Russia Collusion Scandal (aka A Leftist fantasy)
- Thread starter Runnin
- Start date
Oklahomahawk
Boras' Client
If you want your state to go from never ever having an earthquake to being the new earthquake capital of the world then I'd suggest you not only allow fracking, but you should also encourage it.
zitothebrave
Connoisseur of Minors
Are those people in the oval office? As jpx said, nice false-equivalency.
zitothebrave
Connoisseur of Minors
Right
Treason -
the crime of betraying one's country, especially by attempting to kill the sovereign or overthrow the government.
For sure telling people lies about fracking is equivalent to trying to disrupt and election.
I wish I could be as delusional as you. It must be nice to be living in a fantasy world
I was saying crimes are crimes regardless of who commits them but that's hard for people like you to understand.
i believe in a country of laws. Way, way more evidence of hillary and the Russians making weird deals than trump has. Evidence of anti-fracking groups being in cahoots with Russia, but that's no big deal. you guys don't care about being fair and being right. It's all about going after Trump with make believe accusation after make believe accusation.
zitothebrave
Connoisseur of Minors
Lol This is where you just don't get it.
Is it a crime when Russia does that but when Canadian companies do it too? Or is it different for you because of Russia. Or we can talk about it from former FLOTUS on the campaign trail in October
"We [the State Department and the U.S. government] were up against Russia pushing oligarchs and others to buy media. We were even up against phony environmental groups, and I’m a big environmentalist, but these were funded by the Russians to stand up against any effort, ‘Oh that pipeline, that fracking, that whatever will be a problem for you,’ and a lot of that money supporting that effort was coming from Russia."
Though again, this storm is from some reps from Texas who have big oil backing them.
Realize that Fracking is bad, and your false equivalency is stupid for that reason.
Again, ignoring the discussion of Fracking you're comparing potential collusion in a US presidential election to environmental activism groups. If you can't see the difference there's truly no hope for you.
I believe the Russians may have overtly interfered with the election. I don't believe that the Trump campaign (proper) colluded with them.
Extremely poor judgement? No. I see due diligence.
I didn't say it was nothing at all, I said it was nothing alone.
jpx7
Very Flirtatious, but Doubts What Love Is.
Wouldn't "due diligence" have been reporting this sort of improper solicitation to the appropriate authorities?
How do you find it improper? The email discusses official documents coming from a Russian prosecutor.
The language about Russia being 'supportive' of Trump is Goldstone's so it's almost pointless to parse.
jpx7
Very Flirtatious, but Doubts What Love Is.
I think accepting stolen/leaked official documents from a foreign national seems pretty improper, yes. And even if Goldstone's credibility is in question, I find parsing his contribution to the email chain far from "pointless", especially since he appears to have been recruited as a broken for this information transfer.
Even if Goldstone was just blowing smoke up Junior's ass, there's enough appearance of and potential for impropriety that I think "due diligence" isn't replying-all that he'd "love it, especially once patio weather roles around".
Should he have informed the feds who have clearly proven to be completely partisan in their approach? If the evidence was clearly damning then due dilligence is what is required.
How could the trump campaign have confidence that the government would do the right thing. The same government that knew of the Russia involvement for months before election day and chose to do nothing.
jpx7
Very Flirtatious, but Doubts What Love Is.
Lol.
I don't see where it's implicit that these documents are being leaked, much less stolen. In fact, that they are official legal documents coming from a court is explicit. Hypothetically they could have even been public record.
You perform due diligence to determine the legality of accepting/utilizing said documents.
Runnin
Well-known member
Bless your poor, brainwashed down to your DNA heart.
Not that it matters, but here's a difference:
Russia wants to damage democracy and freedom. MSNBC and the NYT wants to preserve democracy and freedom.
jpx7
Very Flirtatious, but Doubts What Love Is.
