On the plus side, he seems like a good father. I wish that the GOP or any party could put forth a sack of skin that wanted to put forth the same policies as Trump and I would gladly vote for them instead. I am not a Trump lover and I see his faults.

But for you, you chalk up the weaponizing of the deep state (or the IRS) as some sort of conspiracy. This, despite basically the entire top brass at the FBI and DOJ being demoted or fired. This despite the IG saying the firings are justified (McCabe), this despite your new hero Rosenstein being the guy that wrote the memo that got Comey fired, this despite all the investigation into Carter Page (violating his rights) with ZERO coming out of it, this despite Clapper and the rest of the Obama heads routinely lying to Congress, this despite the FBI/DOJ still refusing to hand over documents and redacting items due to embarrassment (not national security). These agencies aren't the good guys. They weren't when they were lying us into war in Iraq, weren't when they went after the guy they thought was mailing anthrax, and weren't when they destroyed the life of the guy that found for the Atlanta Olympics bombs.

You really need to bring some objectivity back to your life.

#39 | Posted by ihatethedotard at 2018-08-09 11:40 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

"Why wouldn't I be? Do NOT mistake me for some libbie Hillary supporter or Bernie Bro."

That is 90% of this board. Frankly, I don't spend too much time memorizing the different usernames.

"This implies you're aware of conduct similar and on the same level of conspiracy as HRC and Trump."

Political dirt is in every election. Pretending none of it came from a foreign national is being willfully ignorant.

"Why are you ignoring the evidence unrelated to the dossier? With a narrative like that, you should be able to identify the portions of the dossier that have been proven as being fabricated. Can you?
#38 | POSTED BY RSTYBEACH11"

Well, we can start with the misspelled names, the lawsuit Steele lost in London, and the suits still in play regarding libel. The dossier was written by a foreign national using dirt provided by foreign government officials, which was then misrepresented to justify surveillance. That is unprecedented and wrong at every level. This should never happen again - whether it be used against the Dems or GOP.

#40 | Posted by ihatethedotard at 2018-08-09 11:45 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

"But for you, you chalk up the weaponizing of the deep state (or the IRS) as some sort of conspiracy."

The Rs just past the most weaponized tax code I've ever seen. You were silent about it. STFU.

"the investigation into Carter Page (violating his rights) with ZERO coming out of it,"

Three Republican-appointed FISA judges disagree with you, and they actually got to see the evidence.

"These agencies aren't the good guys."

So your defense boils down to you had no right to discover my wrongs. Got it.

"You really need to bring some objectivity back to your life."

You objectively stated a few days ago Gates would not testify in the Manafort trial. It seems your objectivity barometer is the one needing fine tuning.

#41 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-08-10 12:12 AM | Reply

"The Rs just past the most weaponized tax code I've ever seen. You were silent about it."

How on earth do you weaponize a tax code? What planet do you live on? The IRS, that was weaponized by using it as a political tool of the Dems to stop the Tea Party movement. The government lost that case, paid a fine, and admitted guilt. However, LL pleaded the 5th so we don't know how high the corruption went.

"Three Republican-appointed FISA judges disagree with you, and they actually got to see the evidence."

Why do I care what letter is after their name? That is a Democrat thing you use in assessing right and wrong. It is ridiculous. The proof is in the pudding, multiple FISA and they have nothing.

"So your defense boils down to you had no right to discover my wrongs. Got it."

What wrongdoing has been discovered? Oh that's right, NOTHING.

"You objectively stated a few days ago Gates would not testify in the Manafort trial.
#41 | POSTED BY DANFORTH"

I just repeated to what was in the press at the time. Given his disastrous and discrediting performance, it shows just how devoid the case against Manafort really is. This was the case to try to get him to compose vs. Trump, he wouldn't play ball and now they are playing games. I expect Weissman to get another reprimand after this trial like he did following AA and ML prosecutions.

#42 | Posted by ihatethedotard at 2018-08-10 01:00 AM | Reply | Funny: 2

"How on earth do you weaponize a tax code?"

Read interviews of Steven Moore and John Feehery; they both admit they were trying to hurt folks who don't vote Republican.

"The IRS, that was weaponized by using it as a political tool of the Dems to stop the Tea Party movement."

Laughable. The approval wasn't even needed for the organizations to continue to do everything they could do otherwise.

"The government lost that case, paid a fine"

The Trump administration paid them. The same folks who pardoned Arpaio and D'Souza.

"Why do I care what letter is after their name?"

Okay. Three judges saw the evidence, and each independently signed off on FISA warrants. You, meanwhile, saw no evidence at all.

"multiple FISA and they have nothing."

Nonsense. FISA Renewals require ongoing proof, although I don't expect your news sources to regularly report that fact.

"This was the case to try to get him to compose vs. Trump, he wouldn't play ball "

Get real. They've known Manafort wouldn't (and won't) play ball since day one. He's MUCH more afraid of the Russians than he is of the prison system.

"What wrongdoing has been discovered? Oh that's right, NOTHING."

Lying about everything, especially everything Russian. And money laundering. And obstructing justice.

#43 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-08-10 01:16 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"I just repeated to what was in the press at the time."

Well, your "press" isn't telling you FISA renewals require newfound evidence from the current warrant to be re-approved. It's also not telling you soliciting a thing of value from a foreign national is illegal.

