To boil it down, this is pretty much the Watergate break in, except that instead of having their own unit of "Plumbers",the Republicans were working with the KGB.
Huh? Of course I don’t see anything wrong with a campaign meeting with Russians to obtain information on the opponent’s criminal misdeeds. Did I ever imply otherwise? Bricker has already explained, several times, that there is nothing illegal about it. What exacty is the problem?
DNC “colluded” with the Ukrainians on supposed criminal misdeeds of Manafort - going as far as going to the Ukrainian embassy to meet with Ukrainian officials. Did you have a problem with that?
The Steele’s “dossier” was information obtained by a foreign intelligence agent in “collusion” with Russians, lots of them supposedly intelligence operatives. It was funded by Fusion GPS, a Democrat-funded opposition research firm, paid with money from a Clinton backer.
Nothing illegal in either of those cases. You may call it “unethical” but applying ethics standards to US campaigns is a silly exercise. Just take a look at Harry Reid’s accusations against Romney.
So you do see something wrong with it? The meeting about alleged criminal misdeeds? With the freaking Russians.
Trump could openly admit that he owes billions to Russian banks, so he is going to drop sanctions and do whatever Putin tells him to do. He could openly admit that he knew the Russians were hacking into DNC servers, that he knew that the Russians were making fake websites and that his team sent the Russians information to help them target social media attacks.
And this would not make one bit of difference to the Trump core supporters. They would just bleat “NOT ILLEGAL!”
You know who else owed billions to Russian banks, opposed Russian sanctions, was the real Russian puppet, knew about Russians hacking into DNC servers, knew about fake websites, and sent information to the Russians?
Crooked Hillary Clinton.
She also actually carried out the Benghazi attacks, faked the moon landing, and shot Lincoln.
And if you substitute Hillary or Obama’s name in place - how would you feel then?
OK **Bricker **agreed to act as escrow on our bet. How exactly would you like to do that? We can both send cash to Bricker, or post-dated checks written to Bricker. $100 from you. $500 from me. Either way - cash or check - is fine with me.
Terms: if on Jan 1, 2019, Trump is still President, I win and Bricker sends me $600. If he was removed from Presidency or resigned, you win and Bricker sends you $600. If Trump dies in office, the bet is off.
Cite that the DNC did what you accuse them of?
Same. See just a few posts above.
How’s this: - is this “colluding” with foreigners to “meddle” in the United States election?
I mean: "[Vicente Fox] met with Pelosi at the airport in Mexico City Sunday and discussed ways he can help convince Latin American immigrants in the United States to reject Trump.
… discussed ways he can help convince Latin American immigrants in the United States to reject Trump.".
Trump isn’t currently running an election campaign
Yes, all the examples you are providing are bad and don’t justify Jr.'s meeting. And you might be able to argue that the people involved didn’t know it was immoral or illegal (or not illegal at all), but you can’t justify the lies or the coverups. What was the sequence?
- I had no meetings with Russians (lie or fogot)
- I met with Russians, but forgot (lie or really did forget)
- The topic of the meeting was adoptions (lie or truth)
- The initial contact said the meeting was to offer info on Hillary, but the meeting turned out to be about adoptions and we bailed after 20 minutes. (Truth about Hillary, lie or truth about adoptions?)
I’m pretty sure the sequence has not played out. I am doubting if adoptions was the topic.
“They did bad things so I can do bad things too” is not a sound moral position.
The lobbyist and possible former counterintelligence officer who met with Trump Jr. has spoken to the AP. Some excerpts (emphasis mine):
We started at four attendees, then five, now at least six (Goldstone, plus “others” unknown to Akhmetshin). And we have documents possibly being passed. It sure would be nice to have those made public.
And, at no point did anyone in the room think, “Uh, maybe we should involve the FBI in this? Foreign citizens are alleging illegal campaign contributions. We should report this to the authorities.” I’m not a politician, but I think if someone presented me evidence of a major crime, I’d probably realize that I should report it.
Would failure to report this be a crime? Honest question. Assuming the lawyer passed documents with evidence of illegal campaign contributions, did anyone in the room have a legal obligation to turn it over to the FBI or other authorities?
Okra might get upset if he were to find out that Trump was actually a liberal.
Good column by Charles Krauthammer.
And this last part is precisely where we part ways with the Trump Apologists. They see nothing wrong here. Their moral and ethical code is a blank void, an empty dark place filled with nothingness.
You’ve got to admit it’s a step of from the previous attempt, which was “I did bad things but they probably would have done the same bad things, so it’s a wash”
That doesn’t say that any DNC staffer met with or directed anyone to meet with Ukrainians.
Dear God, we’ve reached a point where Charles Krauthammer is talking sense.
Bloomberg has an articlequoting people of both parties saying, “No one who knew what they were doing would take that meeting.”
nm