As someone whose poltics are very leftist, things like the American left’s sudden insistence that, despite voluminous available evidence, Russia’s involvement in Trump’s rise is all liberal conspiracy theory makes me very weary.
As someone whose poltics are very leftist, things like the American left’s sudden insistence that, despite voluminous available evidence, Russia’s involvement in Trump’s rise is all liberal conspiracy theory makes me very weary.
The left is saying trump Russia is a liberal conspiracy?
As someone whose poltics are very leftist, things like the American left’s sudden insistence that, despite voluminous available evidence, Russia’s involvement in Trump’s rise is all liberal conspiracy theory makes me very weary.
The left is saying trump Russia is a liberal conspiracy?
It started after the election as a way to accuse Democrats of dodging bigger issues in the party by blaming Russia for Trump’s victory - which, yeah, is a discussion worth having - but has morphed into a larger rejection of any evidence that Russia was involved in the election and the idea that the anti-Russia rhetoric is just more imperialism and warmongering.
Phillishere on
+2
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
As someone whose poltics are very leftist, things like the American left’s sudden insistence that, despite voluminous available evidence, Russia’s involvement in Trump’s rise is all liberal conspiracy theory makes me very weary.
The left is saying trump Russia is a liberal conspiracy?
It started after the election as a way to accuse Democrats of dodging bigger issues in the party by blaming Russia for Trump’s victory - which, yeah, is a discussion worth having - but has morphed into a larger rejection of any evidence that Russia was involved in the election and the idea that the anti-Russia rhetoric is just more imperialism and warmongering.
As someone whose poltics are very leftist, things like the American left’s sudden insistence that, despite voluminous available evidence, Russia’s involvement in Trump’s rise is all liberal conspiracy theory makes me very weary.
The left is saying trump Russia is a liberal conspiracy?
It started after the election as a way to accuse Democrats of dodging bigger issues in the party by blaming Russia for Trump’s victory - which, yeah, is a discussion worth having - but has morphed into a larger rejection of any evidence that Russia was involved in the election and the idea that the anti-Russia rhetoric is just more imperialism and warmongering.
It's more deflection from the Greenwald set to avoid examining their own support for Russia in their desire for a counterbalance to the US.
As someone whose poltics are very leftist, things like the American left’s sudden insistence that, despite voluminous available evidence, Russia’s involvement in Trump’s rise is all liberal conspiracy theory makes me very weary.
The left is saying trump Russia is a liberal conspiracy?
It started after the election as a way to accuse Democrats of dodging bigger issues in the party by blaming Russia for Trump’s victory - which, yeah, is a discussion worth having - but has morphed into a larger rejection of any evidence that Russia was involved in the election and the idea that the anti-Russia rhetoric is just more imperialism and warmongering.
I uh
I haven't heard this at all.
Here’s an article that’s both an example and a discussion of the issue, but it is getting increasingly common -
As someone whose poltics are very leftist, things like the American left’s sudden insistence that, despite voluminous available evidence, Russia’s involvement in Trump’s rise is all liberal conspiracy theory makes me very weary.
The left is saying trump Russia is a liberal conspiracy?
It started after the election as a way to accuse Democrats of dodging bigger issues in the party by blaming Russia for Trump’s victory - which, yeah, is a discussion worth having - but has morphed into a larger rejection of any evidence that Russia was involved in the election and the idea that the anti-Russia rhetoric is just more imperialism and warmongering.
I uh
I haven't heard this at all.
Here’s an article that’s both an example and a discussion of the issue, but it is getting increasingly common -
Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if Labor had not first existed. Labor is superior to capital, and deserves much the higher consideration. - Lincoln
As someone whose poltics are very leftist, things like the American left’s sudden insistence that, despite voluminous available evidence, Russia’s involvement in Trump’s rise is all liberal conspiracy theory makes me very weary.
The left is saying trump Russia is a liberal conspiracy?
It started after the election as a way to accuse Democrats of dodging bigger issues in the party by blaming Russia for Trump’s victory - which, yeah, is a discussion worth having - but has morphed into a larger rejection of any evidence that Russia was involved in the election and the idea that the anti-Russia rhetoric is just more imperialism and warmongering.
I uh
I haven't heard this at all.
Here’s an article that’s both an example and a discussion of the issue, but it is getting increasingly common -
It’s a common problem in leftist history. Hatred of capitalism and colonialism too often leads to mystical thinking about the state actors and insurgent movements opposing them.
+5
Options
Lord_AsmodeusgoeticSobriquet:Here is your magical cryptic riddle-tumour: I AM A TIME MACHINERegistered Userregular
As someone whose poltics are very leftist, things like the American left’s sudden insistence that, despite voluminous available evidence, Russia’s involvement in Trump’s rise is all liberal conspiracy theory makes me very weary.
The left is saying trump Russia is a liberal conspiracy?
It started after the election as a way to accuse Democrats of dodging bigger issues in the party by blaming Russia for Trump’s victory - which, yeah, is a discussion worth having - but has morphed into a larger rejection of any evidence that Russia was involved in the election and the idea that the anti-Russia rhetoric is just more imperialism and warmongering.
I uh
I haven't heard this at all.
Here’s an article that’s both an example and a discussion of the issue, but it is getting increasingly common -
It’s a common problem in leftist history. Hatred of capitalism and colonialism too often leads to mystical thinking about the state actors and insurgent movements opposing them.
I... don't actually know what you mean here. Could you please clarify?
Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if Labor had not first existed. Labor is superior to capital, and deserves much the higher consideration. - Lincoln
As someone whose poltics are very leftist, things like the American left’s sudden insistence that, despite voluminous available evidence, Russia’s involvement in Trump’s rise is all liberal conspiracy theory makes me very weary.
The left is saying trump Russia is a liberal conspiracy?