Maybe that's the problem.

#44 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-08-10 01:19 AM | Reply

"Well, your "press" isn't telling you FISA renewals require newfound evidence from the current warrant to be re-approved.
#44 | POSTED BY DANFORTH"

The FISA process is a joke with like a 99% approval rate. It should be disbanded outright. However, I do find it funny how you are cozying up the the three-letter agencies that Dems have hated since time immemorial. You were right to hate them in the past, too bad your TDS is driving you to such moronic allegiances.

#45 | Posted by ihatethedotard at 2018-08-10 01:37 AM | Reply | Funny: 2

Sooooo we have our own paid troll now.
Plonk.

#46 | Posted by e1g1 at 2018-08-10 04:50 AM | Reply

#46 - Yep! IHTD is the biggest POS to find its way here in a while.
Danforth made him look like an idiot, over and over again, which is why I'm glad I don't have him plonked.
Thank you, Danforth.

#47 | Posted by YAV at 2018-08-10 07:12 AM | Reply

Why does anyone entertain the posts of dotard? If nobody responds to him he will eventually go back to /pol/ where he belongs.

#48 | Posted by JOE at 2018-08-10 08:10 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"Do you know the difference between getting that info from an American vs, say, the Russian government? #18 | POSTED BY DANFORTH"
"So, please tell me the difference"
One is legal and one is illegal. -#21 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-08-09 10:50 PM

^^^^^^ This is not true.
From the
WaPo article about the Trump Tower meeting:
"Paying a foreign national fair market value for opposition research is generally not illegal," Noble wrote. "It is considered a commercial transaction, which is not a contribution." Clinton's campaign had paid Fusion GPS directly; it's a campaign expenditure, not a campaign contribution. Since it's not a contribution, the FEC allows it."

If, as Trump Jr. claims, no information was forthcoming from that meeting, and the value of no information being $0, then it appears fair market value was provided. If, as has been speculated, something was provided the Trump campaign....well, I hope they kept receipts.

#49 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-08-10 08:57 AM | Reply

It's illegal to receive or solicit anything of value from a foreign national. -#25 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-08-09 11:03 PM
^^^ That also appears to be untrue.

#50 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-08-10 08:58 AM | Reply

"If, as Trump Jr. claims, no information was forthcoming from that meeting, and the value of no information being $0, then it appears fair market value was provided."

If you actually believe no information was forthcoming from that meeting I have a bridge for sale in Brooklyn. Grow up.

#51 | Posted by danni at 2018-08-10 09:16 AM | Reply

If you actually believe no information was forthcoming from that meeting I have a bridge for sale in Brooklyn. - #51 | Posted by danni at 2018-08-10 09:16 AM

I said it was an option, right?
What we need now is evidence that it happened. Do you have any or are you just speculating? Grow up.

#52 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-08-10 09:19 AM | Reply

What we need now is evidence that it happened.

The fact that you would expect such evidence to be public at this point proves that you are either an idiot or a havk.

#53 | Posted by JOE at 2018-08-10 09:22 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

That's the russian spelling for "hack."

#54 | Posted by JOE at 2018-08-10 09:22 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

The fact that you would expect such evidence to be public at this point proves that you are either an idiot or a havk. - #53 | Posted by JOE at 2018-08-10 09:22 AM

I never claimed that I expected such evidence to be public. Which is why I said, quite clearly, that it was speculation ("If, as Trump Jr. claims"... "If, as has been speculated")that it had happened and what we needed was evidence to know one way or another ("What we need now is evidence..."). Too early for reading AND writing, Joe?

#55 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-08-10 09:35 AM | Reply

I never claimed that I expected such evidence to be public.

Yeah, you're just here every day bleating about a lack of evidence for fun.

#56 | Posted by JOE at 2018-08-10 09:44 AM | Reply

And let's be clear, when that evidence is made public, there is a 100% chance you'll detect some "flaw" in it or in the process by which it was procured. You're about as objective as Tucker Carlson.

#57 | Posted by JOE at 2018-08-10 09:46 AM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 2

And let's be clear, when that evidence is made public, there is a 100% chance you'll detect some "flaw" in it or in the process by which it was procured. You're about as objective as Tucker Carlson. - #57 | Posted by JOE at 2018-08-10 09:46 AM

Good to see that your prognostication skills are on par with your other skills...unproven.

#58 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-08-10 09:51 AM | Reply

#58 - you prove him right with every post. It's funny you deny it.

#59 | Posted by YAV at 2018-08-10 10:00 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"If, as Trump Jr. claims, no information was forthcoming from that meeting...:

Then he's guilty of attempted conspiracy.

Again, just because the bank didn't have any money doesn't suddenly mean no attempted robbery.

#60 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-08-10 10:05 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"^^^ That also appears to be untrue."

Reread the statute as often as it takes.

Unless you're claiming oppo isn't a thing of "value", it's as clear as a bell. Of course, the very fact Junior took the meeting (I LOVE IT!) proves he believe it was something of value.

#61 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-08-10 10:06 AM | Reply

Then he's guilty of attempted conspiracy. - #60 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-08-10 10:05 AM

Conspiracy to what? Attempting to purchase official Russian documents is not a conspiracy. (Again, if he was trying to get Russia to give them over freely, that would have run afoul of the FEC's contribution rules).

