LawTalkers - I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.

Of course they had those conversations. Who wouldn't? After the first drips from Wikileaks, it was clear Russia was sitting on a treasure trove of information damaging to Hillary and the DNC.

The important question is, was there communication which would qualify as criminal? Again, given the sophistication of the Russians, I'd have to say no. Given the idiocy of the low level Trump soldiers like Stone, I'd say some infantry there might be charged with crimes.

It's got an Iran/Contra kind of feel to it. You know some shenanigans took place, but nothing really sexy will be pinned on any of the people who matter.

A real criminal conspiracy at the highest levels would require Putin's people trusting Trump and his people. I just don't see the Russians ever doing that. Keeping the Trump people in the dark adequately enough to provide plausible deniability seems a baseline necessity.* It'd be spy malpractice to do otherwise.

__________
* ETA: In this regard, it has an Iraq/WMD bullshit campaign feel to it.

Over our lifetime, there have been two things you can say with a very high level of confidence:

(1) When the Russian Party investigates someone, it is usually a crock of shit and goes no where (e.g., Benghazi). They use investigations themselves to punish people, rather than to find the guilty.

(2) When Dems investigate, someone goes to jail. Plame, Iran-contra, Watergate....

I'd speculate the reason for this is that the Dems have a constituency that is less villagers with pitchforks, the Russian party gets together at a convention and encourages everyone to scream "Lock her up" to unsubstantiated allegations of conduct that isn't even illegal.

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

03-23-2017 02:41 PM

Re: I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SEC_Chick (Post 506350)

The GOP won the House, Senate and WH largely on the promise to repeal and replace Obamacare. Only they could screw it up so badly. I have even called my dumbass congressman to tell him to vote no on the AHCA, and he has a local town hall on Saturday, which Mr. Chick will be attending, so we'll see what he has to say. Of course, he's a dumbass, so I fully expect him to vote for the bill. The best assessment I have seen regarding ACA vs. AHCA is that under the ACA, the government gives you money to buy insurance, while under the AHCA, the government gives you money to buy insurance. The AHCA is definitively no better than the ACA, and I reserve judgment on whether or not it is actually worse. Trump went to give the hard sell and lost votes in the process. I sure hope he checks out the Art of the Deal to learn some negotiation skills for the future. It is disheartening to see so many former conservatives buying into this binary choice nonsense. As if the only two options really were the ACA as enacted and the crap bill they've proposed.

If I were Manafort, and under investigation by the FBI, I'd probably be living on the ground floor, employing a food taster, and investing in a Geiger counter about now.

I have been wholly impressed with the Gorsuch hearings, and I didn't think it possible, but now I love Ben Sasse even more. I think it would be a mistake for Schumer to mount a filibuster, but I also thought it was a mistake to sit out Garland. Schumer's bet is that Trump is a one term President, but as much as I hate the guy, I don't have any confidence that the Dems could beat him on a second try, even as unpopular as he is. See the efforts to play up Chelsea's "spicy" online persona, which make me throw up in my mouth.

Sasse is ok by me.

The Republicans ran on repealing a bill they never engaged with, and still haven't engaged with. They need a few years debating health care policy and deciding where they stand. Last time they had that debate here in Massachusetts, the Republicans, being fiscally conservative sorts who liked to work through the markets, fiercely advocated a mandate....

But then, Romney, whom I respect but detest, was indeed a principled Republican.

ThurgreedMarshall

03-23-2017 02:41 PM

Re: Foxes in the Henhouse

Quote:

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 506344)

No one but people who already hate Trump, and Graham and McCain, care that his campaign opportunistically worked with Russians.

I'm sorry, but this is completely untrue. And I'm not going to argue with you about it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 506344)

Trump himself encouraged Russians to release HRC emails, on TV. What's the "big reveal" where the candidate himself already admitted the crime?

You think they'll find some conversation in which Manafort directed Russians to hack HRC? Fantasy. The only people likely to be ensnared here are useful idiots like Stone.

It's not illegal to talk to Russians. It's not illegal to tell Russians, "Hey. Keep those Wikileaks releases coming! They're really helping us." And there's no way this goes all the way to Trump. He'd probably be dumb enough to talk to Russians himself, but Putin's people aren't dumb enough to have allowed that to happen. Putin had to keep the Trump people in the dark enough to provide credible deniability. The best I think we'll find here is vague conversations that suggest collusion, but nothing proving direct coordination in any criminal act.

And then there's the final defense: "There is no evidence of the Russians, or anyone else, hacking into voting systems and physically changing votes." (Because that's pretty much impossible.)

