Trump Jr and Russian Government WORK AGAINST CLINTON

[_beastie]

Meeting with someone isn't necessarily "collusion." I have a friend who was closely associated with the Romney campaigns, and he said that all the candidates get dirt on everyone else. They have big files with all the information they dig up, and it's up to the campaign managers to strategize what they want to use and how they want to use it (how to release it, who to release it to, when to release it etc.) to do the most damage.

I don't think anyone is very concerned with where the information comes from, as long as it's true (and maybe some of them don't even worry about that). But obviously "demonstrably true" is better than rumors and innuendo.

So if a Russian lawyer, even with admitted connections to the Russian government tells the Trump campaign "Hey, we have some information about Clinton that could win you the campaign", I don't see what the problem is with them trying to get that information, or at least meeting with them to find out what's going on. Maybe if it they said "Hey, we have some information about Clinton and if we give it to you we want you to back off in Syria and Ukraine if you win" then that's a little more problematic.

And I would say the same thing if it was the Clinton campaign meeting with someone from another country. If someone rang up Huma Abedin and said "Hey, I'm from a country that deals with Trump and I have some information that would be devastating to his campaign", I wouldn't be surprised or scandalized if she took that meeting. I would expect it.

This isn't the same as a Russian agent saying "Hey, we've hacked the DNC and are taking other actions to throw the election your way. If you promise us to back off in Syria and Ukraine after the election, we'll throw it to you", which would be much more problematic.

I want to be clear I understand you. It seems to me that you are saying you have no problem with the Trump campaign working with someone who had been identified as a "government lawyer" from the Kremlin to get dirt on Clinton.

Correct me if I misunderstood you. My comment here is based on that understanding.

It's one thing to get oppo research from a country that shares our interest in liberal democracy, like England or Canada. It's another thing to get oppo research from a country as openly hostile to liberal democracy as Russia currently is. In the first case, we can assume that we have shared interests in protecting liberal democracy, even though we may have political differences. In the second case, we can assume that Russia is (pretty openly) working to undermine liberal democracies wherever they may be.

Liberal democracy is the foundation of our nation. Working with a country who would like to see that foundation eroded seems, well, highly problematic to me. But not to you?

[_The CCC]

In other words IOKIYAR.

[_cinepro]

I want to be clear I understand you. It seems to me that you are saying you have no problem with the Trump campaign working with someone who had been identified as a "government lawyer" from the Kremlin to get dirt on Clinton.

Correct me if I misunderstood you. My comment here is based on that understanding.

It's one thing to get oppo research from a country that shares our interest in liberal democracy, like England or Canada. It's another thing to get oppo research from a country as openly hostile to liberal democracy as Russia currently is. In the first case, we can assume that we have shared interests in protecting liberal democracy, even though we may have political differences. In the second case, we can assume that Russia is (pretty openly) working to undermine liberal democracies wherever they may be.

Liberal democracy is the foundation of our nation. Working with a country who would like to see that foundation eroded seems, well, highly problematic to me. But not to you?

First of all, I'm not spending a lot of time reading about this, so I'm just going off the broad strokes I've heard:

Trump campaign is told a Russian lawyer has dirt on Clinton. Meet with her and find out she doesn't have anything. Fail to report that meeting to whoever we would expect such a meeting to be reported to.

Like I said, if the same accusations were made against the Clinton campaign, I would be similarly unsurprised. Saudi Arabia isn't exactly a supporter of "liberal democracy" but their support of Clinton was deemed highly-unproblematic by her supporters. Depending on your views about the degree of Saudi Arabian support for 9/11, this could be worse than Russian support. I'd be interested to hear an explanation about how one is worse than another.

I'm not saying that "Clinton did it so it's okay that Trump did it." I'm saying "I'm not at all surprised and anyone who pretends to be shocked or surprised about Trump jr. meeting with the Russian lawyer is either woefully disingenuous or sadly naïve." If he broke any rules or laws, then we have a mechanism in place to deal with it, but it's not giving me the vapors in the meantime.

[_The CCC]

If I were to collude/conspire with a drug dealer to buy a bag of cocaine, and arranged to meet with him, received a baggy of white powder that later turned out to be talcum powder. I'm still guilty of collusion/conspiracy.

Here is what is at stake.
SEE https://www.democraticunderground.com/1017448216

[_beastie]

First of all, I'm not spending a lot of time reading about this, so I'm just going off the broad strokes I've heard:

Trump campaign is told a Russian lawyer has dirt on Clinton. Meet with her and find out she doesn't have anything. Fail to report that meeting to whoever we would expect such a meeting to be reported to.

Like I said, if the same accusations were made against the Clinton campaign, I would be similarly unsurprised. Saudi Arabia isn't exactly a supporter of "liberal democracy" but their support of Clinton was deemed highly-unproblematic by her supporters. Depending on your views about the degree of Saudi Arabian support for 9/11, this could be worse than Russian support. I'd be interested to hear an explanation about how one is worse than another.

