I said earlier this morning. And here we go:
Here's my statement and the full email chain pic.twitter.com/x050r5n5LQ— Donald Trump Jr. (@DonaldJTrumpJr) July 11, 2017
And here's the 4th page, which really is where to begin to read chronologically (click to enlarge):
ADDED: Here's the NYT article on this. The email (from Goldstone) says:
The Crown prosecutor of Russia met with his father Aras this morning and in their meeting offered to provide the Trump campaign with some official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your fatherThe Times explains that confusing title, "Crown prosecutor":
There is no such title as crown prosecutor in Russia — the Crown Prosecution Service is a British term — but the equivalent in Russia is the prosecutor general of Russia.Later, Goldstone writes:
Don Hope all is well Emin asked that I schedule a meeting with you and The Russian government attorney who is flying over from Moscow for this Thursday. I believe you are aware of this meeting — and so wondered if 3pm or later on Thursday works for you?AND: Most damaging is this line from Goldstone: "This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump." To which Don Jr. responded: "If it’s what you say I love it especially later in the summer."
ADDED: Poll results:
पोस्ट्स
२५९ टिप्पण्या:
259 पैकी 1 – 200 नवीन› नवीनतम»Will the NYT follow suit and release their sources?
It seems that Don Jr, and Americans, deserve an opportunity to learn the scope and depth of the Obama/DNC/NYT/Ukraine axis.
Does Russia have a crown prosecutor?
I could imagine England having such a thing. But Russia?
So did you get your question(s) answered? I'm not sure I know what-all the questions were.
One question was surely, "Did the Times' anonymous sources misstate/mischaracterize/misreport the content of the emails?"
I presume that question is answered satisfactorily now. And that the anonymous sources were right. Right?
Another question I have -- but which might not have been one of Althouse's questions -- is why the heck did this elaborate history not get reported earlier, when about a dozen different people in the Trump Administration were being asked about campaign-period contacts with or about Russia? They all said, No! No way! Of course not!
Huh?
I'm sure Boris and Natasha will get to the bottom of this.
I imagine that a Russian Government Lawyer means she has a bar card. The idea that Lawyers are free independents and not the a part of the Government is what is strange. Here too the Courts regulate the lawyers if not a part of the government itself, which often regulates the Judge's authorized careers too.
If the Clinton campaign was working in concert to swing the election to her, Ann and her Althouse Hillbillies would be foaming at the mouth.
This is just the tip of the iceberg. Special Council Mueller is surely flipping witnesses as I write this.
Again, it looks like the Russian adoption lawyer and Don Jr. were snookered into this meetinng by a Democrat Party operative. Rather amateurish on Don Jr.'s part (and Manafort's!) and he did leave himself open to blackmail - by the Democrats!
Interesting. I'm sure The Resistance is in ecstasy right now.
So, people pitching influence pretend to know that the Russian government is interested in helping Trump win. But turn out to have absolutely nothing that would in fact help. Sort of like the Clinton campaign hiring Christopher Steele to write up an oppo research paper purporting to confirm that the KGB has incriminating photos of Trump giving (receiving?) golden showers to Russian prostitutes.
In both cases what is being dangled is inside dope that could come only from the Russian government. And in both cases, there seems to be nothing there.
I doubt Putin and the FSB had anything to do with any of this. Like the rest of us, they would not have believed it possible if they were not seeing it happen!
Interesting. I'm sure The Resistance is in ecstasy right now.
Interesting. I'm sure the MAGA gang is (still) in denial right now.
It doesn't seem like a crime has been committed here, but it doesn't look particularly good to me either, since they lied about it.
Of course we all know that if you're running or are a high level member of a political campaign and someone claims that there's a person who has serious dirt on your opposition, and this person wants to meet with you, you're probably gonna meet with them even if they happen to be Satan himself.
Chuck, makes the devastating point: for months Team Trump have been claiming that there was no contact between their campaign and the Russians, we now know they were lying. Here was Don Jr., Jared, and the campaign manager having a meeting in Trump Tower!
Any more denials from Trump and his minions will now rightfully be met with suspicion.
If the Clinton campaign was working in concert to swing the election to her
We know she was working in concert to swing the election to her. Certainly with the DNC and MSM. If Hillary Clinton had been offered proof that Trump was doing Russia's bidding it would have been irresponsible of her to not have someone check it out, regardless of who was presenting it.
Let's see, Hillary paid a foreign spy for damaging info on Trump.
Trump, Jr. met with a foreign lawyer hoping for damaging info on Hillary.
So which received "something of value" from a foreign government?
I don't get it.
What is supposed to be wrong about this?
Fuck Russia. I want more Althouse cat pictures.
I am Laslo.
To follow up on Nonapod's point - when Saladin sent Richard the Lionharted a fine horse after his was killed in battle, Richard is reputed to have said that if the Devil himself sent him such a horse, he'd ride it.
Blogger Once written, twice... said...
Chuck, makes the devastating point: for months Team Trump have been claiming that there was no contact between their campaign and the Russians, we now know they were lying. Here was Don Jr., Jared, and the campaign manager having a meeting in Trump Tower!
Any more denials from Trump and his minions will now rightfully be met with suspicion.
7/11/17, 11:51 AM
Huh?
This isn't even close. There was a claim by an English guy in an email.
Perhaps you could make it simple for us hillbillies. A syllogism would work.
Like this.
1) Trump claimed no collusion with the Russian government.
2) These emails prove the trump camp colluded with the Russian government.
3) Therefore they lied.
Is this your argument?
What countries were and what countries were not allowed to support Clinton?
What countries were and what countries were not allowed to support Trump?
col·lu·sion
kəˈlo͞oZHən/Submit
noun
secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy, especially in order to cheat or deceive others.
"the armed forces were working in collusion with drug traffickers"
synonyms: conspiracy, connivance, complicity, intrigue, plotting, secret understanding, collaboration, scheming
"there had been collusion between the security forces and paramilitary groups"
Doesn't it take two to "collude?"
As much as the fake and anonymous evidence offered by the DNC/NYT opposition teams and their intelligence assets in Ukraine, etc.
AA, there is a photo on the Wisc State Journal home page right now...show Madison activists that support illegal aliens. One of them is holding a sign that says "this is why we study constitutional law". Maybe you need to come out of retirement.
Opposition research against Hillary is illegal.
Laslo....I'd rather see the cat also.
Also, the MSM source that outed Bush 43's DWI, which Democrat did they collude with?
Interesting. I'm sure the MAGA gang is (still) in denial right now.
Simple question, where does the actual Russian Government directed by Putin come into this?
Failing that, is it possible to collude alone? Are you claiming hat Trump Jr was colluding with himself to affect the outcome of an election? Is that it?
Two years ago, I would have read this. A year ago, I would have read this. Hell, six months ago, I would have read this.
But I no longer give fuck zero what lie the MSM are peddling this week. I don't care if they have video of Trump giving Putin a blowjob. They are liars, they lie. Videos can be faked, and why wouldn't lying liars fake videos to support their lies?
You don't need to read your horoscope to know that what it says is not true. And you don't need to read the MSM to know that what they say is not true. The really amazing thing is that I ever believed otherwise.
I don't get it.
What is supposed to be wrong about this?