The most the Dems get out of this is, "These dirty Trump people opportunistically worked in tandem with the Russians to smear HRC and the DNC and make them look bad. We think this changed the outcome."

Retort: "Tell us something we didn't already know."

Retort 2: "All's fair in politics."

Retort 3: "This is not illegal."

Hence, no there there. Politically, it's meh...

I think you actually think that I am looking at this from a "Who wins this political game" viewpoint. I'm not. If Trump's administration was colluding with the Russians to subvert our election and was coordinating DNC leaks to gain an advantage, that's treason in my opinion. I would feel the exact same way if it were the Obama administration.

Your ability to cordon this off in your mind such that it's just politics, combined, of course, with the conclusions you've just pulled straight out of your ass about what will be found, would be amazing if I didn't already know you. But because it's you, I'll just add it to your overwhelming list of bullshit.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 506344)

But the ACA debacle? That's a huge winner for the Dems. Monster embarrassment for not just Trump, but the entire GOP. I'd focus there and stop chasing this Russia stuff. Indicting Roger Stone, the best it'll yield, is Page Three crap.

Again, not a political game. Actual lives will be lost and people will be hurt if it's passed.

And I've already said that the Republicans lose whether this is passed or not. I think the Democrats are clearly not voting for this piece of shit for substantive reasons. And I think they're prepared to tie this shit-anvil around Republicans' necks for the foreseeable future no matter how it goes for political reasons.

TM

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

03-23-2017 02:56 PM

Re: Foxes in the Henhouse

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall (Post 506353)

And I've already said that the Republicans lose whether this is passed or not. I think the Democrats are clearly not voting for this piece of shit for substantive reasons. And I think they're prepared to tie this shit-anvil around Republicans' necks for the foreseeable future no matter how it goes for political reasons.

TM

Bingo.

If they pass it, both Dems and everyone effected will be deeply pissed at them.

If they fail to pass it, both Republicans and everyone affected will be deeply pissed at them.

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

03-23-2017 03:38 PM

Re: Foxes in the Henhouse

Round One on health care repeal to the good guys!

sebastian_dangerfield

03-23-2017 03:52 PM

Re: Foxes in the Henhouse

Quote:

If Trump's administration was colluding with the Russians to subvert our election and was coordinating DNC leaks to gain an advantage, that's treason in my opinion.

If they did so to hack the computers to illegally change votes, clearly illegal. If they did so with the intent of helping the hackers to gain access to information illegally, clearly criminal. Not treason, but criminal.

But getting info from Russians that a Wikileaks dump is about to happen, and what it will disclose, is not illegal.

Quote:

I would feel the exact same way if it were the Obama administration.

Obama went to England and directly threatened to put it "at the back of a queue" if it voted for Brexit. That's direct interference by us in a foreign election. It's also entirely legal (and we interfere in foreign elections in far less palatable manners indirectly all the time). Yet we have the temerity to have a fit when the Russians dox Hillary?

sebastian_dangerfield

03-23-2017 03:59 PM

Re: Foxes in the Henhouse

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adder (Post 506349)

Anyone who was smart enough not to put themselves in a compromising position.

First of all, if they're already helping you, why do you need to talk to them?

Second, you have to be smart enough to know that talking to them exposes you, because they can use that fact against you whenever they want (also, you need to be smart enough to know we're monitoring their communications).

It's not illegal to talk to them. Not in the least.

The line where things become illegal is when you coordinate with them to engage in illegal acts. Talking about the substance and timing of Wikileaks dumps re HRC and the DNC (which are not illegal) is not illegal.

But, yes, the most careful strategy is to communicate only by telecasting through actions and coded public statements how you'd prefer the Russians to assist. That's belt-and-suspenders. However, if you want to talk, as long as you don't talk about doing something illegal together, sharing info on a shared competitor is not illegal. Unsavory, dirty, un-American arguably? Yeah. But not illegal. Otherwise, Trump could've been indicted when he publicly asked Russia to dump HRC's emails.

greatwhitenorthchick

03-23-2017 04:00 PM

Re: Foxes in the Henhouse

Quote:

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 506355)

Round One on health care repeal to the good guys!

I just don't see a way out of this mess for them. Even if they manage to appease sufficient freedom caucus members and moderates in the house, the bill will be a cobbled together piece of shit that may not survive the Senate and if it does, will piss off constituents whose premiums/deductibles go up or they lose coverage (including old people, who actually vote). The ACA cost Obama the House and Senate, so Trump should really be treading more lightly than he is. (Trump treading lightly -- never going to happen).

sebastian_dangerfield

03-23-2017 04:02 PM

Re: Foxes in the Henhouse

Quote:

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 506351)

Ollie North = Roger Stone

sebastian_dangerfield

03-23-2017 04:03 PM

Re: Foxes in the Henhouse

Quote:

Originally Posted by greatwhitenorthchick (Post 506358)

He fucked up. Should have done tax reform first. Now he's made a right mess of both HC and taxes.