#62 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-08-10 10:25 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

Unless you're claiming oppo isn't a thing of "value", it's as clear as a bell. Of course, the very fact Junior took the meeting (I LOVE IT!) proves he believe it was something of value. - #61 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-08-10 10:06 AM
I'm claiming that he could have been offering to purchase the information from them, which would have been legal. It is going to be hard to prove that he wasn't there to see the goods before coming to an agreed upon amount of value to pay for it. (Again, we don't have any proof that he's offered to purchase it - just as we have no proof that he was getting it as a donation).

#63 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-08-10 10:28 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

"Conspiracy to what? "

Receiving something of value from a foreign national during a campaign.

"Attempting to purchase official Russian documents is not a conspiracy."

It's an attempted violation of the law I posted above.

Cutting to the chase: do the scores of provable lies, all coincidentally about Russia, add up to ANYTHING to you?

#64 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-08-10 10:30 AM | Reply

"he could have been offering to purchase the information from them"

He could've also offered a quid pro quo.

"we don't have any proof that he's offered to purchase it - just as we have no proof that he was getting it as a donation"

True. All we have is proof he attempted to obtain/accept something of value from folks claiming to represent the Russian government. IOW, all we know so far is he was attempting to break the law.

#65 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-08-10 10:34 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

all we know so far is he was attempting to break the law. - #65 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-08-10 10:34 AM
This is not true.
Click the link in my #49.
"Paying a foreign national fair market value for opposition research is generally not illegal," Noble wrote. "It is considered a commercial transaction, which is not a contribution." Clinton's campaign had paid Fusion GPS directly; it's a campaign expenditure, not a campaign contribution. Since it's not a contribution, the FEC allows it."

All we have is proof he attempted to obtain/accept something of value from folks claiming to represent the Russian government
^^^ This part is both true, and may be legal or it may be illegal depending upon the agreement to receive those goods. If they are a contribution (free) then they run afoul of campaign finance laws. If they are a monetary transaction, they are not illegal. As of yet, we do not have any information about what type of agreement was reached. Possibly because there never were any goods - possibly because proof of those goods has not yet reached the public.

#66 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-08-10 10:39 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

"Attempting to purchase official Russian documents is not a conspiracy."
It's an attempted violation of the law I posted above. - #64 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-08-10 10:30 AM

This statement is completely untrue. Purchasing things from anyone is not in any way, shape, or form included in the statute on donations you posted above.
Perhaps you should Reread the statute as often as it takes. - #61 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-08-10 10:06 AM

#67 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-08-10 10:42 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

It's not about purchasing. You can contract and pay for information. That's legal, like it or not.

You can't solicit, or attempt to receive from a foreign agent, national, or Government, something of value - as a donation.
The reason it's against the law is that, if you do, you're indebted.

Papadopoulos solicited (via a Russian professor) Clinton's emails, free of charge. That very act was illegal.
The Trump Tower meeting now appears to have been the same - opposition research - free of charge, because Russia wanted to help Trump win (as stated in the email).

You're just pissed because the Democrats didn't break any law and Trump's team appears to have, repeatedly.

#68 | Posted by YAV at 2018-08-10 10:45 AM | Reply

Avigdore, how will you react when and if Junior is indicted for lying to the FBI and the Senate Investigation Committee?

Are you working on something, or planning to wait to receive your opinion from your Russian handlers?

#69 | Posted by oldwhiskeysour at 2018-08-10 10:46 AM | Reply

"Purchasing things from anyone is not in any way, shape, or form included in the statute on donations you posted above."

The word "obtain" is. You don't have to "purchase" anything from anyone.

"Paying a foreign national fair market value for opposition research is generally not illegal," Noble wrote."

Noble can write whatever he wants; it doesn't change the law. And "generally"?!?

"may be legal or it may be illegal depending upon the agreement to receive those goods."

So basically your position rests on the pretense Junior was planning on getting that information for free?

"As of yet, we do not have any information about what type of agreement was reached."

True. But we do know Junior went into the meeting with the plan to agree to something in exchange for the info. To pretend otherwise is just silly.

#70 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-08-10 10:50 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Are you working on something, or planning to wait to receive your opinion from your Russian handlers?"

He will receive his oreders from the Kremlin at the appropriate time. So will Dotard.

#71 | Posted by danni at 2018-08-10 10:52 AM | Reply

-True. But we do know Junior went into the meeting with the plan to agree to something in exchange for the info. To pretend otherwise is just silly.

So what kind of a crime are we looking at? Conspiracy? I have no clue...it's the significance of the crime itself, IMO, more than the criminal penalty he is subject to that matters here, yes?

#72 | Posted by eberly at 2018-08-10 10:52 AM | Reply

The Trump Tower meeting now appears to have been the same - opposition research - free of charge, because Russia wanted to help Trump win (as stated in the email).
You're just pissed because the Democrats didn't break any law and Trump's team appears to have, repeatedly. - #68 | Posted by YAV at 2018-08-10 10:45 AM

I'm not pissed in the slightest. I'm pointing out that purchasing official Russian documents from Russia does not run afoul of the statute barring foreign donations to a campaign. A foreign national shall not, directly or indirectly, make a contribution or a donation of money or other thing of value
Since we know that purchasing stuff from foreigners IS allowed, then 'just taking the meeting' also may not run afoul of that law. We don't know the 'may' yet, because we haven't seen any proof of Russia providing any information as a donation.