For $200 Alex, is the answer "Donald Trump was caught shooting a pedestrian on the street in New York"?
Does anybody know, Is Don Jr's taking this meeting a crime? Is dirt on an opponent illegal foreign aid to the campaign in the same way a donation of money is aid?
IOW, suppose Don Jr had met with a foreign national who promised money and then it turned out the FN had no money and only said so to get a meeting, no money changed hands, would that be a crime?
NYT is now claiming that simply meeting with a foreign national is a campaign finance law violation because, "you can't accept help from a foreigner."
You cannot make this stuff up.
"Interesting. I'm sure the MAGA gang is (still) in denial right now."
It's time for supporters to stop contorting excuses and spinning spin and get serious about waiting for all this to unfold and fully play out. It remains possible that this will dissolve back into not much, but the possibility of the political problem of collusion and the criminal problem of a quid pro quo promised in policy can no longer be denied as real. Seven (seven!) inner circle Trump people have now denied meetings with Russians that they later had to acknowledge and Trump Jr. clearly only tells the truth when the NYT forces him to. It's no longer reasonable to say these are not people acting like they have something to hide.
If there was collusion, and I'm not saying that there was, apparently Trump Jr was not in on it.
The funniest comment I heard on this was "If they talked about killing pandas, they may have violated the endangered species act". What law was broken exactly? This is more smoke screen with no fire.
Oh I am so looking forward to a good sampling for this poll. I just responded; I don't know if this is any "smoking gun of collusion."
I really want to know what sort of readership it is that Althouse has collected. Because it will of course not be any sort of public opinion poll. At least nothing resembling a statistically meaningful public opinion poll. No more so, than a "Drudge" poll. Or a "Hannity" poll.
Reportedly Senator Tim Kaine says this is evidence of treason. Treason! A crime defined in the constitution. And this statement was made by a Harvard Law grad. Must be true.
Can we line up the firing squad for September? High TV ratings.
I love the "if it's what you say." Polite skepticism
The crime here is lèse-majesté against the rightful heir to the throne.
Simple question, where does the actual Russian Government directed by Putin come into this?
You keep asking this over and over. Don't be retarded. IF there's a conspiracy or an event you go to in order to break the law or discuss breaking the law, you don't have to actually go through with it to be guilty of a crime, at least in some circumstances. IANAL but I have heard of the charge "conspiracy to commit a crime." Have you? Pray tell, what do you think it means?
Always wondered who decides who "the enemy" is for a treason prosecution. Does Congress declare who are enemies of the US (and is a declaration of war required first)or the President? Kaine seems to think it's up to the jury to decide. That would be tantamount to an ex post facto law.
the political problem of collusion and the criminal problem of a quid pro quo promised in policy can no longer be denied as real.
Much more evidence of this with Hillary than with Trump.
but the possibility of the political problem of collusion and the criminal problem of a quid pro quo promised in policy can no longer be denied as real.
Let me get this straight though, Hillary collects deca-millions from the Russians and does then large favors, no outrage. Trump Jr takes a meeting of which nothing comes. CRIME!!
I just want to understand how your fevered brains work.
Let me get this straight though, Hillary collects deca-millions from the Russians and does then large favors, no outrage. Trump Jr takes a meeting of which nothing comes. CRIME!!
I'm so looking forward to you saying this right to Mueller's face and seeing if it helps Trump.
Did anybody find the E-mail chain where they discussed this alleged information came from "hacked" computers?
I failed in my quest to reveal that information.
IANAL but I have heard of the charge "conspiracy to commit a crime." Have you? Pray tell, what do you think it means?
So it's conspiracy to commit a crime "attempted collusion" not "collusion" because there was no second party who could do anything. "Attempted collusion"? What again is the statutory crime?
Another problem for the DNC/Obama/Clinton is to demonstrate motive. The DNC/Clinton campaigns were rejected for their anti-native outlook, including global elective wars and forcing refugee crises, redistributive change schemes (e.g. Fannie/Frediie, Obamacare) that sabotage price controls (e.g. capitalism), as well insourcing/outsourcing and [class] diversity schemes that deny Americans equal rights and have increased murder and crime rates.
IF there's a conspiracy or an event you go to in order to break the law or discuss breaking the law, you don't have to actually go through with it to be guilty of a crime
IANAL either, but I'm pretty sure that you have to take some material steps to actually commit a crime to be guilty of conspiracy to commit a crime.
But I still don't see how meeting with someone, regardless of their citizenship status, to ascertain if they have dirt on your political opponent, is a crime.
IF there's a conspiracy or an event you go to in order to break the law or discuss breaking the law, you don't have to actually go through with it to be guilty of a crime,
I'm not a lawyer either, but what law to be broken was discussed in this case? Generally it's not illegal to receive information from a foreign government afaik.
I'm so looking forward to you saying this right to Mueller's face and seeing if it helps Trump.
See? You don't give a flying fuck about actual collusion. You just care about partisan advantage.
So does this mean Hillary's President now?
Blogger Lem said...
If there was collusion, and I'm not saying that there was, apparently Trump Jr was not in on it.
7/11/17, 12:02 PM
This is my take. It's the exact opposite of what these people think it is. Proof of no collusion.
But let's wait and let them Wiley coyote themselves first.
Does anybody know, Is Don Jr's taking this meeting a crime? Is dirt on an opponent illegal foreign aid to the campaign in the same way a donation of money is aid?
That is a question I have asked. What makes an in-kind donation a true donation (that you put a monetary value) on vs more of an endorsement?
If a famous entertainer plays at a fund raiser for a national candidate for no charge, how come he/she isn't subject to donation limits? If Bruce Springsteen charges $35,000 to do a private show, shouldn't that be considered a $35,000 campaign donation?
If a MSM newspaper with wide regional circulation is in the bag for one party, should that be recorded as a party donation?
But I still don't see how meeting with someone, regardless of their citizenship status, to ascertain if they have dirt on your political opponent, is a crime.
7/11/17, 12:09 PM
No worries. They don't either.
The funniest comment I heard on this was "If they talked about killing pandas, they may have violated the endangered species act". What law was broken exactly? This is more smoke screen with no fire.
If they go to a meeting to discuss a plan to kill pandas in violation of the Endangered Species Act I'm just gonna guess it's a charge of "Conspiracy to violate the Endangered Species Act."
What do you think?
Birkel said...
Did anybody find the E-mail chain where they discussed this alleged information came from "hacked" computers?
...
All that I know, is that if anyone in the Trump family were asked about that, and they answered, "We never had, or saw, anything like that," I would not believe them. Based on the recent record of undisputable statements and events.
If an undocumented immigrant worked as a volunteer in Hillary's campaign — not voting, mind you, just stuffing envelopes or erecting yard signs — can it not be argued that Hillary received "something of value" from a foreign national, and would that not be a criminal violation of the statute?
The Clinton campaign paid Fusion GPS who in turn paid Christopher Steel, a foreign national, for damaging information on Trump.
Donald Trump, Jr. did not offer anything to the Russian attorney nor did he get anything but a request for the repeal of Magnitsky Act.
I invite OWT or Chuck to explain why Trump is a traitor, criminal, whatever, and Clinton is not given these facts.