It started after the election as a way to accuse Democrats of dodging bigger issues in the party by blaming Russia for Trump’s victory - which, yeah, is a discussion worth having - but has morphed into a larger rejection of any evidence that Russia was involved in the election and the idea that the anti-Russia rhetoric is just more imperialism and warmongering.
I uh
I haven't heard this at all.
Here’s an article that’s both an example and a discussion of the issue, but it is getting increasingly common -
It’s a common problem in leftist history. Hatred of capitalism and colonialism too often leads to mystical thinking about the state actors and insurgent movements opposing them.
I... don't actually know what you mean here. Could you please clarify?
It’s the tendency that led to the Beatles singing “Don’t go carrying around signs of Chairman Mao.” Emma Goldman and James Baldwin battled against it when they went to Russia, were horrifed, and ended up fighting with fellow leftists when they came back and reported what they saw. It is in the problematic nature of wearing Che t-shirts.
Leftists have a way of lionizing anti-colonialist and anti-capitalist figures who are themselves involved in atrocities. In this case, though, it is less idolizing Putin and more identifying all of the issues with Russia’s involvement as either fantasies of liberals working with the national security state, a minor issue that is blown of proportion for political gain, or just payback for all the meddling the U.S. does in foreign elections.
As someone whose poltics are very leftist, things like the American left’s sudden insistence that, despite voluminous available evidence, Russia’s involvement in Trump’s rise is all liberal conspiracy theory makes me very weary.
The left is saying trump Russia is a liberal conspiracy?
It started after the election as a way to accuse Democrats of dodging bigger issues in the party by blaming Russia for Trump’s victory - which, yeah, is a discussion worth having - but has morphed into a larger rejection of any evidence that Russia was involved in the election and the idea that the anti-Russia rhetoric is just more imperialism and warmongering.
I uh
I haven't heard this at all.
Here’s an article that’s both an example and a discussion of the issue, but it is getting increasingly common -
It’s a common problem in leftist history. Hatred of capitalism and colonialism too often leads to mystical thinking about the state actors and insurgent movements opposing them.
I... don't actually know what you mean here. Could you please clarify?
To shorthand: Capitalism and Imperialism suck! Therefore America sucks. Therefore anybody who opposes them is great. Ignore that pile of corpses behind the curtain.
Its the tendency to laud people like Stalin, Castro, Che Guevara while ignoring their crimes. If you want a modern political figure who actually does this. I invite you to look at Jeremy Corbyn (not the only example, just the easiest)
In the 2016 election this gets expressed as "Russia didn't interfere in the election. The Democrats just didn't run someone progressive enough. And if the Russians did interfere, America interferes in elections all the time, so they shouldn't complain."
I figure that the impromptu meeting, which hasn't been confirmed yet btw, is just due to diplomacy actually being important still
This seems like an incredibly charitable read on the situation when it comes to Putin and Trump, even with the Crimean escalation currently ongoing.
How is it charitable? I think it's just the most basic explanation.
The most basic explanation is that when you, your staff, your kids, and your old cronies are all directly involved in a massive corruption and possible treason scandal that just had a major player flip, meeting with the leader of the country implicated in it is a very bad idea. Especially after what happened in Helsinki.
I'll note that I don't disagree with your point about diplomacy being necessary. But even if the scandal wasn't a thing, I would argue the danger of Trump's inability to negotiate and stunning incompetence isn't offset by any good diplomacy that could come out of a meeting. And you know, if he hadn't gutted state, they could use back channel diplomats to accomplish the same thing while saving Trump the embarrassment of being told he's going to meet.
If I were Cohen's security detail, I'd be very uncomfortable this weekend, and then also for the next two years.
As someone whose poltics are very leftist, things like the American left’s sudden insistence that, despite voluminous available evidence, Russia’s involvement in Trump’s rise is all liberal conspiracy theory makes me very weary.
The left is saying trump Russia is a liberal conspiracy?
It started after the election as a way to accuse Democrats of dodging bigger issues in the party by blaming Russia for Trump’s victory - which, yeah, is a discussion worth having - but has morphed into a larger rejection of any evidence that Russia was involved in the election and the idea that the anti-Russia rhetoric is just more imperialism and warmongering.
I uh
I haven't heard this at all.
Here’s an article that’s both an example and a discussion of the issue, but it is getting increasingly common -
It’s a common problem in leftist history. Hatred of capitalism and colonialism too often leads to mystical thinking about the state actors and insurgent movements opposing them.
I... don't actually know what you mean here. Could you please clarify?
It’s the tendency that led to the Beatles singing “Don’t go carrying around signs of Chairman Mao.” Emma Goldman and James Baldwin battled against it when they went to Russia, were horrifed, and ended up fighting with fellow leftists when they came back and reported what they saw. It is in the problematic nature of wearing Che t-shirts.
Leftists have a way of lionizing anti-colonialist and anti-capitalist figures who are themselves involved in atrocities. In this case, though, it is less idolizing Putin and more identifying all of the issues with Russia’s involvement as either fantasies of liberals working with the national security state, a minor issue that is blown of proportion for political gain, or just payback for all the meddling the U.S. does in foreign elections.
Not on topic. Move on.
+1
Options
ElJeffeRoaming the streets, waving his mod gun around.Moderator, ClubPAMod Emeritus
That said, the mainstream American left is pretty unified on the idea that Trump colluded with Russia in some manner because Russia had an interest in sowing as much confusion and divisiveness as possible, that the Mueller investigation is finding a hell of a lot of evidence to support this, and that we have to keep the investigation going to see how far these connections go. To the extent there's any disagreement, it's over how much noise the House dems should be making about impeachment so as to not scare off moderates.
Hell, even a lot of the right accepts that Trump colluded with Russia, they just assert that collusion isn't illegal so we should shut up about it.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
I loathe, loathe that talking point, mostly because I've seen no one fight back on it. Yes, the act of collusion isn't illegal, it's what you colluded to do that's the problem!