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

03-23-2017 04:11 PM

Re: Foxes in the Henhouse

Quote:

Originally Posted by greatwhitenorthchick (Post 506358)

Look, healthcare has been a third rail the Dems have burned themselves on repeatedly. We get a sort of once-a-decade implosion trying to do healthcare policy.

But, from all that, a huge proportion of Dems have real healthcare expertise and are sincerely trying to figure out how to do it better, and Obamacare made a very significant contribution to improving the cost and quality of healthcare as a result.

My best advice for Rs now that they've touched the third rail a bit -- go learn. Right now the elected official the Russian Party has with the most healthcare expertise is, once again, a Massachusetts governor. Bill Frist knows a little something, too. Cling to them, give them the ball, and stop just trying to impose Randian economics on the area. But I can give you all that advice with no fear you'll ever take it.

ThurgreedMarshall

03-23-2017 04:11 PM

Re: Foxes in the Henhouse

Quote:

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 506356)

If they did so to hack the computers to illegally change votes, clearly illegal.

I don't know why you keep bringing this up. I don't think anyone thinks this happened.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 506356)

If they did so with the intent of helping the hackers to gain access to information illegally, clearly criminal. Not treason, but criminal.

trea·son ˈtrēzən noun
the crime of betraying one's country, especially by attempting to kill the sovereign or overthrow the government.

If the Russians said, "We can access DNC records, do you want us to do it?" or "What do you want?" or "Who should we focus on?" and anyone on the Trump campaign answers that question, that's treason, as far as I'm concerned.

If the Russians already hacked the information and contacted the Trump campaign in order to coordinate release of information based on maximizing political fallout to influence the election, that's treason, as far as I'm concerned.

But the main point is: Who the fuck knows what they were doing? I am shocked that you would put it past any of the assholes working on that campaign to be doing the most nefarious, criminal, unethical, awful shit.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 506356)

But getting info from Russians that a Wikileaks dump is about to happen, and what it will disclose, is not illegal.

This is not insight.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 506356)

Just fucking stop it. This response is so ridiculous it's below even you. Jesus Christ.

TM

SEC_Chick

03-23-2017 04:21 PM

Re: Foxes in the Henhouse

Quote:

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 506360)

He fucked up. Should have done tax reform first. Now he's made a right mess of both HC and taxes.

And now that the Koch brothers have pledged to fund Rs who vote against the AHCA, the threat of the primary challenge is somewhat diminished. I will say that I have heard statements from conservative House members like: "We have received 800 calls against and only 4 in favor of the bill." I don't think all, or even most, of those calls are from people who stand to lose under the AHCA. The approve/disapprove of AHCA is only 41/24 from Republicans. Independents are at 14/58. It's not just unpopular with people who want to continue to receive things paid for by others. Few arguments piss me off more than the garbage about the binary choice, and that if you refuse to vote for the crap sandwich being served up, that you are voting for Obamacare.

But don't get me wrong, I understand that voting against your own interest is only stupid when Rs do it, and is "enlightened" when it's done by liberals.

Adder

03-23-2017 04:55 PM

Re: I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SEC_Chick (Post 506350)

I think it would be a mistake for Schumer to mount a filibuster

Like, what's the mistake? The GOP majority isn't going to let them use the filibuster to block him, so they change the rules and he gets confirmed. Meanwhile, they can say they did everything possible to keep an extremist out of a illegitimately open appointment.

The alternative is they let Gorsuch be confirmed because he's qualified and then attempt but ultimately fail to filibuster the next guy, if there is a next guy, because he's unqualified, if he's unqualified.

My point being they're only going to get one opportunity to make this symbolic stand. They might as well do it for the guy being appointed to a stolen seat.

Especially as there might not be a next guy, or the next guy might be just as qualified.

Adder

03-23-2017 05:00 PM

Re: Foxes in the Henhouse

Quote:

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 506356)

But getting info from Russians that a Wikileaks dump is about to happen, and what it will disclose, is not illegal.

It's not? I'm nothing near a cybersecurity expert (pretty sure you aren't either), but coordinating the timing of a release, for example, is conspiratorial conduct, I'm sure there are arguments the release itself is illegal and the hack itself, as part of the conspiracy, definitely is. And then there's got to be laws against participating in foreign espionage.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:32 PM.

Page 286 of 336

286

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page