If an undocumented immigrant worked as a volunteer in Hillary's campaign — not voting, mind you, just stuffing envelopes or erecting yard signs — can it not be argued that Hillary received "something of value" from a foreign national, and would that not be a criminal violation of the statute?
Be sure to suggest that defense to Don Jrs. lawyer.
Blogger Lem said...
If there was collusion, and I'm not saying that there was, apparently Trump Jr was not in on it.
It's funny because it's true!
The crime is that Trump won the election, it seems. If Trump Jr committed a crime taking a meeting to receive dirt from a foreign source then most reporters are guilty and should be prosecuted as well. But the law is otherwise, which is why receiving information and then disseminating it isn't a crime. The NY Times knows this.
So it's conspiracy to commit a crime "attempted collusion" not "collusion" because there was no second party who could do anything. "Attempted collusion"? What again is the statutory crime?
Personally IANAL but I will give you legal advise for a discounted price. Here, let me instead connect you to the Special Counsel's office.
"In criminal law, a conspiracy is an agreement between two or more persons to commit a crime at some time in the future. Criminal law in some countries or for some conspiracies may require that at least one overt act must also have been undertaken in furtherance of that agreement, to constitute an offense."
"California criminal law is somewhat representative of other jurisdictions. A punishable conspiracy exists when at least two people form an agreement to commit a crime, and at least one of them does some act in furtherance to committing the crime."
From wikipedia
So, what crime was discussed and what overt act took place?
Zzzzzzz. These russian "smoking guns" story all begin the same. Some amazing revelation. More facts come to light to defuse it. Goal posts are moved. No one cares. Rinse, wash, repeat. Using the left's ever malleable description of "collusion" like Jeff Session's having a "secret meeting" in a room full of people at a reception this story too will dry up only to be replaced by the next "bomb shell". So boring.
Be sure to suggest that defense to Don Jrs. lawyer.
Brookzene thinks Clinton is guilty of collusion with foreign nationals.
Interesting and unexpected.
I'm still waiting for Scott Walker to go to jail. What ever happened to that?
Big picture......its 85 degrees and sunny in July across the entire nation. This story is like the 5 PM Friday media dump.
Since this fake news is true than all the fake news is true. Failing NYT FTW.
This is so great. A NY Times reporter is devastated because Don Jr. ruined the story he had spent a year working on. "I tracked down sources. Labored over this."
https://twitter.com/polNewsForever/status/884809284000903168
hahaha!
Personally IANAL but I will give you legal advise for a discounted price. Here, let me instead connect you to the Special Counsel's office.
In other words, stop annoying me by asking for pertinent facts. I'm too busy imagining Trump's impeachment and the retroactive restoration of the Clinton dynasty, somehow. Oh, and the outlawing of the Republican party.
GK1, yup. Or as Ol'Rusty Feingold said: "THIS ISN'T OVER UNTIL WE WIN".
Since Brookzene chose to offer a wisecrack instead of a refutation of my thesis we can assume he is unable to so refute, no?
@Quaestor
Yep.
So, what crime was discussed and what overt act took place?
TRUMP! REASONS!
Brookzene thinks Clinton is guilty of collusion with foreign nationals.
Interesting and unexpected.
You're a real fan of those Joe McCarthy tactics, aren't you?
"California criminal law is somewhat representative of other jurisdictions. A punishable conspiracy exists when at least two people form an agreement to commit a crime, and at least one of them does some act in furtherance to committing the crime."
It's just one more four flush.
If a MSM newspaper with wide regional circulation is in the bag for one party, should that be recorded as a party donation?
SNL has donated $millions to the Democrats by this method, as have others in Hollywood and the entertainment industry.
You're a real fan of those Joe McCarthy tactics, aren't you?
LO FUCKIN L! I think I my irony meter just pegged! Tailgunner Brookzene talks about McArthyism!
It doesn't get any richer than that.
The fact that there was no damaging info about Hillary must count for something. Hoping for it and getting it are two different things. In this case it was a trick to get an interview about something else it turned out.
Furthermore, even if every media allegation against Trump campaign were true there is still no crime and hence no impeachable offense as far as I can see. To call it treason is ridiculous.
Of course Russia would prefer Trump over Hillary in view of what happened in Ukraine and it is hardly surprising Russia would try to influence the election, in this case allegedly by exposing Hillary's speech to Goldman Sachs and CNN feeding debate questions to Hillary ahead of debate with Sanders.
"and at least one of them does some act in furtherance to committing the crime."
The email exchange was the agreement and taking the meeting (at which he expected to receive the goods) was the act? I'm asking, I don't know.
I was ready to vote on the poll associated with this post, but the appropriate answer, "It's a nothingburger, and I utterly don't care." wasn't available.
Talking to Russians about opposition research against Hillary is EXTRA illegal.
So the collusion is that they met to exchange information which might have been compromising but was never discussed, disclosed, or exchanged?
That's like colluding to rob a bank, while never discussing any bank or how they might rob it.
And yet 11 people have already answered the Althouse poll that this the smoking gun...
SNL has donated $millions to the Democrats by this method, as have others in Hollywood and the entertainment industry.
This is just flat out untrue. Given current rates for ad buys, it's $billions.
The fact that there was no damaging info about Hillary must count for something. Hoping for it and getting it are two different things.
Just using an example that we've all heard of, and I'm not comparing anyone to terrorists. But you know how when these wannabee ISIS guys get into conversations about purchasing weapons and committing terror attacks. Just because it turns to nothing, either because they get stopped or they chicken out, doesn't mean they get a pass. They committed a crime. You're familiar with such instances, right? Don't make me have to find an example.
I believe it's the same principle. You don't have to actually commit a crime or buy real weapons (sometimes the FBI sells 'em fake ones) to be in violation of the law.
I don't think this is that hard to understand. I'm starting to believe some of you just break down your cognitive skills in the face of evidence of Trump admin wrongdoing. Some kind of trauma or stress thing going on. I don't necessarily mean that as a joke.
Laslo -
Put me down for the cat pictures also. Thanks
SO lemme see if I have this straight. The Russian lady didn't work for the Russian government after all. She didn't give the Trump campaign any material about Hilary whatsoever. The Trump folks and the British publicist all thought the meeting was an embarrassing waste of time. But Tim Kaine thinks it's "treason"?! And just to be sure - Hilary was a private citizen at the time, and Russia was/is not a country we're at war with.
Explain the "treason" lol!
But yeah....that was pure amateur hour from Don Jr. Sheesh.
So far I've seen nothing but snark from the anti Trump team.
Which means, ah shucks, they've got nothing again.
It's going to be a frustrating day for the media as they feel, "OMGOMGOMGOMGOMG!" again and simultaneously, no one outside their bubble cares.
@ Quaestor
If an undocumented immigrant worked as a volunteer in Hillary's campaign — not voting, mind you, just stuffing envelopes or erecting yard signs — can it not be argued that Hillary received "something of value" from a foreign national, and would that not be a criminal violation of the statute?
The Clinton campaign paid Fusion GPS who in turn paid Christopher Steel, a foreign national, for damaging information on Trump.
Donald Trump, Jr. did not offer anything to the Russian attorney nor did he get anything but a request for the repeal of Magnitsky Act.
I invite OWT or Chuck to explain why Trump is a traitor, criminal, whatever, and Clinton is not given these facts.