"Your honor, yes, I planned to kill that man, but may I remind the court, premeditation isn't a crime. I rest my case."
I figure that the impromptu meeting, which hasn't been confirmed yet btw, is just due to diplomacy actually being important still
This seems like an incredibly charitable read on the situation when it comes to Putin and Trump, even with the Crimean escalation currently ongoing.
How is it charitable? I think it's just the most basic explanation.
Because when has Trump cared about diplomacy?
I didn't mean to imply Trump wanted the meeting. Hell I don't think he wanted to cancel it either. But my point is that the world, and Russia and the USA themselves, needs them to be on an at least semi-official open channel. Trump might not care, but the entire structure of the US government might, and I see no reason to assume Trump cares enough the other way that he would go against that.
I said basic because I think Trump completely doesn't give a shit here. None of this matters to him. But that just means the decisions are made below him. And I don't think it's particularly charitable to assume the general government machine wants open channels and communication at this moment.
I loathe, loathe that talking point, mostly because I've seen no one fight back on it. Yes, the act of collusion isn't illegal, it's what you colluded to do that's the problem!
"Your honor, yes, I planned to kill that man, but may I remind the court, premeditation isn't a crime. I rest my case."
The act of collusion is itself illegal regardless of what you’re planning to do when it comes to elections.
I loathe, loathe that talking point, mostly because I've seen no one fight back on it. Yes, the act of collusion isn't illegal, it's what you colluded to do that's the problem!
"Your honor, yes, I planned to kill that man, but may I remind the court, premeditation isn't a crime. I rest my case."
The act of collusion is itself illegal regardless of what you’re planning to do when it comes to elections.
I have been thinking about this quote which I thought was from Shakespeare, but is apparently from a contemporary of his called John Harington:
Treason never prospers. Why, if it Prospers, none dare call it treason.
I would like to add:
They have to call it Collusion instead.
Seriously, The current president of the United States of America asked a foreign power to help him win the election for president.
The mere act of asking is crossing the line into treason and not the "refusing to stand for the national anthem" kind, but the Hemp rope around the neck, hanged until you are dead kind. Doesn't matter what interpretation of the Constitution you have, its Treason.
Its actually kind of scary to say aloud, because once you do, you can't really take it back.
The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
n two major developments this week, President Trump has been labeled in the parlance of criminal investigations as a major subject of interest, complete with an opaque legal code name: “Individual 1.”
New evidence from two separate fronts of special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s investigation casts fresh doubts on Trump’s version of key events involving Russia, signaling potential political and legal peril for the president. Investigators have now publicly cast Trump as a central figure of their probe into whether Trump’s campaign conspired with the Russian government during the 2016 campaign.
Together, the documents show investigators have evidence that Trump was in close contact with his lieutenants as they made outreach to both Russia and WikiLeaks — and that they tried to conceal the extent of their activities.
Individual 1 jumped to the head as a title of the eventual movie adaption of this crazy time line.
I loathe, loathe that talking point, mostly because I've seen no one fight back on it. Yes, the act of collusion isn't illegal, it's what you colluded to do that's the problem!
"Your honor, yes, I planned to kill that man, but may I remind the court, premeditation isn't a crime. I rest my case."
The act of collusion is itself illegal regardless of what you’re planning to do when it comes to elections.
Yeah, which is why I said it's what you were going to do that makes it illegal.
I loathe, loathe that talking point, mostly because I've seen no one fight back on it. Yes, the act of collusion isn't illegal, it's what you colluded to do that's the problem!
"Your honor, yes, I planned to kill that man, but may I remind the court, premeditation isn't a crime. I rest my case."
The act of collusion is itself illegal regardless of what you’re planning to do when it comes to elections.
What does the act of collusion mean though? like, half the time I think Trump is just saying "we've only been doing the regular kind of crime we always do. Why is it now collusion?"
Republicans are actually right that collusion is not a crime. Conspiracy, and specifically conspiracy against the United States, is. I think people mean by collusion in this context the act of conspiracy against the United States with foreign (state) actors, obviously a crime. There are very few cases where collusion, for example price fixing, wage fixing, or three-card monte, is not a crime.
that said, while it makes little sense to care most of the time, one can theoretically agree to deceive without actually doing it. like, you plan a fraud and then you don't do it and it doesn't happen. the obvious problem for the Trump team, of course, is that it did happen. Even if you can argue/prove that you agreed with the other to steal something but backed out and didn't help, the fact that it still happened is a problem. Unless you can show that you never helped, you are guilty of failure to report. You are in the conspiracy still. Backing out at the last moment is not a defense usually.
"the mere act of asking" is probably not a crime, but anything after that probably is. Probably very hard to prove if the help was well hidden and not money/goods. Too easy to sow reasonable doubt.
(I mean, I think Trump straight "asked" Russia for help on tv because getting prosecuted for that is a stretch. Free speech, not responsible for actions of others, didn't mean that, etc. Probably not smart given it was part of the reason to start an investigation though... :P )
0
Options
ElJeffeRoaming the streets, waving his mod gun around.Moderator, ClubPAMod Emeritus
edited December 2018
The thing I get stuck on is, okay, I am not a legal expert, and I am fine conceding that it's possible that, even if Trump was colluding with the Russians, or conspiring with Russians, he might not have done anything illegal. I have heard it explained that "conspiracy" is only a crime if the conspiracy is to commit a crime, so maybe it's possible that Trump was sitting back in literal smoke filled rooms talking about how they were going to share dirt on Hillary and Trump even said that if Putin helped him out he would totally lift sanctions on Russia, and somehow, SOMEHOW, this was all technically legal.
Fine, let's go with that.
Isn't that still something that MAAAAAYBE we should kind of give a shit about? Like, I know we're lowering our standards here, but shouldn't "conspiring with hostile foreign powers" be just a bad thing that we don't do?
It's just.
GAAAAAAAAAAAH.