#73 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-08-10 10:57 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

Conspiracy to what?

To commit computer crimes
To commit theft
To defraud the United States
To conmit election fraud

For starters...

#74 | Posted by JOE at 2018-08-10 10:59 AM | Reply

So basically your position rests on the pretense Junior was planning on getting that information for free? - #70 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-08-10 10:50 AM
No, yours does. In fact your position requires it. If it isn't a donation, it does not run afoul of the ban on donations.

#75 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-08-10 10:59 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

Avigdore, how will you react when and if Junior is indicted for lying to the FBI and the Senate Investigation Committee? - #69 | Posted by oldwhiskeysour at 2018-08-10 10:46 AM

Sorry OWS, I was working a little and looking through other postings and missed this one.
Your answer: The same way I'll act when anyone is indicted for anything. Trust that the system works as intended, know that the accused will get their day in court, respect the determination of the jury...normal reactions I hope. Are you not going to react the same way?

#76 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-08-10 11:02 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

"So basically your position rests on the pretense Junior was planning on getting that information for free?"

There does not have to necessarily be a monetary value to make something valuable. Hillary's emails, no money involved, but definitely of value.

#77 | Posted by danni at 2018-08-10 11:05 AM | Reply

Conspiracy to what?
To commit computer crimes
To commit theft
To defraud the United States
To conmit election fraud
For starters... - #74 | Posted by JOE at 2018-08-10 10:59 AM

Sorry, Joe. We're talking about the Trump Tower meeting where Trump Jr. met with a Russian lawyer about
"some official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia."
While it is certainly a possibility that those other things you made up were discussed at the meeting, there definitely has been no evidence of that which is available to the public.

#78 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-08-10 11:07 AM | Reply | Funny: 1


@#73 ... Since we know that purchasing stuff from foreigners IS allowed, then 'just taking the meeting' also may not run afoul of that law. We don't know the 'may' yet, because we haven't seen any proof of Russia providing any information as a donation. ...

This is one of the main reasons why I am wanting to wait for Mr Mueller's report on all of this. Mr Mueller will get the reading of the laws right, Mr Mueller will get the application of the laws right.

I also suspect the above is the reason why so many Republicans are trying to stop the Mueller investigation, unlike me, they do not want to see his findings.

#79 | Posted by LampLighter at 2018-08-10 11:08 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

When your universe consists entirely of partisan politics, Devon Nunes is the result.

#80 | Posted by moder8 at 2018-08-10 11:09 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

There does not have to necessarily be a monetary value to make something valuable. Hillary's emails, no money involved, but definitely of value. - #77 | Posted by Danni at 2018-08-10 11:05 AM
That's true. However, if the Trump campaign paid the fair market value for anything they received at the Trump Tower meeting it would not break the foreign donation prohibition in the campaign finance statue that Danforth is going on about.

#81 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-08-10 11:10 AM | Reply

"I'm pointing out that purchasing official Russian documents from Russia does not run afoul of the statute"

Wow. So we've gone from "No Russians" to "Russians all the time, but it doesn't run afoul of the statute."

Who says Republicans don't believe in evolution?

#82 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-08-10 11:11 AM | Reply | Funny: 2

there definitely has been no evidence of that which is available to the public.

There's plenty of circumstantial evidence, which is used more often to convict than you probably think. To claim there's no evidence at all just because Mueller hasn't revealed direct evidence is just another display of your ignorance.

#83 | Posted by JOE at 2018-08-10 11:12 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

-There's plenty of circumstantial evidence, which is used more often to convict than you probably think

Folks like the Trumps? I doubt it.

Please don't mistake my comment as a defense for any of them. I have no doubts they are guilty of what it appears they have done. I just have doubts we'll ever get that far.

#84 | Posted by eberly at 2018-08-10 11:14 AM | Reply

So what kind of a crime are we looking at? Conspiracy? I have no clue...it's the significance of the crime itself, IMO, more than the criminal penalty he is subject to that matters here, yes? - #72 | Posted by eberly at 2018-08-10 10:52 AM

I think the cart is still a bit ahead of the horse. It's determining if he's actually broken a law that matters here.
For some reason people have the notion that a campaign making a purchase from someone outside the US is illegal.
They probably know in their head that this is a preposterous idea, but it's been pushed so hard as 'Russian Collusion' that the hook is set very deeply.
It took an article discussing why it was legal for the Clinton campaign to purchase opponent research from a British agent to allow some people to start waking up to it. (linked in #49)

#85 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-08-10 11:16 AM | Reply

"If it isn't a donation, it does not run afoul of the ban on donations."

Nonsense. It's still accepting something of value. And if the attempt failed, it's still an attempt. Junior went into the meeting with the intention of breaking the law.

"if the Trump campaign paid the fair market value for anything they received at the Trump Tower meeting it would not break the foreign donation prohibition"

What parts of "solicit" and "obtain" do you not understand?

And more to the point, if it was soooo innocent, why the trail of lies about it?