7/11/17, 12:12 PM
Worth a repeat and still waiting for "Trump is guilty! of something!" leftists to answer for it.
The conspiracy is to hear information.
The recipient's question is whether it's a nutball or it's worth his time, not whether to conspire.
Conspire means you're in the same room.
SNL has donated $millions to the Democrats by this method, as have others in Hollywood and the entertainment industry.
This is just flat out untrue. Given current rates for ad buys, it's $billions.
I know people who get 100% of their news from Comedy Central and SNL. I have less of a problem with a smart, knowledgable principled liberal.
But if you ever discuss politics with someone who gets all their news from the above.....yes, the value the DNC gets from these programs is huge.
Again - it is illegal to fall for any sort of trick that might lead to information that is damaging to Hillary Clinton.
Right?
Of course Russia would prefer Trump over Hillary in view of what happened in Ukraine and it is hardly surprising Russia would try to influence the election, in this case allegedly by exposing Hillary's speech to Goldman Sachs and CNN feeding debate questions to Hillary ahead of debate with Sanders.
That's all speculation. We don't know that the Russians gave the info to Wikileaks, and Assange denies it. It was probably leaks by disgruntled Sanders supporters, IMHO. We have no real reason to think that the Russians would have preferred Trump, and plenty of reasons to doubt it.
Maybe you could get more specific?
The email exchange was the agreement and taking the meeting (at which he expected to receive the goods) was the act? I'm asking, I don't know.
Bob is at least trying to understand. It's a good faith question and I personally think he's on the right track here.
Didn't Hillary claim that the Russian hackers had to be coached by Americans? Don Jr.'s emails debunks that -- there was no coaching or hacking by the Trump team in collusion with Russia. If there was hacking by the Russians, the lawyer who met with Don Jr. was not a party to that info.
IMO a second helping of nothing burgers.
n.n said...
Will the NYT follow suit and release their sources?
...
Do they need to? Is the NYT going to pass a budget or reform the tax code? Are their sources running for office?
Most importantly, as sources, did they get anything wrong?
This seems like a set up.
Look at the language in the email, it's just so perfect.
And who would expect a productive relationship going forward with regard to the Magnitsky Act and Russian adoptions after luring Don Jr. to a meeting under false pretenses?
Could Don Jr. and Jared and Manafort have been that big of suckers?
You know it doesn't matter whether Trump Jr is guilty or not. The strategy is:
1) Keep accusing Trump of colluding with Russia so as to produce the "if there is smoke there is fire" attitude among the general populace so as to:
a) Obstruct Trump
b) Produce environment where it is politically possible to impeach him
c) Energize base so that they will freaking show up at the polls in 2018 and 2020
d) Distract the government from investigating the various crimes committed by the Obama admin
e) Discourage Trump from running for reelection in 2020
2) Threaten to put one of Trump's kids in jail so that he will agree to resign or at least not run in 2020.
The ultimate aim is to have Pence running in 2020, they figure they can beat him. And I think they are probably correct. The GOPe will of course change the rules so that a figure such as Trump will never be able to capture the nomination again.
Just using an example that we've all heard of, and I'm not comparing anyone to terrorists. But you know how when these wannabee ISIS guys get into conversations about purchasing weapons and committing terror attacks. Just because it turns to nothing, either because they get stopped or they chicken out, doesn't mean they get a pass.
They have to get them to take a concrete step, like show up at a place to buy weapons with a bagful of cash. But I know you can't hear that. because your partisanship blinds you.
Repeat after me..
"There is no ******* collusion".
But there is one thing....the democrat media can sure make normally reasonable people go down a rabbit hole and go along with their crapola.
Where there's smoke, there's mirrors.
Blogger Chuck said...
n.n said...
Will the NYT follow suit and release their sources?
...
Do they need to? Is the NYT going to pass a budget or reform the tax code? Are their sources running for office?
Most importantly, as sources, did they get anything wrong?
But Don Jr is. He's about to pass the Chuck is a fine upstanding citizen act. And he's increasing the national budget by 50 trillion dollars.
The ultimate aim is to have Pence running in 2020, they figure they can beat him. And I think they are probably correct. The GOPe will of course change the rules so that a figure such as Trump will never be able to capture the nomination again."
Well no one can stop a political party from slitting their throat. However their lack of getting any damn thing at all done is drawing a pretty sharp knife across their throat as it is.
The lawyer peed on the bed and left.
Luke Lea said...
Of course Russia would prefer Trump over Hillary in view of what happened in Ukraine and it is hardly surprising Russia would try to influence the election, in this case allegedly by exposing Hillary's speech to Goldman Sachs and CNN feeding debate questions to Hillary ahead of debate with Sanders.
Not for one minute. Hillary would have been much easier for Putin to bamboozle than Trump will ever be.
I know people who get 100% of their news from Comedy Central and SNL.
They might be as knowledgeable as those who get 100% of their news from NPR. Or from CBS/ABC/NBC/NYT/WaPo.
Kevin said...
So the collusion is that they met to exchange information which might have been compromising but was never discussed, disclosed, or exchanged?
That's like colluding to rob a bank, while never discussing any bank or how they might rob it.
Not quite, because in that case, what you were planning to meet about discussing was illegal. It's more like colluding to get Chinese take-out, while never discussing Chinese food or where to get it.
Quaestor said...
...
I invite OWT or Chuck to explain why Trump is a traitor, criminal, whatever, and Clinton is not given these facts.
I wish to respectfully decline your invitation. I have no idea if Trump is a traitor or a criminal. (Traitors are probably by definition, criminals.) I don't know about Clinton, either.
What I do know, now, is that the Trump Administration has developed a truly remarkable record for dissembling on questions related to any/all contacts with Russians. And so I am profoundly satisfied that someone like Robert Mueller is investigating it. And I say again -- maybe you missed it -- I am going to happily await the result of that investigation.
The ultimate aim is to have Pence running in 2020, they figure they can beat him. And I think they are probably correct.
I like Pence. I think he would be a better President than Trump. But the Democrats are going to be very fired up in 2020. They will run an energetic person who has at least 2 checkboxes ("we'll make history").
Imagine the debate. Low key Pence explaining the policies he will promote and why they will be good for the nation. While the Democrat goes off on how evil Pence is ("PEOPLE WILL DIE") and how they (the Democrats) will give all kinds of free stuff to everyone.
"Are their sources running for office?"
Maybe.
Based on the recent record of MSM sources burning their MSM "reporters" with unverified and later provably false allegations, Chuck confirms that he 100% believes every anti-Trump report until Trump is able to prove his innocence of the charges.
Now, quote me the part of Althouse's request to be funny or bring something of substance to a discussion. Use bold so I'm sure not to miss it.
#ComedyGold
Mueller's mission is to disentangle the FBI from this mess.
They have to get them to take a concrete step, like show up at a place to buy weapons with a bagful of cash.
Well again IANAL but I think Bob is right - taking the meeting, given what was written in the email, is the concrete step. Hey, I don't know if this is a crime or not but it's reasonable to wonder from the sidelines, and for sure, legal or not, it was wrong, and pretty stupid.
"Hey come on over, I have some explosives I want to show you that can be used in an attack. Just gonna show you them, you can decide later if you want to buy." Probably a crime.
Brookzene wrote: Don't make me have to find an example.
