Ha ha, well you certainly walked right into the setup.
It’s just as crystal clear to anyone around here, except you, that Bricker isn’t a Trumpista. But rather than accept that when it’s pointed out you, you go all “I’m entitled to my opinion! I do what I like!”
And that’s the crux. It’s entirely possible Junior was that ignorant, but I tend to think that it was more that he let his fervor to ‘get’ Hillary overwhelm any logical thought as to the motivations of others involved.
Idiots or unscrupulous, unrealistic, and short-sighted people. Eh, I guess you could argue that they’re the same thing. 
I absolutely understand.
But consider the New York Times, when Daniel Ellsberg handed them the Pentagon Papers. The government tried to prohibit the NYT from publishing under the same basic theory: they were stolen information.
The Supreme Court sided with the NYT, saying that when the issue involved is information about matters of political interest, the First Amendment is at its strongest. The First Amendment doesn’t strongly protect stolen Rolexes, in contrast.
When hearing that the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the NYT over publishing the stolen Pentagon Papers, what’s your gut reaction? They got it wrong? Or hell, yes, people have a right to know?
Sure – it’s the classic poker table observation: look around and find the sucker. If you don’t see one. . . it’s probably you.
There’s also the fact that there is no reason to assume the info the Russians were dangling was stolen. It’s not like stolen documents are the only way you gain dirt on politicians.
Refresh my memory… Was Ellsberg working for a foreign power at that time? Does the fact that the Trump campaign was working with
. and meeting with a Russian lawyer and a (former) member of Russian intelligence matter at all? Or should we be treating the two cases exactly the same?
Personally, I think it makes a difference if political material (stolen or not - this is immaterial) comes from an American source or a Russian source. I think it make a very great deal of difference.
On the contrary, I think that a reasonable person would have questioned the source of the information, as well as the motivation of the giver of the information. It was coming from the Russian government for God’s sake! Do they have a reputation for scrupulous honesty?
Why would nationality of the source change the legal analysis?
Of course it makes a difference politically but not legally, which is all Bricker is addressing. IMHO, Bricker is a little too under impressed with the implications but he is quite aware about how bad it looks.
But they didn’t know what the info was going to be. Questioning the source is more meaningful when you know what you’re talking about. If the info was “we have all these emails with Hillary badmouthing democracy”, ok how the hell did you get these emails? If it’s “we have video of Hillary chatting with a terrorist in a Moscow train station” you care less how they got it.
I keep remembering the situation a year ago. Hillary wasn’t simply an opponent in a contentious election. She was being painted as a criminal. As some who LITERALLY and PERSONALLY murdered people who got in her way. Some of who were children that she personally sexually abused. In the basement of a pizza parlor because cheese pizza is a code for child pornography. They didn’t just want to defeat her, they were going to LOCK HER UP.
And they had people really and truly believing this. They may have believed this themselves. Trump truly believed that Obama wasn’t born in the US and that at least one Hawaiian state official was murdered as part of the cover up.
When you believe in all the crazy CT theories you end up believing that people get away with outrageous crimes and coverups all the time without repercussions . This might lead one to believe that they can get away with their own outrageous or stupid crime and that it is no big deal because everyone does it.
And Hillary was the one that they considered the enemy of America. Not Russia, not Putin. I’m sure they were honestly convinced that stopping Hillary at all cost was a patriotic move and that Russia’s political agenda was more closely aligned with the US than Hillary’s . Russia is a friend, Hillary is an existential threat to America.
And there are people out there that still feel that way, that’s why Trump will still have his defenders no matter how bad this gets.
I think that explains Juniors stupidity in responding to an e-mail that is phrased like a set-up. I mean, it was still stupid for him to answer - personally I am very careful about my e-mail and probably a half dozen times a week I will make a phone call in response to an e-mail just because I don’t want the response distributed ( you are waiting for product because your subcontractor hasn’t paid me, I don’t think your architect is proposing the right solution, etc)
But I think Junior ( and he’s 39 not 13 quit treating him like an innocent child) was so caught up in the bubble that he not only didn’t think taking the meeting was wrong, he thought it was his righteous duty.
If you’re walking down the streets of Manhattan, and a guy offers you a chance to win $10,000 if you just come with him and bring $100, you have no reason to suspect that the $10,000 was from a bank robbery. You also don’t know whether what he might do or propose if you go with him will be illegal or unethical.
But the circumstances clearly indicate to anyone with five neurons to rub together that the proper response is not, “Well, I can’t prove that any of this is sketchy… I’ll just go and see what he has to offer!” No, the correct answer is, “I don’t know what you’re up to, but fuck off.”
I really really hate dumbass anologies. It’s kind of my thing. I love hating them.
A political campaign, particularly the massive one of an American Presidential race, actively looks for dirt (in your analogy, actively looks for people to give them $10,000. Ironically, they also actually look for people to give them an actual cheque for $10,000). You don’t automatically ignore every shady offer. You send a disposable flunky to the really shady ones and a smart flunky to the promising shady ones. The problem here, for Trump, is that he sent his biggest most recognizable people to a shady deal.
Oh learned one, what is your source of expertise on how opposition research works?
What do you dispute? And where from does your knowledge of Manhattan bank robberies come?
That you have expertise in this subject, beyond maybe reading a recent article or two.
About as clear as anything Trump typically says. Which is pretty ironic, considering the flow of the discussion in this thread.
Ok, I don’t have expertise. Now tell me more about bank robbery con jobs and how they are similar to how a DC election is run.
The Russians dangled incriminating evidence about Hillary and DNC accepting money from Russians. Why in the world would one think that information would be stolen? It would be from the horse’s mouth.