It’s Trump hate pure and simple, irrational and neverendingly full of false accusations…the liberal left in a nut shell that needs to be committed to the nuthouse.
The Democrats don’t even know what a credible accusation would be. The Hillary campaign and Trump campaign both colluded with, and recieved aid from foreign Governments right in front of our eyes and nobody cared. Things that everybody knows are perfectly acceptable are being called crimes for the purpose of this witchhunt. If collusion was a crime Trump and Hillary both would be in jail, or at the very least would have had to suspend their campaigns.
Like I said…blinding Trump hate. When’s the swamp draining to occur? I guess if Trump’s kept on the defensive, that can’t occur especially with most of Washington against his efforts to save the USA’s national sovereignty and values.
Eh, Reagan’s first year was much the same. Calls for his impeachment, insane hand-wringing, whining about his lack of experience, and his agenda slowed down because of how slow it was to appoint cabinet people who supported him.
I don’t remember Reagan being insanely despised.
Everything is amplified by social media, but this happened: nytimes.com/1982/05/02/us/pr … pitol.html
K: he wasn’t… that is Ucci rewritting history again…
a common conservative tactic…
Kropotkin
Or, not long ago…
It’s Obama hate pure and simple, irrational and neverendingly full of false accusations…the conservative right in a nut shell that needs to be committed to the nuthouse.
Objectivists!! =D>
Only 2,100 people showed up for that rally against Reagan where millions upon millions openly protest their Trump hatred.
Obama wasn’t overwhelmingly hated during his first term, but the hate grew during his second term of driving our country into the ditch.
Why are you comparing the number of people who showed up to one rally to the total number of people who don’t like Trump in the entire country? I’m just pointing out that there were demostrations against Reagan where they accused him of a bunch of the same things and called for his impeachment.
Like I said in my past post social media amplifies everything. The retard who thinks Trump is a white supremacist is reaching potentially everybody in the world, where as the retard who thought the same thing about Reagan only reached people within earshot.
She only had the capacity to argue with me because I cited the source of my information. If citing an article written at the time of the event is what you call ‘re-writing history’ then I’m not sure what help there is for you.
What parts of the government took measures to investigate Reagan pressing towards a prosecution, conviction and impeachment of Reagan?
Reagan and Trump are not even comparable is my point.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Contra_affair
What’s going on with Trump is certainly more exacerbated and severe, but there are absolutely parallels.
I don’t think the comparison is apt. Lots of laws have First Amendment exceptions that would cover the press receiving and publishing hacked information, and not a political campaign receiving the information, keeping it secret, and using it to influence an election. Arguably such an exception is required by the First Amendment.
If we can set the law aside for a minute, do you see no moral difference between a news organization receiving hacked information and reporting on it, vs. a political organization receiving that information and using it in secret to advance their political ends? Does the moral math depend on what news organization and which party it is?
I am not making this argument.
Knew in advance of the hacking.
Or, you know, a government of a country named “Russia”, which is colloquially referred to as “Russia” in standard American English c. 2018.
52 U.S. Code § 30121 reads, in part:
(emphasis in original)
I’m not talking about press releases, I’m talking about the plea deal that Mueller offered and Flynn accepted (see section 8, “Cooperation”), and the plea deal that Mueller offered and Papadopolous accepted, which states that,
What do you mean by a “deal” if not a signed agreements with investigators to cooperate in the ongoing investigation in exchange for favorable treatment at sentencing?
Ah, I’d forgotten about the Iran Contra scandal, but Reagan didn’t start his first term under investigation for it. I understand that you want to categorize their issues the same, as parallels, but what’s happening to Trump is beyond severe and it’s not even based on his acting Presidency (well not yet, not until they throw those obstruction charges at him). I won’t argue your feelings of similarity any farther, I see why you like comparing them, but I don’t see any relevant connections since Reagan had served in politics as an acting governor before his presidency. They both share the wealthy, male Republican status, I’ll give you that. 
Not only do I not see those as morally different, I barely see them as different states of affairs. CNN is a political organization. Fox News as well, though less so. If it was one such political organization and not Wikileaks that got those hacked emails, we only would have seen or heard about them insofar as it advanced the political ends of the news organization that got them.
It is extremely disingenuous to tell me that there’s a moral difference between journalists doing something and politicians doing something when you have benefited from the journalists working to advance your political interests for decades.
If the DNC got their hands on a bunch of illegally-gotten emails that would be damning for Republican, and they decided it would be illegal for them to use or hold on to them, they’d simply leak them to any of a number of press agencies.
Knew that the hacking was going to happen in advance of it? Whoever knew might be guilty of not reporting a crime, but that’s unlikely to get to Trump and doesn’t show any sort of collusion or conspiracy or anything else.
Yeah, and how many millions of people does that represent? “A person in the Russian Government did something” does not make anybody who talked to “A person in the Russian Government” complicit or suspicious. This is where it’s important to point out that the nature of the hacks (a password phishing scam) were such that a college student working alone could easily do the entire thing. We now know that we are simply not talking about something that requires the involvement of multiple agencies in multiple countries.