My first comment in this thread regarded the fact that I think a lot of this is being overblown, or overemphasized, and otherwise is a waste of good, necessary anti-Trump, anti-regressive energies that should be better spent on more substantial battles. I've also made clear that I think President Pence could very likely be worse than President Trump, for my policy concerns and from my values perspective, so I'm not one of these folks rocking in the corner, blind, thirsty, foaming at the mouth for impeachment. I'll further elaborate that, in fact, I find the likelihood of real criminal prosecution, punishment, or even the anti-Trump needle being moved much from where it is to be quite small, barring much more substantial and legally-damning evidence arising.
Having said all that, I find the two notions advanced in this thread equally specious, and bordering on absurd, in the own way. The first is that the Trump Family is some persecuted Mel Gibson from Conspiracy Theory, buffeted from all sides, unsure of who to trust, and forced to take up their own vigilante investigation to uncover dark truths for the greater good of the nation. The second is that it is laudable due-diligence to follow-up (with demonstrable avidity) with a foreign national promising leaked and/or stolen documents* to influence an election, with purported foreign government support of said intervention—even if said support was exaggerated or fabricated, and even if nothing ultimately came of said meeting.
Having said all that, I find the two notions advanced in this thread equally specious, and bordering on absurd, in the own way. The first is that the Trump Family is some persecuted Mel Gibson from Conspiracy Theory, buffeted from all sides, unsure of who to trust, and forced to take up their own vigilante investigation to uncover dark truths for the greater good of the nation. The second is that it is laudable due-diligence to follow-up (with demonstrable avidity) with a foreign national promising leaked and/or stolen documents* to influence an election, with purported foreign government support of said intervention—even if said support was exaggerated or fabricated, and even if nothing ultimately came of said meeting.
Runnin
Well-known member
A lot of lazy people do like the idea of voting for an authoritarian who they foolishly is just gonna fix all their problems. Being an informed voter is way too much work for most people.
jpx7
Very Flirtatious, but Doubts What Love Is.
*
Damn, dude: I expect this from some posters, but you're better than this.
That's the most elaborated the emails get about the information being offered, and no where there is it "explicit" that they are "official legal documents coming from a court"—though I assume you think it's implied since "The Crown prosecutor of Russia" is invoked? That's not enough for me to assume that the "official documents and information" (the latter of which could be unofficial information: adjectival conjunction is a grey area when not spelled out) are "official legal documents" (you added the "legal" descriptor)—much less for me to assume they might even be public record (how delightful a slide you took!).
In fact it's alleged to be "high level and sensitive information"—"ultra sensitive" indeed—which to me implies the information is pretty explicitly not just some banal legal—maybe even easily, publicly accessible—papers shuffled out of some Russian court.
Damn, dude: I expect this from some posters, but you're better than this.
That's the most elaborated the emails get about the information being offered, and no where there is it "explicit" that they are "official legal documents coming from a court"—though I assume you think it's implied since "The Crown prosecutor of Russia" is invoked? That's not enough for me to assume that the "official documents and information" (the latter of which could be unofficial information: adjectival conjunction is a grey area when not spelled out) are "official legal documents" (you added the "legal" descriptor)—much less for me to assume they might even be public record (how delightful a slide you took!).
In fact it's alleged to be "high level and sensitive information"—"ultra sensitive" indeed—which to me implies the information is pretty explicitly not just some banal legal—maybe even easily, publicly accessible—papers shuffled out of some Russian court.
Runnin
Well-known member
The atmosphere of crisis was apparent at the White House itself and in the broader Trump orbit, where hatches were battened down amid the storm.
At a press briefing that was conducted off camera and lasted 22 minutes, White House spokeswoman Sarah Huckabee Sanders repeatedly parried reporters’ questions on the emails by saying their queries should be directed to the personal lawyers of the people involved.
Something got their attention.
At a press briefing that was conducted off camera and lasted 22 minutes, White House spokeswoman Sarah Huckabee Sanders repeatedly parried reporters’ questions on the emails by saying their queries should be directed to the personal lawyers of the people involved.
Something got their attention.