I did find an example. The Hillary campaign paid Christopher Steele for info on Trump, laundering the payment through Fusion GPS is no defense, and is thus much more in clear jeopardy of the statute, Title 11 CFR 110.20
Information isn't an in-kind contribution- if it were, almost every single journalist in D.C. and New York have violated campaign finance laws at one time or another. If the information comes from a foreign national, it is still not an in-kind contribution because there is no market price to reference- anyone can work for free on a campaign for president, even if all that given is info. What is illegal is for a third party to pay such workers without following the campaign finance laws, or for third parties to pay for such information.
At the core, all these e-mails show is that a non-Russian agent- not even a citizen of Russia-claimed the Russian government wanted to aid Trump's campaign, and this claim wasn't even hearsay from a Russian agent, but rather from a Russian entertainer who also claimed it was his father who was in contact with a Russian government official who had information on Clinton to pass along. In the actual meeting it appears, as I write this, there wasn't such information to be given- that the entire story about such info was a lie used to get the meeting with Trump Jr (though I strongly suspect the hope was that Sr. would attend the meeting, too).
In summary, taking the meeting isn't a crime or unethical on any level. If information had passed between Trump Jr. and Veselnitskaya, even that wouldn't have been a crime or unethical, but it would have at least supported the collusion story if the information was Russian government sourced. However, if no information was passed, and the meeting is as described by Trump Jr., there isn't support for the collusion story since he would have been lied to.
Now, Veselnitskaya has claimed that passing dirt was never the purpose of the meeting and she doesn't know why Trump believed that. The simplest explanation for this is that she would have to otherwise admit that she deliberately misrepresented herself. Trump Jr.'s story has the support of the e-mail chain, so I believe him and not her.
P.S. LLR
Undisputable is not a word.
The email exchange was the agreement and taking the meeting (at which he expected to receive the goods) was the act? I'm asking, I don't know.
How is it illegal to meet someone to get info proving that someone else is committing illegal acts, which is what happened. Isn't that what reporters do for a living, at least in theory. It wouldn't even have been illegal if Trump Jr had offered money. Campaigns paying people for dirt on their political opponents happens all the time.
If Trump Jr had offered to alter US government policies or actions in exchange for info then sure, that's a crime. But there is absolutely no indication of that whatsoever.
I personally think he's on the right track here.
One minute he's dead certain of it, next he "thinks someone is on the right track..."
OK.
Chuck:
NYT... Most importantly, as sources, did they get anything wrong?
To date, they got everything wrong. So, they are following the WaPo/Watergate playbook, hoping to carry out a trial by public opinion, or force an incongruity and resignation.
It's lucky none of the Trump team members are ham radio operators. You'd talk to Russians all the time.
So here's a question: Should we dig up Ted Kennedy and put his corpse in the electric chair? After all, he 100% committed treason--the Verona papers conclusively prove that.
Democrats, of course, lionized Ted Kennedy. The "Lion of the Senate." He was their Hero.
He went to Andropov or Chernenko, I forget who, and offered to kill "Star Wars" at the very least if they agreed to help him beat Reagan in 84.
That's far worse than anything Trump is alleged to do. Democrats knew this about Ted Kennedy. Yet they literally idolized him. He is, after all, the perfect Democrat: no laws applied to him and he got away with raping and murdering women. He betrayed America. He was a filthy treasonous odious pig of a person who is hopefully enjoying some personal attention from Satan.
Naturally, the left idolizes him. But given their "any talking with a Russian is treason!" what says Brookzene about Ted Kennedy? How about Chuck? Etc?
--Vance
I really feel bad for the media at this point, I truly do. I feel like a "lookiloo" driving slowly by a horrific car wreck every time I glance at a trump/russia headline. They will have squandered what little credibility they have left with half of the country and for what? The media is fighting the last century's war with horse drawn cavalry against trumps social media tanks. Like W.W I, none of the participants know how to end it other than futile frontal charges against machine gun nests and mine fields. That's what the legacy media reminds me of every morning glancing at the head lines.
This is falling apart faster than a Chevy Vega.
Why didn't Donald Jr just use a private email server and then lose this and 30,000 other emails?
Joseph Goebbles: Lie big, simple, and persistently, and they will end up beliving it.
If someone offers you evidence of wrong-doing about Hillary, you better not take the call.
Do you understand?
This reminds me of when the NYT put Abu Ghrab (or however you spell it) on its front page for 34 consecutive days (as a way to go after President Bush).
But this is even less effect than that. I pay attention to the news and most of the time I have no clue what point MSM is trying to make today about Trump and Russia. Its all sounds the same to me...the ranting about Russia for the past 6 months.
The trick is hyperbolic doubt, as Descartes did it. Descartes resolved it by saying a merciful God would not let him be deceived all the time, so it's okay.
Tragedies are written about unjustified doubt.
"How do I know for sure that they love me..."
Cavell calls it avoidance of love. It can't be done without taking on a risk, and there you are.
The trick with hyperbolic doubt is it has to be something nobody cares about, like how to I know this is a ball of wax. At most I see only a front surface...
Because if it's something commonly cared about, there would be criteria for addressing doubts. How do I know it's a goldfinch? By the bars on the wing, by the color, by the song. Whether it's stuffed does not come up, unless there are circumstances justifying that particular doubt, like the presence of a known prankster in the park just now. Then you'd investigate differently.
If there's no particular crime, there's not way to address the doubt. It's like the ball of wax. Only the doubt is there, and no common sense to answer it.
"This is falling apart faster than a Chevy Vega"
Delusional, lol!
How is it illegal to meet someone to get info proving that someone else is committing illegal acts, which is what happened. Isn't that what reporters do for a living, at least in theory.
Why aren't the constitution and law professors answering these questions?
Reporters can do this because of a SC ruling in the '70s upholding their right to publish secret government info on the Viet Nam war. That's different from you or I or the Trumps using secret government info IN secret to benefit ourselves. There's a public interest to the First Amendment.
When a deluded person says you're delusional is that not prima facie evident you are not?
When you don't have the evidence on your side, slather on the snark.
@ Ron Winkleheimer
Thanks.
We don't even know if this woman understood that Don Jr. had been promised dirt on Hillary. Both she and Don Jr. were relying on what Goldstone was telling them. Perhaps he had his own agenda or was somebody else's tool. There's a lot we still don't know here.
Reporters can do this because of a SC ruling in the '70s upholding their right to publish secret government info on the Viet Nam war. That's different from you or I or the Trumps using secret government info IN secret to benefit ourselves. There's a public interest to the First Amendment.
So there would be no "public interest" in exposing corruption by a presidential candidate?
The analogy people are using about talking about committing a crime breaks down because *receiving information from a source is not a crime, while buying explosives or firearms through covert means is.* The analogy does not hold.
NBC: Hillary Clinton Threatened Staff Over State Dept. Pedo Ring Story
Posted on 07.07.2017 By lena-mozya
by Baxter Dmitry
Hillary Clinton team members “threatened the lives” of NBC investigative reporters in order to shut down an investigation into a State Department pedophile ring cover up scandal, according to a member of the NBC production staff.
The day after an NBC news broadcast broke the news of a pedophile ring cover up within the State Department, “members of the Clinton team” contacted executives at NBC and threatened reporters working on the investigation with “the most serious kind of consequences“.