I'm not saying that "Clinton did it so it's okay that Trump did it." I'm saying "I'm not at all surprised and anyone who pretends to be shocked or surprised about Trump jr. meeting with the Russian lawyer is either woefully disingenuous or sadly naïve." If he broke any rules or laws, then we have a mechanism in place to deal with it, but it's not giving me the vapors in the meantime.

Clinton certainly is not unique in her willingness to cozy up to the Saudis. I think just about every politician we've ever had has done the same. I agree it's morally repugnant.

However, Russia isn't just hostile to liberal democracies. It's actively trying to undermine western liberal democracies. I'm not an expert, but it seems clear to me that Putin wants to rebuild the empire and that Nato stands in the way. So he's not only tried to undermine and attack the very foundation of our liberal democracy, but those of other countries as well. That's why Russia is in a special category in terms of threatening the foundation of our liberal democracy that Saudi Arabia is not, and never was. (as horrific as 9/11 was, it wasn't a threat to the very foundation of our liberal democracy)

by the way, I certainly am not shocked that Trump colluded with the Russians. I was confident all along that he had. I do find it troubling that some Republicans don't find it disturbing in the least. But hey, Putin's popularity among Republicans has surged lately, so I guess that's not surprising either.

[_Some Schmo]

First of all, I'm not spending a lot of time reading about this, so I'm just going off the broad strokes I've heard:

Well then maybe it would be wise to educate yourself on the matter before forming an opinion on a message board.

[_beastie]

by the way, the email said this contact was "part" of Russia's attempts to help Trump get elected. What were the other parts? And I wonder why Trump Jr didn't express confusion about this line.

[_EAllusion]

First of all, I'm not spending a lot of time reading about this, so I'm just going off the broad strokes I've heard:

Trump campaign is told a Russian lawyer has dirt on Clinton. Meet with her and find out she doesn't have anything. Fail to report that meeting to whoever we would expect such a meeting to be reported to.

The email chain refers to an already ongoing Russian campaign to support Trump the recipients of the email are implied to know about. It refers to other contacts and implies an off-email phone conversation about the anti-Clinton material. And it occurs in the context of an extensive list of lies about other Russian contacts that Trump and his associates have floated out ranging from Flynn's deception regarding his contacts with the Russian ambassador to Kushner's deception regarding attempting to set up encrypted back-channels to Russia away from the eyes of US intelligence. It's not hard to connect the dots here. The list is very long.

Team Trump's willingness to cooperate with an offer of campaign assistance in the form of anti-Clinton intel from a foreign adversary seeking to undermine US democracy is bad enough; it's traitorous behavior, but this summary really short shrifts the full body of evidence for more extensive contacts out there.

It's quite plainly not as simple as a random contact promising to provide information and having none. The only reason we have to think that no information was shared was the word of Donald Trump Jr. who lied about the nature of the meeting in a span of several days at least 3 separate times. His word has no credibility and if anything, the opposite of what he says should be trusted. Regardless of what was discussed in that one meeting, we know the Russians later did attempt to interfere in the campaign through the release of hacked emails that, while relatively innocuous, were leaked to the press in waves with just the right timing to do maximum political damage to Clinton thus showing some understanding of US politics. Donald Trump Jr., in the leaked emails, understands this timing when he talks about wanting the damage "later this summer" in reference to the conventions. Why would you just assume nothing was shared?

Like I said, if the same accusations were made against the Clinton campaign, I would be similarly unsurprised. Saudi Arabia isn't exactly a supporter of "liberal democracy" but their support of Clinton was deemed highly-unproblematic by her supporters. Depending on your views about the degree of Saudi Arabian support for 9/11, this could be worse than Russian support. I'd be interested to hear an explanation about how one is worse than another.

Saudi Arabia didn't provide harmful information about Trump collected via espionage to aid the election of Clinton. Clinton didn't accept an offer of the same. Why would you think that is anywhere near the same as Saudi Arabian officials donating to the Clinton Foundation - primarily an AIDS charity - with some likely intent to earn goodwill with the Clintons? I'm genuinely curious why you think those are comparable. The distinction between these seems obvious enough. The former is part of an active attack on US democracy while the latter is not.

[_EAllusion]

This isn't directed specifically at Cinepro, but the amount of goodwill Trump and those in his orbit still get for saying things in good faith is just insane given their proclivity to lie in the most blatant ways imaginable about everything.

[_EAllusion]

Donald Trump Jr. :

No meeting occurred.
Ok, a meeting occurred, but it was just about adoption.
Ok, the meeting was about an offer of anti-Clinton intel, but it wasn't from the Russian government. My colleagues didn't know what it was about.
Ok, I believed it was from the Russian government, and my colleagues were informed of what it was about, but no collusion happened.
Ok, if collusion happened, that would be a smart thing to do, which is why I attempted it, but ultimately no useful information was shared. And when asked if I ever knew about Russian efforts to aid Trump, I lied over and over in many different ways until hard proof demonstrated otherwise. But who wouldn't?

I cut out several lies out of this evolution as it was getting long, but look at that. Look at it. Why, at that point, would you think to yourself. "Well, he said no useful information was provided. I guess I have no choice but to believe him."