WHYYYYYY.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
The thing I get stuck on is, okay, I am not a legal expert, and I am fine conceding that it's possible that, even if Trump was colluding with the Russians, or conspiring with Russians, he might not have done anything illegal. I have heard it explained that "conspiracy" is only a crime if the conspiracy is to commit a crime, so maybe it's possible that Trump was sitting back in literal smoke filled rooms talking about how they were going to share dirt on Hillary and Trump even said that if Putin helped him out he would totally lift sanctions on Russia, and somehow, SOMEHOW, this was all technically illegal.
Fine, let's go with that.
Isn't that still something that MAAAAAYBE we should kind of give a shit about? Like, I know we're lowering our standards here, but shouldn't "conspiring with hostile foreign powers" be just a bad thing that we don't do?
It's just.
GAAAAAAAAAAAH.
WHYYYYYY.
Republicans created an environment that attracts dirtbags, so now they either need to be A-OK with what shitheads like Trump, Kavanaugh, Moore etc. etc. do, or cede whole swaths of the government to the Democrats without a fight. They'd rather fight tooth and nail in favor of the most deplorable people, even if they lose, than take a moral stand against them and definitely lose.
The thing I get stuck on is, okay, I am not a legal expert, and I am fine conceding that it's possible that, even if Trump was colluding with the Russians, or conspiring with Russians, he might not have done anything illegal. I have heard it explained that "conspiracy" is only a crime if the conspiracy is to commit a crime, so maybe it's possible that Trump was sitting back in literal smoke filled rooms talking about how they were going to share dirt on Hillary and Trump even said that if Putin helped him out he would totally lift sanctions on Russia, and somehow, SOMEHOW, this was all technically illegal.
Fine, let's go with that.
Isn't that still something that MAAAAAYBE we should kind of give a shit about? Like, I know we're lowering our standards here, but shouldn't "conspiring with hostile foreign powers" be just a bad thing that we don't do?
It's just.
GAAAAAAAAAAAH.
WHYYYYYY.
Republicans created an environment that attracts dirtbags, so now they either need to be A-OK with what shitheads like Trump, Kavanaugh, Moore etc. etc. do, or cede whole swaths of the government to the Democrats without a fight. They'd rather fight tooth and nail in favor of the most deplorable people, even if they lose, than take a moral stand against them and definitely lose.
There is no law on the books about collusion, it's merely a press term - it's short hand for "conspiracy." That, you can go to jail for. The examples of price fixing etc can be a crime, as well, that's monopolising industries which can be against the law. Street hustling can both be against the law, and get you seriously in trouble with casinos.
It's looking like Trump did more than simply ask Russia to help on twitter, he was neck deep in this it seems to be from behind the scenes. Another aspect to the twitter this is that Russia did what he asked, this is very bad when we have growing evidence Trump's company and his campaign have a relationship revolving around conspiring against the US.
Rachel Maddow explains how the Trump Tower Moscow Project connects Michael Cohen, Felix Sater, KT MacFarlane, Mike Flynn, Dimitri Pescov, Maria Butina, VTB (Russian controlled bank), and Trump himself into one big conspiracy.
n two major developments this week, President Trump has been labeled in the parlance of criminal investigations as a major subject of interest, complete with an opaque legal code name: “Individual 1.”
New evidence from two separate fronts of special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s investigation casts fresh doubts on Trump’s version of key events involving Russia, signaling potential political and legal peril for the president. Investigators have now publicly cast Trump as a central figure of their probe into whether Trump’s campaign conspired with the Russian government during the 2016 campaign.
Together, the documents show investigators have evidence that Trump was in close contact with his lieutenants as they made outreach to both Russia and WikiLeaks — and that they tried to conceal the extent of their activities.
Individual 1 jumped to the head as a title of the eventual movie adaption of this crazy time line.
I'm kind of curious which way this conclusion is going to slide, because as I've said in the past their are only three possiblities regarding trump and russia (all of which void his worthiness for the office he now holds):
The campaign organized this without his knowledge. This is perhaps the most generous posibility to Donald, in that he simply didn't realize that his campaign was riddled with people colluding with russia in order to secure his victory. While this hypothetically renders him "innocent", it's an incredibly bad look when a candidate didn't realize that his own staff and family were actively engaging in big T treason and as such anyone running against him would have an easy time portraying him as a mister magoo.
Trump was blackmailed. This is slightly more damning then the previous posibility since it suggests that trump was compromised (most likely by either ties to the russian mob or hell maybe the elusive pee tape) and rather then do the honorable thing that any citizen with an ounce of patriotism would do and withdraw, he went along with it and is now effectively on a short leash held by Vlad.
Trump was a willing participant. Easily the worst possibility since it allows for no mitigation of his avarice and treasonous position. This suggests that even if he didn't realize the moral bankruptcy of seeking aid from Russia he was in fact fully aware that this was happening and was fine with it.
I loathe, loathe that talking point, mostly because I've seen no one fight back on it. Yes, the act of collusion isn't illegal, it's what you colluded to do that's the problem!
"Your honor, yes, I planned to kill that man, but may I remind the court, premeditation isn't a crime. I rest my case."
The act of collusion is itself illegal regardless of what you’re planning to do when it comes to elections.
What does the act of collusion mean though? like, half the time I think Trump is just saying "we've only been doing the regular kind of crime we always do. Why is it now collusion?"
Republicans are actually right that collusion is not a crime. Conspiracy, and specifically conspiracy against the United States, is. I think people mean by collusion in this context the act of conspiracy against the United States with foreign (state) actors, obviously a crime. There are very few cases where collusion, for example price fixing, wage fixing, or three-card monte, is not a crime.
that said, while it makes little sense to care most of the time, one can theoretically agree to deceive without actually doing it. like, you plan a fraud and then you don't do it and it doesn't happen. the obvious problem for the Trump team, of course, is that it did happen. Even if you can argue/prove that you agreed with the other to steal something but backed out and didn't help, the fact that it still happened is a problem. Unless you can show that you never helped, you are guilty of failure to report. You are in the conspiracy still. Backing out at the last moment is not a defense usually.