Never happened.
Happened, but one lawyer, and we talked about adoptions.
Okay, we thought we were getting dirt, but it was a bait and switch, so...no harm no foul?
No, I didn't call my daddy between calls to Algarov setting up the meeting.
No, I didn't tell my daddy about the meeting, ever.
That AF1 explanation was written by me.

That's a lot of lies on this nothingburger.

#86 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-08-10 11:17 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

(Again, we don't have any proof that he's offered to purchase it - just as we have no proof that he was getting it as a donation).

We do have proof of the attempted donation.
In fact, we have proof the Russians offered information to help Trump, gratis.

You made up "purchase" so you could equate this to Clinton.

You make up all these false equivalences and "alternative facts" so you can rationalize this POS, but the FACT remains, you're as duplicitous as Trump and his cadre.

#87 | Posted by YAV at 2018-08-10 11:17 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

The amount of circumstantial evidence present in this case, alongside eyewitness testimony from people like Flynn (and Kushner, who will flip the moment someone shows him what prison food is) is plenty to convict even someone like Trump.

#88 | Posted by JOE at 2018-08-10 11:17 AM | Reply

There's plenty of circumstantial evidence, which is used more often to convict than you probably think. To claim there's no evidence at all just because Mueller hasn't revealed direct evidence is just another display of your ignorance. - #83 | Posted by JOE at 2018-08-10 11:12 AM
By all means, let us know what circumstantial evidence exists which you believe paints the Trump Tower meeting as 'Conspiracy to what?
To commit computer crimes
To commit theft
To defraud the United States
To conmit election fraud'

#89 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-08-10 11:20 AM | Reply

"They probably know in their head that this is a preposterous idea"

What's your explanation why the RNC's platform was changed regarding Russia?

#90 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-08-10 11:21 AM | Reply


@#86 ... That's a lot of lies on this nothingburger. ...

You hit the nail on the head so far as I am concerned...

The constant stream of lies and changing stories by so many in the Trump administration is a huge red flag for me.

Truthful people don't have to change their story, because the truth does not change over time.

#91 | Posted by LampLighter at 2018-08-10 11:21 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

@#86 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-08-10 11:17 AM
Nonsense. It's still accepting something of value. And if the attempt failed, it's still an attempt. Junior went into the meeting with the intention of breaking the law.
Paying a foreign entity for something of value is not breaking any campaign finance law. Whether it was a failed attempt to purchase something or not. Junior went to the meeting with the intention of doing something which may or may not have been legal, we don't know yet.

What parts of "solicit" and "obtain" do you not understand?
The part where you dishonestly ignore that the thing solicited or obtained must be a donation:
It shall be unlawful for -- (2) a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation described...

And more to the point, if it was soooo innocent, why the trail of lies about it?
Hey, liars are gonna' lie. If I had to put money on it, I'd go with 'To avoid the optics of appearance of wrongdoing' but it is very possible that 'Conspiracy' is the answer to that.

#92 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-08-10 11:28 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

"Truthful people don't have to change their story"

I didn't know anything about payments to Stormy Daniels.
I didn't dictate the AF1 letter.
I got a letter from the NFL.
My taxes are under audit.
This Trump and Russia-r thing, with Trump and Russia, is a made-up story.
I don't see any reason why it WOULD be Russia.

--(ad infinitum)

#93 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-08-10 11:30 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

gratis.

You made up "purchase" so you could equate this to Clinton.

You make up all these false equivalences and "alternative facts" so you can rationalize this POS, but the FACT remains, you're as duplicitous as Trump and his cadre.

#87 | Posted by YAV at 2018-08-10 11:17 AM
What proof do you have that this was gratis?

I didn't rationalize crap. I said that there are 2 possibilities. Either he went to buy something, which is legal, or he went to get a donation, which is not. Hell, re-read $49 and #55. It's not my fault that you want to debate what you think I'm saying instead of what I've actually written.

#94 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-08-10 11:32 AM | Reply

What's your explanation why the RNC's platform was changed regarding Russia? - #90 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-08-10 11:21 AM
I don't know. I can theorize on it, but I don't know.

#95 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-08-10 11:35 AM | Reply

The amount of circumstantial evidence present in this case, alongside eyewitness testimony from people like Flynn (and Kushner, who will flip the moment someone shows him what prison food is) is plenty to convict even someone like Trump. - #88 | Posted by JOE at 2018-08-10 11:17 AM

It would have been quicker to say that you couldn't provide any, Joe.

#96 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-08-10 11:36 AM | Reply

By all means, let us know what circumstantial evidence exists which you believe paints the Trump Tower meeting as 'Conspiracy'

So you can sit here and argue about its import? No thanks. If you aren't aware of the mountains of circumstantial evidence that shows a conspiracy by Trump and his campaign with Russia to commit computer crimes, you have not been paying attention. But you are aware of it, you just want to argue about it. Not worth my time.

#97 | Posted by JOE at 2018-08-10 11:45 AM | Reply

@#87 | Posted by YAV at 2018-08-10 11:17 AM
Hell, re-read $49 and # 5566. It's not my fault that you want to debate what you think I'm saying instead of what I've actually written.

#94 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-08-10 11:32 AM
55 should by 66, sorry.

#98 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-08-10 11:45 AM | Reply

#96 - that's exactly the rationalization I was referring to. There's plenty of circumstantial evidence, and you keep ignoring it. You make up alternative scenarios and call those just as valid, but there's no circumstantial evidence for what you propose. You then give them equal weight.

#99 | Posted by YAV at 2018-08-10 11:46 AM | Reply

It would have been quicker to say that you couldn't provide any, Joe.

But that wouldn't be true. I'm just not going to waste my day arguing with an insidious little ----- who pretends to be objective.

#100 | Posted by JOE at 2018-08-10 11:46 AM | Reply

So you can sit here and argue about its import? No thanks. #97 | Posted by JOE at 2018-08-10 11:45 AM
Your prognostication and skills remain unproven.

#101 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-08-10 11:47 AM | Reply

BTW, Avigdore, what do you think of Nunes?
Scum, or Lower than Scum?

#102 | Posted by YAV at 2018-08-10 11:49 AM | Reply

There's plenty of circumstantial evidence, and you keep ignoring it. You make up alternative scenarios and call those just as valid, but there's no circumstantial evidence for what you propose. You then give them equal weight. - #99 | Posted by YAV at 2018-08-10 11:46 AM

I haven't seen any circumstantial evidence either way that these official Russian documents were to be provided as a donation or a campaign expenditure. I'm happy to change that, if someone knows of any. I asked JOE and he was unable to provide any. Can you?
Since I don't have any evidence either way, why shouldn't I discuss both possibilities? Especially when the VAST majority of people are claiming that the law-breaking theory is the right one. Are you equally attacking those people over their lack of evidence?

Me: Hey, A or B happened.
other: How dare you claim A happened with no proof? It was obviously B and you're a worthless partisan hack if you don't agree.
me: Any proof of B?
other: [crickets]

#103 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-08-10 11:55 AM | Reply

It's not anyone's job to educate you. But here's a thread, i'm feeling generous. Just some of the circumstantial evidence pointing to a conspiracy starts being laid out around #14, but I truly hope you read the whole thing. This will be my last post to you today, so savor it.

threadreaderapp.com

#104 | Posted by JOE at 2018-08-10 12:01 PM | Reply

One example relevant to this discussion:

www.cnn.com

Circumstantial evidence, with more circumstantial evidence, leading to a greater credibility in establishing what happened. This exchange has been born out and fleshed out in more and more detail. For example, it has been established that Veselnitskaya was is tied directly to the Kremlin.

As Joe said, there's tons of circumstantial evidence, and it's been bolstered each day by more disclosures and findings. Hence Nunes statement about them being the only ones that can stop Trump from being brought down. Even he knows it.

So, again, Nunes - scum or lower than scum?

#105 | Posted by YAV at 2018-08-10 12:08 PM | Reply

@#104 | Posted by JOE at 2018-08-10 12:01 PM
I'm going to finish reading through it, but so far it looks like your final response to me for the day was to link about "The amount of circumstantial evidence that Donald Trump knew of the June 9, 2016 Trump Tower meeting" in a response to this:
By all means, let us know what circumstantial evidence exists which you believe paints the Trump Tower meeting as 'Conspiracy to what?
To commit computer crimes
To commit theft
To defraud the United States
To conmit election fraud' - #89 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-08-10 11:20 AM

Me: Got any circumstantial evidence that crimes were discussed at that meeting?
Joe: Here's a whole crap ton of circumstantial evidence that Donald Trump knew the meeting was taking place!

47/ So the June 2016 Trump Tower meeting was merely the *continuation* of an ongoing negotiation Trump *already knew about*

FFS Joe. Come on man. Normally you're much better than this.

50/ I said over a year ago that, in my professional opinion as a criminal investigator and criminal lawyer -- and as a matter of criminal evidence -- there's *zero* chance Trump didn't know of this meeting. This *partial* review of the evidence confirms it. /end

Congratulations. You've managed to wrangle up a ton of circumstantial evidence that Trump knew that the meeting took place. You've convinced me, he certainly knew that the meeting took place IMO. Too bad it doesn't address at all what we were discussing: circumstantial evidence exists which you believe paints the Trump Tower meeting as 'Conspiracy to what?
To commit computer crimes
To commit theft
To defraud the United States

#106 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-08-10 12:14 PM | Reply

@#105 | Posted by YAV at 2018-08-10 12:08 PM
Yav, did you read that article?
I did. You could have just used the link that I provided in #78 (it is also CNN and also has all of the tweets or that email chain).
However, nothing in that email chain is evidence towards the documents being provided gratis or not.
There is a lot of talk about meeting to discuss the documents, but that's it. What circumstantial evidence do YOU see in that to indicate to you that it's going to be a free dispersal of documents?

#107 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-08-10 12:23 PM | Reply

"I don't know. I can theorize on it, but I don't know."

Theorize.

#108 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-08-10 12:25 PM | Reply

Joe was right.

#109 | Posted by YAV at 2018-08-10 12:29 PM | Reply

#108 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-08-10 12:25 PM
You going to address your dishonest portrayal of the statute on campaign contributions?

#110 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-08-10 12:33 PM | Reply

Nunes - scum, or lower than scum, Avigdore?

#111 | Posted by YAV at 2018-08-10 12:33 PM | Reply

Yav, JOE just provided a link to a crap ton of circumstantial evidence that the meeting took place, and Trump knew about it.
I accept that the meeting did, in fact, take place. And Trump almost certainly knew about it.
None of that is circumstantial evidence that any wrongdoing took place in that in that meeting or than 'there was a meeting'.

#112 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-08-10 12:35 PM | Reply

Sure, they met with representatives of the Russian government to get information of value, but they didn't get anything, and if they did, they got it for free, so...all good. Witch hunt.
~Rs

#113 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-08-10 12:35 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Hence Nunes statement about them being the only ones that can stop Trump from being brought down. Even he knows it..."

Any comment? Even Nunes gets it, Avigdore. But not you.

#114 | Posted by YAV at 2018-08-10 12:36 PM | Reply

I don't have any strong opinions about him. Probably no worse or better than any other California representative.

#115 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-08-10 12:37 PM | Reply

@#113 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-08-10 12:35 PM
I never said all good, I said 'may not be illegal'. But you knew that.

#116 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-08-10 12:38 PM | Reply

"None of that is circumstantial evidence that any wrongdoing took place"

It's proof Junior went into the meeting with the intention to break the law, and it's proof that everyone on Team Trump has been lying to you every time about this, and expecting you to swallow those lies.

Again, theorize about the reason for the change in the RNC platform.

#117 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-08-10 12:38 PM | Reply

"I never said all good, I said 'may not be illegal'."

And it may have been a quid pro quo for a change in the RNC platform. More circumstantial evidence pointing that way than any other.

#118 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-08-10 12:40 PM | Reply

"I don't have any strong opinions about him. Probably no worse or better than any other California representative."

Good God, does every Republican have sand in his ears?

This guy was "leading" the "investigation", when all he was really doing was handing the WH every piece of information he got. He finally had to be investigated for revealing classified information.

But the jury's still out, right?

#119 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-08-10 12:44 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Any comment? Even Nunes gets it, Avigdore. But not you. - #114 | Posted by YAV at 2018-08-10 12:36 PM

Nunes doesn't make that statement in the article linked. What article are you looking at? I can't access the Madow show from here on the Navy base, but his quoted statements in that article don't make that claim :"Hence Nunes statement about them being the only ones that can stop Trump from being brought down

#120 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-08-10 12:45 PM | Reply

#119 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-08-10 12:44 PM
Yeah, I know...which is why I said: 'Probably no worse or better than any other California representative.'
I'm afraid I have a meeting at the other end of the shipyard at 1330. Gonna have to bid you all a good weekend.

YAV
See Danforth's circumstantial evidence of the changing of the RNC platform is actually some evidence. Not particularly strong, but damn-it, it's there!

#121 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-08-10 12:48 PM | Reply

which is why I said: 'Probably no worse or better than any other California representative.'

Whataboutisim, whataboutisim, whataboutisim...

It's all Andreà can muster.

#122 | Posted by ClownShack at 2018-08-10 12:52 PM | Reply

Give it up, guys. The Trump right has its own "alternative truth," thanks to the spinmeisters working for 45. If they want to say Tom Hanks and Hillary Clinton are running a pedo ring, it becomes their truth. Trying to use fact-based arguments is pointless. Might as well focus on more constructive things.

#123 | Posted by cbob at 2018-08-10 01:14 PM | Reply

See Danforth's circumstantial evidence of the changing of the RNC platform is actually some evidence. Not particularly strong, but damn-it, it's there!

#121 | POSTED BY AVIGDORE

Says the Party of Obama is a secret Muslim, Obama isn't a US citizen, and Clinton has a pedophile ring in a basement of a Pizza Parlor that doesn't have a basement.

#124 | Posted by Sycophant at 2018-08-10 01:46 PM | Reply

when the tower meeting was first outed..trump jr. denied it. then T jr. said it was about adoption. then T jr. email comes to light and we

have a series of statements followed by corrective addendums. now everyone is wondering why T jr. has decided to declare that the reason

he attended the meeting was for 'opposition research'. that the initial russian suggestion that they meet to discuss adoption was a bait and

switch tactic. the reason the lying SOB is now copping to actively soliciting info is that #1 he says none was forthcoming but mainly he

needs to get as far away as possible from his initial statements about attending [the meeting] concerning adoption....since now it's known

that 'adoption' is codespeak for the magnitsky act. and the quid pro quo was the repeal if trump got elected. and that sure as hell would be

considered conspiracy with a foreign government.

#125 | Posted by 1947steamer at 2018-08-10 02:37 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

We either need to have complete faith in our intelligence agencies or they should be disbanded because no agencies should have that kind of power without any oversight/accountability on their actions.

#34 | Posted by ihatethedotard

For me, this is by far the biggest threat we face as American's. These agencies have operated on their own terms, in the shadows, and often making their own rules since Hoover, at the very least.

I only go back to Hoover because very little is known about the NSA during or before that time. Very little that I'm aware of that is.

#126 | Posted by 9mmHeater at 2018-08-10 04:44 PM | Reply

Pretending none of it came from a foreign national is being willfully ignorant.

Call me willfully ignorant all you like. That doesn't add any support to your baseless contention. Moving forward, I'll presume you're offering nothing but assumptions; that's your own failure.

Well, we can start with the misspelled names, the lawsuit Steele lost in London, and the suits still in play regarding libel. The dossier was written by a foreign national using dirt provided by foreign government officials, which was then misrepresented to justify surveillance. That is unprecedented and wrong at every level. This should never happen again - whether it be used against the Dems or GOP.
#40 | POSTED BY IHATETHEDOTARD

None of what you stated disproves anything in the dossier. Again, enough with your assumptions. You have no support for the notion that all candidates dig up dirt on opponents and "Pretending none of it came from a foreign national is being willfully ignorant" coupled with insignificant evidence that anything in the dossier has been debunked. Are you just lazy? Or is your head really stuck that deep in the sand?

#127 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2018-08-10 05:14 PM | Reply

It's illegal to receive or solicit anything of value from a foreign national. -#25 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-08-09 11:03 PM
^^^ That also appears to be untrue.
#50 | POSTED BY AVIGDORE

But it is for a foreign government. That's the question: Was the Russian lawyer a representative of the Kremlin, or at least, made that impression? Intent to conspire with a foreign government to affect an election is absolutely a crime.

#128 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2018-08-10 05:20 PM | Reply

In fact your position requires it. If it isn't a donation, it does not run afoul of the ban on donations.
#75 | POSTED BY AVIGDORE

Not from a foreign government or its representative(s).

#129 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2018-08-10 05:30 PM | Reply

What outraged me was the DNC using this fake dossier to then weaponize the deep state to spy on a political campaign. #34 | POSTED BY IHATETHEDOTARD

God damn do talking points spread quickly among the party of traitors.

#130 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2018-08-10 05:38 PM | Reply

JOE and AVIGDORE -

Tear into the circumstancial evidence all you like:

There was extensive outreach between Trump and Russia

In reality, as exhaustively documented by the Moscow Project, there were extensive communications between people in Trump's orbit and Russian government figures or others who had, or purported to have, close ties to the Putin regime.

Some of this communication -- including Michael Cohen's January 2016 email to Dmitry Peskov and Ivanka Trump's October 2015 exchange with Dmitry Klokov -- was ostensibly about efforts to construct a Trump-branded building in Moscow. Some of it, including the various escapades of George Papadopoulos and Carter Page, involved relatively peripheral players in Trumpworld, who didn't have strong pre-campaign ties to Trump or play a post-campaign role in the administration.

But some of it was quite high-level and explicitly about the campaign. Donald Trump Jr., for example, took a meeting with the deputy governor of Russia's central bank while attending the National Rifle Association's annual convention in Kentucky in May 2016. The meeting was arranged by a US conservative activist named Paul Erickson, who got in touch with senior Trump campaign aide Rick Dearborn to set it up, explicitly as a step toward creating back-channel communications between Russia and the campaign.

And, of course, Trump Jr., along with Jared Kushner and Paul Manafort, attended the infamous Trump Tower meeting whose purpose was explicitly described as "part of Russia and its support for Mr Trump" and was said to involve incriminating information about Hillary Clinton.

That Trumpworld was clearly open to both political collusion and financial dealmaking with the Russian government doesn't demonstrate that either actually occurred. But it's unquestionably evidence in favor of the possibility. The fact that all of this was lied about and swept under the rug is further evidence (though, again, not proof) that there was Russia-related wrongdoing that is being covered up. And it's striking that we continue to learn new things about contacts between Trump and Russia -- the Ivanka story is new this week -- rather than there having been a moment at which everyone got religion and decided to come clean.

vox.com

#131 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2018-08-10 05:41 PM | Reply

Very little that I'm aware of that is.
#126 | POSTED BY 9MMHEATER

Yeah, sure, no FISA oversight at all. [*eye-roll*]

#132 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2018-08-10 05:50 PM | Reply

Very little that I'm aware of that is.

#126 | Posted by 9mmHeater

Yes.. Well said.

It does seem as if there IS very little that you are aware of.

#133 | Posted by donnerboy at 2018-08-10 06:25 PM | Reply | Funny: 2

As with most of the alt-right, "self awareness" is something Comrade 9mm severely lacks.

#134 | Posted by aborted_monson at 2018-08-10 07:27 PM | Reply

Rusty & Donner, you're both entitled to those replies, as I just realized how poorly worded what I said is. Not even poorly worded as much as not saying nearly anything I meant to say.

Which should have been more like, very little is known about the precursor to the NSA, the Army Signal Intelligence Service. At least very little I'm aware of. And when I say 'very little', it is with the assumption that we know far less than what has been released thru FOIA requests or 'declassified documents'.

Yeah, I know..... I'm gonna blame the 'Birthday Cake' weed on this one, if I'm allowed a mulligan.

#135 | Posted by 9mmHeater at 2018-08-10 11:31 PM | Reply

"I don't know what lies you are talking about."

I didn't talk to Russians during the transition
Flynn, who talked to Russians during the transition

I never met with any Russians
Jeff Sessions, who admitted meeting with multiple Russians

Yeah, that's everything
Junior, to Hannity, the day before the emails proving that WASN'T everything

I don't know who is that blocked number I called before and after the call to Algarve
Junior, to Congress.

We didn't have any contact with Russians
Paul Manafort

We only talked to the American people
Mike Pence

This thing with Russia-r, with Trump and Russia, is a made up story
DJT

The President did not dictate the letter from Air Force One.
Sarah Sanders

Find a lie yet? Or were you "unaware" of all of these?

#136 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-08-11 01:40 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2018 World Readable

Drudge Retort