The infamous NBC investigation was broadcast at a time when the network was a real news organization rather than a branch of the Democratic Party’s PR department, and provided internal State Department memos to back up claims of a massive Hillary Clinton elite pedophile ring cover-up.
Birkel said...
Based on the recent record of MSM sources burning their MSM "reporters" with unverified and later provably false allegations, Chuck confirms that he 100% believes every anti-Trump report until Trump is able to prove his innocence of the charges.
What stupid, rank, bullshit! In these two Don Jr. posts of today, I have said the following:
~Anonymous sources don't always get it right. But in this story, they seem to have gotten it right. I have yet to hear how they got this story wrong.
~I presume no criminal wrongdoing by Trump or his inner circle.
~I am waiting for the conclusion of the Special Counsel investigation.
So just where do you presume to step off, with your mendacious invention of a position that I "100 percent believe in..."
You are doing it again. Dumbass personal attacks that don't develop any substantive part of what Althouse has blogged.
You are the fucking problem, in the operation of these comments pages, Birkel. One of a select few annoying fucking problems.
So no, I do not "100% believe every anti-Trump report until Trump is able to prove his innocence of the charges."
Fuck you. Strong letter to follow.
How is information held by the Russian government "secret" under US law?
I know, I know, you are not a lawyer, but you have faith!
eric:
But Don Jr is. He's about to pass the Chuck is a fine upstanding citizen act. And he's increasing the national budget by 50 trillion dollars.
This perspective, if true, would justify an investigation of the Deep State, as well as ancillary public and private interests, citizen and press, domestic and foreign, that have influenced... nay, set American policies, disenfranchised American citizens, etc.
As it is, it was just a Russian lawyer hoping to understand why Obama sanctioned Russia for denying adoption rights to alien guardians seeking to normalize their orientation and cases of child exploitation and abuse.
I want the record to show:
The Leftists are arguing that exercising your Freedom of Assembly and Freedom of Speech might be an affirmative step toward a criminal conspiracy, while also assuming that there is some as yet undiscovered crime underlying the whole miserable affair.
Not content to undermine Citizens United the Leftists wish to repeal the Pentagon Papers cases when doing so might hurt a Republican.
Chuck, makes the devastating point: for months Team Trump have been claiming that there was no contact between their campaign and the Russians, we now know they were lying.
Show you why Chuck is an asshole and, by extention, Brookzene. No evidence that the Russian involved was under Putin's orders or the Russian Governments direction. That's what "The Russians" means. Yakov Smirnoff endorsed Hillary, contributed to her campaign, too, I would bet. Smirnoff is very similar to the Russians involved in the Trump matter. Inconsequential.
Brookzene said:
"Why aren't the constitution and law professors answering these questions?"
Good morning, Brookzene. Here at SCOTUS, we try to answer every citizen's questions. I believe your question is, was any law violated when Don Trump had this meeting with the Russian lawyer. Is that the question?
The answer is: No.
Did Brookzene really just argue the First Amendment applies differently to the credentialed MSM than it does to the rest of the American citizenry?
Using the IANAL excuse does not allow a person to escape rank stupidity.
How is information held by the Russian government "secret" under US law?
If it's secret information from the USA that was stolen or hacked by the Russians? Just supposing.
Meanwhile, Hillary is sitting by the phone with Ruth Bader Ginsburg and a Gideon Bible.
"If it's secret information from the USA that was stolen or hacked by the Russians? Just supposing."
-- That would not matter if Jr. does not have a clearance, just like reporters can report on leaked secret material without violating the law.
Don, Jr. released the emails tout de suite. Hillary's billing records took forever to be found on top of her dresser. That's the difference voters wanted.
Blogger Darrell said...
Don, Jr. released the emails tout de suite. Hillary's billing records took forever to be found on top of her dresser. That's the difference voters wanted.
Exactly.
Brookzene,
No, you are laughably wrong. Reporters have no more or less right to secret government info than you or I do. I, as a private citizen, could receive classified info like the Pentagon Papers and publish them right here on this blog with my name attached and face the exact same penalties as the NYTimes or its reporters would for doing so. I could even take paid gigs talking about my publication of the documents.
However, this isn't even the issue with the Trump Jr. meeting- the information offered wasn't secret or classified. Even if Trump Jr. actually received such dirt, doing so also isn't a crime or unethical. Tying your analysis together with the present story, if Trump Jr. had received, for example, secret FBI information on Clinton from a source and sent it to the Wall Street Journal who then published it, then he would have been protected just like a reporter for the NYTimes would have in writing such a story. Now, using such information for blackmail or extortion would be a crime, but revealing it isn't which is how campaign dirt is used in the first place. However, in the present case, it appears there was never any dirt to give or reveal.
Did Brookzene really just argue the First Amendment applies differently to the credentialed MSM than it does to the rest of the American citizenry?
No, if I'm not mistaken (again open to hearing from constitutional lawyers here) Justice Black and others ruled that the press can publish secret government information in 1971 NYTimes v US. That doesn't mean you and I or DonJr can procure secret information to use as we like. From the opinion:
"Both the history and language of the First Amendment support the view that the press must be left free to publish news, whatever the source, without censorship, injunctions, or prior restraints."
This doesn't seem to cover Donald Jrs. meeting, wouldn't you agree?
Good thing nothing classified or unclassified was produced at the meeting then. Whew!
Darrell said...
Chuck, makes the devastating point: for months Team Trump have been claiming that there was no contact between their campaign and the Russians, we now know they were lying.
Show you why Chuck is an asshole and, by extention, Brookzene. No evidence that the Russian involved was under Putin's orders or the Russian Governments direction. That's what "The Russians" means. Yakov Smirnoff endorsed Hillary, contributed to her campaign, too, I would bet. Smirnoff is very similar to the Russians involved in the Trump matter. Inconsequential.
Anybody wanna know why Darrell is an asshole?
Let's see how fast all of these guys correct their reporting forms to include this as a meeting that should have been disclosed a month, or two months or six months ago. Define "the Russians" any old way you want. Don and Jared and Manafort are going to be racing to clear up their reporting and answers. It might take Don ten or 12 more Tweets to get it right.
This doesn't seem to cover Donald Jrs. meeting, wouldn't you agree?
Did he say "the press, and only the press"? I must have missed that. Do we issue licenses for the press in the United States to distinguish them from ordinary people under the law? I am just trying to figure out how this all works...
Tying your analysis together with the present story, if Trump Jr. had received, for example, secret FBI information on Clinton from a source and sent it to the Wall Street Journal who then published it, then he would have been protected just like a reporter for the NYTimes would have in writing such a story.
Heh. Wouldn't you have to find somebody who thought it was reasonable to believe that Trump Jr was acting as a source for the press rather than acting in the Trump campaign's interest? Far-fetched to say the least, but hey, let the courts sort it out. I'm not saying Trump Jr did or did not commit a crime. I'm just saying why and under what circumstances the press can handle Top Secret documents that you or I cannot.
But again, IANAL. Take it for what it's worth or school me if I'm wrong.
A few days ago, Trump's Poland speech forced the commentariat to discuss The Future of Western Civilization. What a silly distraction that was.
Thanks,
For proving my point. Chuck!
The Trump team met the female equivalent to Yakov Smirnoff. In Russia, funny makes you.