"the mere act of asking" is probably not a crime, but anything after that probably is. Probably very hard to prove if the help was well hidden and not money/goods. Too easy to sow reasonable doubt.
(I mean, I think Trump straight "asked" Russia for help on tv because getting prosecuted for that is a stretch. Free speech, not responsible for actions of others, didn't mean that, etc. Probably not smart given it was part of the reason to start an investigation though... :P )
Oh, so this whole thing is just another "well ack-shully you can't have treason without a declaration of war" hair splitting?
+8
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
I loathe, loathe that talking point, mostly because I've seen no one fight back on it. Yes, the act of collusion isn't illegal, it's what you colluded to do that's the problem!
"Your honor, yes, I planned to kill that man, but may I remind the court, premeditation isn't a crime. I rest my case."
The act of collusion is itself illegal regardless of what you’re planning to do when it comes to elections.
What does the act of collusion mean though? like, half the time I think Trump is just saying "we've only been doing the regular kind of crime we always do. Why is it now collusion?"
Republicans are actually right that collusion is not a crime. Conspiracy, and specifically conspiracy against the United States, is. I think people mean by collusion in this context the act of conspiracy against the United States with foreign (state) actors, obviously a crime. There are very few cases where collusion, for example price fixing, wage fixing, or three-card monte, is not a crime.
that said, while it makes little sense to care most of the time, one can theoretically agree to deceive without actually doing it. like, you plan a fraud and then you don't do it and it doesn't happen. the obvious problem for the Trump team, of course, is that it did happen. Even if you can argue/prove that you agreed with the other to steal something but backed out and didn't help, the fact that it still happened is a problem. Unless you can show that you never helped, you are guilty of failure to report. You are in the conspiracy still. Backing out at the last moment is not a defense usually.
"the mere act of asking" is probably not a crime, but anything after that probably is. Probably very hard to prove if the help was well hidden and not money/goods. Too easy to sow reasonable doubt.
(I mean, I think Trump straight "asked" Russia for help on tv because getting prosecuted for that is a stretch. Free speech, not responsible for actions of others, didn't mean that, etc. Probably not smart given it was part of the reason to start an investigation though... :P )
Oh, so this whole thing is just another "well ack-shully you can't have treason without a declaration of war" hair splitting?
Yes, though treason is a crime. It is "oh those things weren't a crime, and if they were a crime i didn't do it and shouldn't be a crime, actually I did do it because I care so much".
It is their talking point, and the only way to deal with it is going "ok, so?". it's legalese trying to obscure the person talked about is the president.
The campaign organized this without his knowledge. This is perhaps the most generous posibility to Donald, in that he simply didn't realize that his campaign was riddled with people colluding with russia in order to secure his victory. While this hypothetically renders him "innocent", it's an incredibly bad look when a candidate didn't realize that his own staff and family were actively engaging in big T treason and as such anyone running against him would have an easy time portraying him as a mister magoo.
I mean, his own justice department is basically saying that he can't be held responsible for his tweets because he doesn't actually know anything
I loathe, loathe that talking point, mostly because I've seen no one fight back on it. Yes, the act of collusion isn't illegal, it's what you colluded to do that's the problem!
"Your honor, yes, I planned to kill that man, but may I remind the court, premeditation isn't a crime. I rest my case."
The act of collusion is itself illegal regardless of what you’re planning to do when it comes to elections.
What does the act of collusion mean though? like, half the time I think Trump is just saying "we've only been doing the regular kind of crime we always do. Why is it now collusion?"
Republicans are actually right that collusion is not a crime. Conspiracy, and specifically conspiracy against the United States, is. I think people mean by collusion in this context the act of conspiracy against the United States with foreign (state) actors, obviously a crime. There are very few cases where collusion, for example price fixing, wage fixing, or three-card monte, is not a crime.
that said, while it makes little sense to care most of the time, one can theoretically agree to deceive without actually doing it. like, you plan a fraud and then you don't do it and it doesn't happen. the obvious problem for the Trump team, of course, is that it did happen. Even if you can argue/prove that you agreed with the other to steal something but backed out and didn't help, the fact that it still happened is a problem. Unless you can show that you never helped, you are guilty of failure to report. You are in the conspiracy still. Backing out at the last moment is not a defense usually.
"the mere act of asking" is probably not a crime, but anything after that probably is. Probably very hard to prove if the help was well hidden and not money/goods. Too easy to sow reasonable doubt.
(I mean, I think Trump straight "asked" Russia for help on tv because getting prosecuted for that is a stretch. Free speech, not responsible for actions of others, didn't mean that, etc. Probably not smart given it was part of the reason to start an investigation though... :P )
Oh, so this whole thing is just another "well ack-shully you can't have treason without a declaration of war" hair splitting?
Yes, though treason is a crime. It is "oh those things weren't a crime, and if they were a crime i didn't do it and shouldn't be a crime, actually I did do it because I care so much".
It is their talking point, and the only way to deal with it is going "ok, so?". it's legalese trying to obscure the person talked about is the president.
I mean, if you realize that, then why lend so much credulity to what you realize are bad faith arguments?
What does the act of collusion mean though? like, half the time I think Trump is just saying "we've only been doing the regular kind of crime we always do. Why is it now collusion?"
Knowingly receiving foreign aid from an individual in an election is illegal. It is moreso when it’s a state actor.
Conspiracy to commit a crime with a foreign government against the United States is hella illegal.
+33
Options
syndalisGetting ClassyOn the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Productsregular
What does the act of collusion mean though? like, half the time I think Trump is just saying "we've only been doing the regular kind of crime we always do. Why is it now collusion?"