You aren’t a lawyer, but I get the impression that you follow politics. So do you perhaps remember when Nigel Farage, then member of Parliament and leader of the British far right UKIP party, came to the United States, met with Donald Trump, held a press conference in front of every journalist they could fit in the room, and announced in front of everybody that he, Nigel Farage, a foreign federal official, was in the United States to help Trump with his election campaign? And then they left that press conference to meet in secret and discuss who knows what with who knows what promises exchanged?
Do you understand that the Clinton campaign had perhaps dozens of lawyers watching this, pouring over this - and so did the rest of America-, and their legal conclusion was to do absolutely fucking nothing?
What was much less widely supported is that Gianni Pittella, then member of Italian parliament, also came to the United States and actively campaigned for Hillary Clinton, giving speeches all over the Philadelphia area specifically and emphatically endorsing Hillary Clinton for president, in events that served no purpose other than being campaign rallies for Hillary Clinton. We’re not talking about a press conference where he happens to mention her, he campaigned for her here.
Once again, dozens of lawyers on the opposition watching her every move (and it’s worth while to point out how sue-happy Trump is), and once again, the conclusion was to take no action. I didn’t see a single news article speculating about how much it might have cost cash-strapped Italy to fly Gianni and his aides here and pay their salaries while he campaigned for Hillary Clinton. As far as I can tell, nobody expressed any curiosity about what the Italian gov’t or Gianni’s party might have been promised in exchange.
Why was no action taken? I mean other than because these things obviously aren’t against the law? Because Trump hadn’t won yet and the “Getting help from foreign nationals with your campaign is a crime” bullshit hadn’t been pushed to the press from the DNC yet, so nobody knew they were supposed to be outraged.
I mean, were you?
You are trying to prove something that everybody already knows happened. It’s not a crime. The lawyers of the opposition would have destroyed the campaigns of both parties if it were. Now, taking monetary bribes can probably be punished. But trying to stretch ‘other thing of value’ to mean ‘Anything I need it to mean to condemn Trump because I hate him’ as the left is doing right now is obviously and by precedent a misreading. The First Amendment simply will not allow you to criminalize speech simply because the person speaking is running for office.
[/quote]
Well obviously I and everybody else who hears ‘deal’ would mean the connotative definition of what is implied whenever it is brought up, which is that Flynn offered the FBI dirt on Trump in exchange for a lighter sentence, not that the FBI demanded that Flynn cooperate with their investigation and Flynn said “ok”. That IS the only reason it’s a talking point, after all.
Is it just disingenuous, or is it actually incorrect? Is journalism just politics by another name? If so, is that inherently the case, or just contingently the case in the modern US? This is an interesting claim (if it is your claim); my initial reaction is to disagree, but I acknowledge that there’s a lot of grey in the distinction.
If someone told the Trump campaign that they were going to do something illegal for the benefit of the campaign, and the campaign received the spoils of that illegal act, that would be more than just a failure to report a crime, it’s complicity. Given that senior members of the Trump campaign were in contact with people offering them the spoils of a criminal hack, it’s not impossible, it’s not even that much of a stretch that Trump himself knew about it.
Another point of moral clarification: If you know someone is going to hack into someone’s email for your benefit, do you have a moral obligation to take steps to prevent them from doing so?
I am a lawyer.
Doesn’t this answer your point? Again, there are First Amendment exceptions throughout criminal law. Even when they aren’t there expressly, they’ll be read in by courts to save the law from being unconstitutional. There’s a rule of statutory construction in the US that says, where possible, courts should avoid interpretations that would render a statute unconstitutional.
Here “contribution or donation of money or other thing of value” is ambiguous, but easily interpretable to exclude stump speeches in support of a candidate, but not exclude e.g. material support in the form of the spoils of criminal hacking.
If “dirt on Trump” includes dirt on any more senior member of the campaign, or a promise to testify to what he does know, etc., that’s how I understand it as well. The fact that Flynn and Papadopolous entered these plea agreements, that Papadopolous’ agreement was entered under seal, and that neither has been sentenced and likely won’t be sentenced until the investigation is complete, suggests strongly that that’s what we have. The written agreement makes it pretty clear that that’s what the investigators believe they have. Whether or not Flynn or Papadopolous are in fact able to provide what investigators seem to expect them to provide remains to be seen, but it is a reasonable conclusion from what we do know.
How can Trump be held liable for a Russian hack that he did not aid? Even if he had the DNC emails in advance and reported their existence, that wouldn’t have stopped the source of the hack from releasing them. Trump would have still won. If Hillary and her swamp scum DNC crew hadn’t written such egregious things, the DNC wouldn’t have shot itself in the head (not that there were or are brains there to destroy anyway). I see blame Trump for Clinton’s horrible garbage.
As a co-conspirator to whoever is responsible for the hack, either for agreeing to it, or for helping to disseminate it for profit after the fact. There may also be direct criminal liability for knowingly accepting stolen goods, but I don’t know about the application of that concept in hacking cases.
This doesn’t matter for purpose of determining if he committed a crime.
This also does not matter for purpose of determining if he committed a crime.
The FBI is biased, the media is biased, the judges are biased, the facts are biased, reality is biased, all against Trump. Everything that keeps Trump’s ridiculous nature in check is what they attack and make up lies about, in order to sustain their delusional sense of self righteousness