To put none to fine a point on this, STILL not Hillary, STILL thrilled, and (not sorry) STILL don't care about this trivial bullshit while actual criminals (the Clinton clan) are held up as the absolute bestest we could ever have. So, the MSM and the Democrats and the deep state and the RINOs can all go F*CK themselves with a red-hot poker...
Sample Commenter @ 12:44: "This is falling apart faster than a Chevy Vega."
(1) Potential thread winner. Extra points for succinct brutality.
(2) I knew a guy who had a Vega. We all were impressed for about 6 months. Yes, he was a Democrat.
So now we have Leftist Brookzene doubling down on the stupid idea that credentialed members of the MSM have greater rights than mere citizens of the United States.
Yeah, I'm not a lawyer too, but what you have written is one of the dumbest things I can imagine.
"How is it illegal to meet someone to get info proving that someone else is committing illegal acts, which is what happened."
Why didn't Donald Jr, Manafort and Kuschner report this supposed Clinton/Russia collusion to the FBI?
The emails were cc'd to Manafort.
If the Trump team had received a dinosaur, they'd be rich now.
Heh. Wouldn't you have to find somebody who thought it was reasonable to believe that Trump Jr was acting as a source for the press rather than acting in the Trump campaign's interest?
Oh man. You should read up some of the Wikileaks stuff about the hand in glove relationship of the mainstream press to the Democrats.
I will give you credit for this though, you are trying, in your purblind way, to get to a rational position. Problem is that this isn't the smoking gun you wish it was, so you will never get there. You can't start out an analysis with the conclusion in mind, it just doesn't work that way.
Why didn't Donald Jr, Manafort and Kuschner report this supposed Clinton/Russia collusion to the FBI?
Because they didn't get any collusion information. They were told they were going to get info, but just got lobbied.
Isn't it that if some kind of hypothetical classified information is revealed, the crime is the assigned person who initially revealed it (who either illegally obtained it or illegally revealed it if they had clearance), not on who published it.
By that logic if person A, who has government clearance for classified info, tells person B who doesn't, and then person B reveals it, isn't just person A the criminal? Isn't that how reporters are protected, the leakers are the criminals not the Newspapers?
I don't think the facts that have come out establish collusion yet, but we are approaching scenario Ted Kennedy.
Why didn't Donald Jr, Manafort and Kuschner report this supposed Clinton/Russia collusion to the FBI?
Possibly because it had already been heavily reported in the New York Times and they were hoping for some deeper background?
Question about the stupid comment by Chuck that people will be "racing" to change their answers to forms:
Do those forms require everybody to mention every meeting with anybody who was
1) born in a foreign country,
2) is an immigrant,
3) is a foreign national,
4) represents a foreign interest in some regard,
5) is an official representative of a foreign government.
I'm sure a LLR with a wealth of legal knowledge will disclose how meeting with a foreign-born attorney is now a crime, or would be if she represents any foreign interest.
Also, how would anybody know all of that information? Can I now run around discriminating against foreign national, legal immigrants and the like?
So now we have Leftist Brookzene doubling down on the stupid idea that credentialed members of the MSM have greater rights than mere citizens of the United States.
No, you misunderstood. Leftist Justice Black doubled down on the idea that the press can possess secret or top secret information that ordinary citizens who aren't part of the presscannot. It's because of their function as a "free press." Donald Trump Jr is/was an agent of his father's campaign, he's not an agent of the press. Yes, the rules are different for the two.
Darrell,
I am reliably informed that if your grandmother had wheels, she'd be a bicycle.
Why didn't Donald Jr, Manafort and Kuschner report this supposed Clinton/Russia collusion to the FBI?
This is a technical point; and I am not entirely clear, or certain, about the details.
But I think that Manafort may have disclosed it already, to the FBI. And/or, Jared Kushner recently reported it. It may have gone to the Senate committee recently, as part of their investigation. If I had to guess, it was leaked by someone in the Senate.
A good question might then be, if Jared Kushner turned over all of these emails as part of relevant evidence, why didn't Don know, and why wouldn't Don have been better prepared for the Times story? (And an interesting second question might be, what does it tell us, if Manafort disclosed everything but didn't tell Don about what had been given up to the FBI? Every Trumpkin for himself. Like "Cal" in the movie Titanic.)
Again, I don't know, and like Althouse, I'd like to get more questions answered.
Birkel said...
...
Also, how would anybody know all of that information? Can I now run around discriminating against foreign national, legal immigrants and the like?
Only the Mooslims. Because they are criminals; they're rapists. And some, I am sure, are good people. They aren't like you.
So we hear a charge of treason from the party that tried to lose a war in order to win an election?
No, you misunderstood. Leftist Justice Black doubled down on the idea that the press can possess secret or top secret information that ordinary citizens who aren't part of the presscannot.
So does the government issue licenses to the press? If not, why not? How do we know who is press with the protections of the Bill of Rights, and who doesn't have them? Am I press because I post on a blog?
Brookzene,
At least you aren't violating the Althouse rules for commenting. That is Grade A comedy.
The rights of the people are secured. Your idea that the rights are secured by the articles of incorporation of the various entities who now call themselves "the press" is terribly absurd. Seriously, and I'm not making fun or being sarcastic here, you are completely ignorant of the topics you are discussing and I am embarrassed for you.
The fever swamps are not your friend.
No, you misunderstood. Leftist Justice Black doubled down on the idea that the press can possess secret or top secret information that ordinary citizens who aren't part of the presscannot. It's because of their function as a "free press." Donald Trump Jr is/was an agent of his father's campaign, he's not an agent of the press. Yes, the rules are different for the two.
Brookzene, you are incorrect. The "press" is *any* citizen. Althouse is part of the "press," you are part of the "press," and I am part of the "press." The Bill of Rights applies to *all* citizens.
Your understanding of the SC ruling is incorrect. I do wish one of the *actual* lawyers in this forum would speak up already. You've been spreading this incorrect information for an hour or more with little pushback.
The Supreme Court has never ruled that people who call themselves reporters have more first amendment rights. The press is a technology, not a group of peiple
Na na na na / Na na na na / Hey hey hey / Goodbye
I accept your abject surrender on that point, LLR.
Your bigotry against one religious group is noted.
#shameful
Althouse poll results are starting to resemble Drudgereport poll results. They are comically skewed in favor of Trump.
It doesn't seem to amount to much. It kind of reads like an email from Nigeria asking for you to help them by taking $2 million dollars off their hands. It doesn't feel authentic.
I have no doubt that the Trump campaign, or rather Trump's son, would have been delighted to have received information about misbehavior by Hillary Clinton. I assume by the way that interest in such is not illegal. From these emails it is not at all clear where the purported information is coming from. Yes, I get that the person is hinting that they have some connection to the Russian government, but their ambiguity and the lack of definite assertion is part of what gives it the feeling of a scam.
In the event it does appear to have been kind of scam, as apparently whoever this was had no significant information on Hillary Clinton. And of course the remarkable reality is that some kind of left-wing outfit was apparently behind the whole operation. It sounds like a planned entrapment. We don't know what the plan was because Donald Trump Jr and company apparently failed to bite. So we don't really know what whoever was behind this was trying to do.