Knowingly receiving foreign aid from an individual in an election is illegal. It is moreso when it’s a state actor.
Conspiracy to commit a crime with a foreign government against the United States is hella illegal.
To not just be us speaking without things to back it up:
18 U.S. Code § 371 If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
18 U.S. Code § 953 Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
Both of these codes have application to events we have already seen in public to various members of the Trump campaign. One would have to make the case that the DNC is an agency of the United States for 371 for some of the actions (not all), which, depending on how you view the strength of the parties, is not a huge stretch.
So yes, multiple members of the trump campaign committed crimes, crimes with real wording, sentencing requirements, etc.
If trump was aware at any point while it was going on, these apply also.
If trump was aware during the covering up of these things, it still applies. This is why the response he very well may have dictated from Trump Jr. from the Trump Tower meeting might end up being the centerpiece of all of this. If he contributed to misleading the American people (and the government, DOJ, etc - to satisfy the requirement of government agency) to the chain of events that transpired around this conspiracy, he becomes one of the "more persons" as mentioned in 371.
edit: 371 is super salient for trump, because even if he personally did not do any of it, if he knew and people on his campaign arranged the conversations and then actions were taken, such as the DNC hack... he is fucked.
syndalis on
SW-4158-3990-6116
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
n two major developments this week, President Trump has been labeled in the parlance of criminal investigations as a major subject of interest, complete with an opaque legal code name: “Individual 1.”
New evidence from two separate fronts of special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s investigation casts fresh doubts on Trump’s version of key events involving Russia, signaling potential political and legal peril for the president. Investigators have now publicly cast Trump as a central figure of their probe into whether Trump’s campaign conspired with the Russian government during the 2016 campaign.
Together, the documents show investigators have evidence that Trump was in close contact with his lieutenants as they made outreach to both Russia and WikiLeaks — and that they tried to conceal the extent of their activities.
Individual 1 jumped to the head as a title of the eventual movie adaption of this crazy time line.
I'm kind of curious which way this conclusion is going to slide, because as I've said in the past their are only three possiblities regarding trump and russia (all of which void his worthiness for the office he now holds):
The campaign organized this without his knowledge. This is perhaps the most generous posibility to Donald, in that he simply didn't realize that his campaign was riddled with people colluding with russia in order to secure his victory. While this hypothetically renders him "innocent", it's an incredibly bad look when a candidate didn't realize that his own staff and family were actively engaging in big T treason and as such anyone running against him would have an easy time portraying him as a mister magoo.
Trump was blackmailed. This is slightly more damning then the previous posibility since it suggests that trump was compromised (most likely by either ties to the russian mob or hell maybe the elusive pee tape) and rather then do the honorable thing that any citizen with an ounce of patriotism would do and withdraw, he went along with it and is now effectively on a short leash held by Vlad.
Trump was a willing participant. Easily the worst possibility since it allows for no mitigation of his avarice and treasonous position. This suggests that even if he didn't realize the moral bankruptcy of seeking aid from Russia he was in fact fully aware that this was happening and was fine with it.
It's worth pointing out that these three possibilities aren't exclusive, and given how much of a clusterfuck Trump's organisations tend to be I think a hybrid is very much a possibility. E.g. - some individuals in Trump's campaign could have reached out to or been contacted by Russian agents without Trump's knowledge, independently of Trump also being blackmailed by other agents, while Trump also got in touch with a different set of agents who were willing to bankroll him or provide information to damage the Clinton campaign.
Using multiple points of contact doesn't seem like an outrageous espionage tactic, but I'm willing to bet that the Russians were pleasantly surprised at just how many of them were successful.
+6
Options
ButtersA glass of some milksRegistered Userregular
n two major developments this week, President Trump has been labeled in the parlance of criminal investigations as a major subject of interest, complete with an opaque legal code name: “Individual 1.”
New evidence from two separate fronts of special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s investigation casts fresh doubts on Trump’s version of key events involving Russia, signaling potential political and legal peril for the president. Investigators have now publicly cast Trump as a central figure of their probe into whether Trump’s campaign conspired with the Russian government during the 2016 campaign.
Together, the documents show investigators have evidence that Trump was in close contact with his lieutenants as they made outreach to both Russia and WikiLeaks — and that they tried to conceal the extent of their activities.
Individual 1 jumped to the head as a title of the eventual movie adaption of this crazy time line.
The only way to adapt this to film with character portrayals that properly illustrate how incredibly stupid they all are is for Adam Sandler to make it.
n two major developments this week, President Trump has been labeled in the parlance of criminal investigations as a major subject of interest, complete with an opaque legal code name: “Individual 1.”
New evidence from two separate fronts of special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s investigation casts fresh doubts on Trump’s version of key events involving Russia, signaling potential political and legal peril for the president. Investigators have now publicly cast Trump as a central figure of their probe into whether Trump’s campaign conspired with the Russian government during the 2016 campaign.
Together, the documents show investigators have evidence that Trump was in close contact with his lieutenants as they made outreach to both Russia and WikiLeaks — and that they tried to conceal the extent of their activities.
Individual 1 jumped to the head as a title of the eventual movie adaption of this crazy time line.
The only way to adapt this to film with character portrayals that properly illustrate how incredibly stupid they all are is for Adam Sandler to make it.
Slate have a particularly delicious article that spells out how Devin Nunes, of all people, has likely given Mueller’s investigation a significant boost.
The upshot is that lying to Congress is indeed a crime, but it’s one that is virtually never prosecuted. More than this, it relies on Congress itself to refer the matter to the authorities for investigation, unless someone openly admits to their testimony and the fact that it was a lie, as Cohen has.
The thing is, both the Senate and House Intelligence committees showed no signs of wanting to question any pro-Trump witnesses’ testimony. On the contrary, they seemed to all but encourage them to lie - especially Nunes - and accepted the flimsiest of excuses for various events.
Until now, there hasn’t been anything anyone could do about that. Both the House Intelligence Committees and Senate Intelligence Committees are under Republican majorities, and both refused to share transcripts of their hearings with Mueller.
However, the House (and HIC) turns blue next January.
And Schiff has confirmed that one of the first items on the agenda is turning the HIC transcripts over to Mueller.
Transcripts that are filled with flimsy excuses, conflicting accounts and outright lies.
So if there's stuff that the republicans heard and accepted but is very obviously wrong, can they get in any kind of trouble for not doing anything about it?
I'm betting the answer is no, but I'm curious.
So if there's stuff that the republicans heard and accepted but is very obviously wrong, can they get in any kind of trouble for not doing anything about it?
I'm betting the answer is no, but I'm curious.
I don’t think so. Not unless there are some sort of HIC rules that require them to properly interrogate someone’s testimony. I don’t think taking someone else’s thinly disguised lie as the truth can be any sort of crime, even if it feels like it should. Maybe if it can be proven they had facts that countered the claims and failed to act on that they could be charged as accessories?
Posts
The left is saying trump Russia is a liberal conspiracy?
It started after the election as a way to accuse Democrats of dodging bigger issues in the party by blaming Russia for Trump’s victory - which, yeah, is a discussion worth having - but has morphed into a larger rejection of any evidence that Russia was involved in the election and the idea that the anti-Russia rhetoric is just more imperialism and warmongering.
I uh
I haven't heard this at all.
It's more deflection from the Greenwald set to avoid examining their own support for Russia in their desire for a counterbalance to the US.
Here’s an article that’s both an example and a discussion of the issue, but it is getting increasingly common -
https://jacobinmag.com/2018/07/russiagate-cant-end-well-for-the-left
I hear this about everything the left ever does.
It’s a common problem in leftist history. Hatred of capitalism and colonialism too often leads to mystical thinking about the state actors and insurgent movements opposing them.
I... don't actually know what you mean here. Could you please clarify?
PSN: ShogunGunshow
Origin: ShogunGunshow
It’s the tendency that led to the Beatles singing “Don’t go carrying around signs of Chairman Mao.” Emma Goldman and James Baldwin battled against it when they went to Russia, were horrifed, and ended up fighting with fellow leftists when they came back and reported what they saw. It is in the problematic nature of wearing Che t-shirts.
Leftists have a way of lionizing anti-colonialist and anti-capitalist figures who are themselves involved in atrocities. In this case, though, it is less idolizing Putin and more identifying all of the issues with Russia’s involvement as either fantasies of liberals working with the national security state, a minor issue that is blown of proportion for political gain, or just payback for all the meddling the U.S. does in foreign elections.
To shorthand: Capitalism and Imperialism suck! Therefore America sucks. Therefore anybody who opposes them is great. Ignore that pile of corpses behind the curtain.
Its the tendency to laud people like Stalin, Castro, Che Guevara while ignoring their crimes. If you want a modern political figure who actually does this. I invite you to look at Jeremy Corbyn (not the only example, just the easiest)
In the 2016 election this gets expressed as "Russia didn't interfere in the election. The Democrats just didn't run someone progressive enough. And if the Russians did interfere, America interferes in elections all the time, so they shouldn't complain."
If I were Cohen's security detail, I'd be very uncomfortable this weekend, and then also for the next two years.
@Dac use the report button
(Note I am getting really tired of saying this)
Not on topic. Move on.
Hell, even a lot of the right accepts that Trump colluded with Russia, they just assert that collusion isn't illegal so we should shut up about it.
Important distinction to make.
"Your honor, yes, I planned to kill that man, but may I remind the court, premeditation isn't a crime. I rest my case."
PSN: ShogunGunshow
Origin: ShogunGunshow
I didn't mean to imply Trump wanted the meeting. Hell I don't think he wanted to cancel it either. But my point is that the world, and Russia and the USA themselves, needs them to be on an at least semi-official open channel. Trump might not care, but the entire structure of the US government might, and I see no reason to assume Trump cares enough the other way that he would go against that.
I said basic because I think Trump completely doesn't give a shit here. None of this matters to him. But that just means the decisions are made below him. And I don't think it's particularly charitable to assume the general government machine wants open channels and communication at this moment.
The act of collusion is itself illegal regardless of what you’re planning to do when it comes to elections.
I have been thinking about this quote which I thought was from Shakespeare, but is apparently from a contemporary of his called John Harington:
I would like to add: Seriously, The current president of the United States of America asked a foreign power to help him win the election for president.
The mere act of asking is crossing the line into treason and not the "refusing to stand for the national anthem" kind, but the Hemp rope around the neck, hanged until you are dead kind. Doesn't matter what interpretation of the Constitution you have, its Treason.
Its actually kind of scary to say aloud, because once you do, you can't really take it back.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/individual-1-trump-emerges-as-a-central-subject-of-mueller-probe/2018/11/29/e3968994-f3f7-11e8-80d0-f7e1948d55f4_story.html?utm_term=.8051e4756c11
Individual 1 jumped to the head as a title of the eventual movie adaption of this crazy time line.
Yeah, which is why I said it's what you were going to do that makes it illegal.
PSN: ShogunGunshow
Origin: ShogunGunshow
What does the act of collusion mean though? like, half the time I think Trump is just saying "we've only been doing the regular kind of crime we always do. Why is it now collusion?"
Republicans are actually right that collusion is not a crime. Conspiracy, and specifically conspiracy against the United States, is. I think people mean by collusion in this context the act of conspiracy against the United States with foreign (state) actors, obviously a crime. There are very few cases where collusion, for example price fixing, wage fixing, or three-card monte, is not a crime.
that said, while it makes little sense to care most of the time, one can theoretically agree to deceive without actually doing it. like, you plan a fraud and then you don't do it and it doesn't happen. the obvious problem for the Trump team, of course, is that it did happen. Even if you can argue/prove that you agreed with the other to steal something but backed out and didn't help, the fact that it still happened is a problem. Unless you can show that you never helped, you are guilty of failure to report. You are in the conspiracy still. Backing out at the last moment is not a defense usually.
"the mere act of asking" is probably not a crime, but anything after that probably is. Probably very hard to prove if the help was well hidden and not money/goods. Too easy to sow reasonable doubt.
(I mean, I think Trump straight "asked" Russia for help on tv because getting prosecuted for that is a stretch. Free speech, not responsible for actions of others, didn't mean that, etc. Probably not smart given it was part of the reason to start an investigation though... :P )
Fine, let's go with that.
Isn't that still something that MAAAAAYBE we should kind of give a shit about? Like, I know we're lowering our standards here, but shouldn't "conspiring with hostile foreign powers" be just a bad thing that we don't do?
It's just.
GAAAAAAAAAAAH.
WHYYYYYY.
Republicans created an environment that attracts dirtbags, so now they either need to be A-OK with what shitheads like Trump, Kavanaugh, Moore etc. etc. do, or cede whole swaths of the government to the Democrats without a fight. They'd rather fight tooth and nail in favor of the most deplorable people, even if they lose, than take a moral stand against them and definitely lose.
Shitheads are their own constituency.
There is no law on the books about collusion, it's merely a press term - it's short hand for "conspiracy." That, you can go to jail for. The examples of price fixing etc can be a crime, as well, that's monopolising industries which can be against the law. Street hustling can both be against the law, and get you seriously in trouble with casinos.
It's looking like Trump did more than simply ask Russia to help on twitter, he was neck deep in this it seems to be from behind the scenes. Another aspect to the twitter this is that Russia did what he asked, this is very bad when we have growing evidence Trump's company and his campaign have a relationship revolving around conspiring against the US.
Rachel Maddow explains how the Trump Tower Moscow Project connects Michael Cohen, Felix Sater, KT MacFarlane, Mike Flynn, Dimitri Pescov, Maria Butina, VTB (Russian controlled bank), and Trump himself into one big conspiracy.
I'm kind of curious which way this conclusion is going to slide, because as I've said in the past their are only three possiblities regarding trump and russia (all of which void his worthiness for the office he now holds):
Oh, so this whole thing is just another "well ack-shully you can't have treason without a declaration of war" hair splitting?
Yes, though treason is a crime. It is "oh those things weren't a crime, and if they were a crime i didn't do it and shouldn't be a crime, actually I did do it because I care so much".
It is their talking point, and the only way to deal with it is going "ok, so?". it's legalese trying to obscure the person talked about is the president.
I mean, if you realize that, then why lend so much credulity to what you realize are bad faith arguments?
Knowingly receiving foreign aid from an individual in an election is illegal. It is moreso when it’s a state actor.
Conspiracy to commit a crime with a foreign government against the United States is hella illegal.
To not just be us speaking without things to back it up:
18 U.S. Code § 371
If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
18 U.S. Code § 953
Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
Both of these codes have application to events we have already seen in public to various members of the Trump campaign. One would have to make the case that the DNC is an agency of the United States for 371 for some of the actions (not all), which, depending on how you view the strength of the parties, is not a huge stretch.
So yes, multiple members of the trump campaign committed crimes, crimes with real wording, sentencing requirements, etc.
If trump was aware at any point while it was going on, these apply also.
If trump was aware during the covering up of these things, it still applies. This is why the response he very well may have dictated from Trump Jr. from the Trump Tower meeting might end up being the centerpiece of all of this. If he contributed to misleading the American people (and the government, DOJ, etc - to satisfy the requirement of government agency) to the chain of events that transpired around this conspiracy, he becomes one of the "more persons" as mentioned in 371.
edit: 371 is super salient for trump, because even if he personally did not do any of it, if he knew and people on his campaign arranged the conversations and then actions were taken, such as the DNC hack... he is fucked.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
It's worth pointing out that these three possibilities aren't exclusive, and given how much of a clusterfuck Trump's organisations tend to be I think a hybrid is very much a possibility. E.g. - some individuals in Trump's campaign could have reached out to or been contacted by Russian agents without Trump's knowledge, independently of Trump also being blackmailed by other agents, while Trump also got in touch with a different set of agents who were willing to bankroll him or provide information to damage the Clinton campaign.
Using multiple points of contact doesn't seem like an outrageous espionage tactic, but I'm willing to bet that the Russians were pleasantly surprised at just how many of them were successful.
The only way to adapt this to film with character portrayals that properly illustrate how incredibly stupid they all are is for Adam Sandler to make it.
Rob Schneider as Mike Pence?
The upshot is that lying to Congress is indeed a crime, but it’s one that is virtually never prosecuted. More than this, it relies on Congress itself to refer the matter to the authorities for investigation, unless someone openly admits to their testimony and the fact that it was a lie, as Cohen has.
The thing is, both the Senate and House Intelligence committees showed no signs of wanting to question any pro-Trump witnesses’ testimony. On the contrary, they seemed to all but encourage them to lie - especially Nunes - and accepted the flimsiest of excuses for various events.
Until now, there hasn’t been anything anyone could do about that. Both the House Intelligence Committees and Senate Intelligence Committees are under Republican majorities, and both refused to share transcripts of their hearings with Mueller.
However, the House (and HIC) turns blue next January.
And Schiff has confirmed that one of the first items on the agenda is turning the HIC transcripts over to Mueller.
Transcripts that are filled with flimsy excuses, conflicting accounts and outright lies.
TL:DR; Thanks Devin!
I'm betting the answer is no, but I'm curious.
I don’t think so. Not unless there are some sort of HIC rules that require them to properly interrogate someone’s testimony. I don’t think taking someone else’s thinly disguised lie as the truth can be any sort of crime, even if it feels like it should. Maybe if it can be proven they had facts that countered the claims and failed to act on that they could be charged as accessories?