If we had any objectivity in the current political environment I can't imagine that the New York Times would be willing to release this. Because in reality it is kind of an indictment of some part of the left and of some part of the Democratic Party. The lying, the deceit, and the attempted manipulation on the part of whomever was behind this should be the natural focus of the story.
"In The Pentagon Papers case, a classified study was published revealing that four administrations had misled the American public about their intentions in the Vietnam War, increasing the credibility gap. Russo and Ellsberg were prosecuted under Espionage Law. The case prompted Harold Edgar & Benno C. Schmidt, Jr. to write a review of Espionage law in the 1973 Columbia Law Review. Their article was entitled "The Espionage Statutes and Publication of Defense Information". In it, they point out that Espionage law does not criminalize classified information, only national defense information. They point out that Congress has repeatedly resisted or failed to make the disclosing of classified information illegal, in and of itself. Instead, Congress has strictly limited which sort of classified information is illegal, and under which specific circumstances it is illegal. i.e. in 18 U.S.C. § 798 Congress specifically criminalized leaking cryptographic information that is classified, but when it passed the law it specifically stated the law didn't criminalize disclosing other types of classified information.[8] Another article that discusses the issue is by Jennifer Elsea of the Congressional Research Service.[3]"
So does the government issue licenses to the press? If not, why not? How do we know who is press with the protections of the Bill of Rights, and who doesn't have them? Am I press because I post on a blog?
If you are holding top secret information you can hope that a jury will believe you (or Donald Jr.) were acting as an agent of the press intending to publish them for the public, but I think the prosecution will take the chance that the jury will not believe you. They would, however, believe a NYTimes reporter for sure, which is why those cases don't come up much any more.
I am reliably informed that if your grandmother had wheels, she'd be a bicycle.
Only two wheels? Nah.
Just a heads up @Ron Winkelheimer: I myself have no idea what you are quoting or why I should read it.
"Bob Boyd said...
This seems like a set up.
Look at the language in the email, it's just so perfect."
Yeah, this seems a little weird to me. "very high level and sensitive information", "ultra sensitive" and the whole thing is on a iphone text message "in the clear". Whatever happened to code words? You know: "Meet me at the usual Central Park dry cleaners at 6:30. The blue dress is clean" means "Meet me at the usual location at 4:22, I have some dirt on Hillary". Here we have: "I have dirt on Hillary given me by the Russian government at a meeting because they support Donald Trump. This is very secret so I'm sending it to your iphone mentioning how secret and sensitive it is, along with a mention of a Russian official who does not exist."
Just so Chuck knows, the release of the e-mails does not in any way affect my feelings on anonymous sources. In fact it confirms my belief that without a named source you have nothing. In this case Jr. is the named source and I can actually read the e-mails with my own eyes.
The msm can continue to provide stories based on anonymous sources and I will continue to disbelieve them.
If you are holding top secret information you can hope that a jury will believe you (or Donald Jr.) were acting as an agent of the press intending to publish them for the public, but I think the prosecution will take the chance that the jury will not believe you. They would, however, believe a NYTimes reporter for sure, which is why those cases don't come up much any more.
So we will decide who is a criminal on a case by case basis with no rules in advance. Got it.
I myself have no idea what you are quoting or why I should read it.
I have absolutely no doubt that that is true.
I still don't get why exposing corruption of a presidential candidate is not in the public interest.
After scrolling (Quickly) through all these comments, I have one question.
If a leftist troll has an orgasm thinking they have finally got the goods on Trump, is that a Trollgasm ?
For chuck; maybe the Trump people thought the allegations of collusion meant someone in the Russian government.
Thus they denied it because the denial was true.
Now some Russian lawyer gets a short meeting with Donald Jr and this is world shaking news ?
So we will decide who is a criminal on a case by case basis with no rules in advance. Got it.
The rules are there, start with NYTimes v US Govt 1971. The DA will decide, as they always do, on a "case by case basis" whether to present it to the Grand Jury or not.
Unknown said...
So here's a question: Should we dig up Ted Kennedy and put his corpse in the electric chair? After all, he 100% committed treason--the Verona papers conclusively prove that.
Mary Jo Kopechne is unavailable for comment.
Brookzene,
I will make this as simple as I can:
If I take your position and description of Black's opinion, I have to conclude that withholding secret information breaks the law- only its publication absolves reporters from illegality of knowing it.
In my hypothetical, an FBI informant giving information to Trump Jr. doesn't make Trump Jr. a criminal. In my hypothetical, Trump Jr. gives the information, acting as a second-hand source, to the WSJ who then publishes it. You can't claim Trump Jr. would be a criminal because the information he leaked secondhand helped his father's campaign- the illegal act is the leak from the FBI informant, not the one from Trump. His interests in his father's campaign are irrelevant in this hypothetical.
Your interpretation of the Pentagon Papers case is hilariously wrong. The commenter above who questioned you about who is press and who is not was spot on, as are its implications about who is and is not a source for a story. The ability to publish something for others to see is what the first amendment is about- not who owns or works for a "newspaper" or news "channel". My ability to publish comments makes me a member of the press just as much as Jake Tapper is- the only difference is the size of our audiences.
As for the sources- some clearly break the law by leaking stuff material they have literally contracted to keep secret. However, Trump Jr. wouldn't be one of those people in my hypothetical, and certainly wouldn't be even if the Russian lawyer had given him dirt on Clinton.
LOL,
So, to be clear, the hypothetical "Top secret" information is evidence of Clinton corruption. To reveal that is a crime that will be prosecuted. Do I have that right, at least?
American Liberal Elite said...
Na na na na / Na na na na / Hey hey hey / Goodbye
That voice, of Gary DeCarlo, for the made-up recording band "Steam," died just two weeks ago:
http://www.npr.org/sections/therecord/2017/06/30/534753410/gary-decarlo-singer-of-na-na-hey-hey-kiss-him-goodbye-dies-at-75
If I understand Brookzene correctly, its OK for New York Times reporters to reveal classified information because they are such fine, upstanding, moral folk they could only be doing so for the very bestest of reasons in order to further the public good and therefore no DA would ever attempt to indict them while the rest of us have no such privilege because we are dirty, dirty proles.
Thanks for clearing that up.
I have absolutely no doubt that that is true.
Just don't want you to waste your time. If you are going to copy and paste a long piece of text (with footnotes even) you might want to tell us up front what it is and where it's from. Otherwise a lot of people may not read it - I certainly won't.
But follow your own counsel on this, I'm just trying to help.
If I understand Brookzene correctly, its OK for New York Times reporters to reveal classified information because they are such fine, upstanding, moral folk they could only be doing so for the very bestest of reasons in order to further the public good and therefore no DA would ever attempt to indict them while the rest of us have no such privilege because we are dirty, dirty proles.
Your problem is not with me, it's with the Constitution. Sorry.
I rather enjoy the IANAL and I refuse to read things written by lawyers that might inform me that my opinion is absurdly and comically off base defense employed by Brookzene.
Also, whether a company has articles of incorporation that make them "the press" is a strange belief from a Leftist whose leading lights believe corporations do not have rights.
Any port in a storm and tomorrow will begin completely anew.
So according to Don Jr, and the released emails, he went to the meeting to collude, but because, according to him, there was no information to collude about they left. Really this is what we are to believe?
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा