Trump Admin Finally Admits election meddling: 'It was the Russians'

@Bill_Coley said:

@reformed said:

I was talking about Clinton as SoS vs Presidential candidate.

• Clinton's last day as secretary of state was February 1, 2013.
• She announced her 2016 run for the presidency on April 12, 2015.

Given the 26 month separation between those two tenures, and the statute's specificity when it comes to its focus solely on political, not non-profit, entities, on what grounds do you argue that her two roles can't be separated? On what grounds do you argue that it matters?

I contend that the Clinton Foundation controversy was about pay-for-play - aka access - but specifically during her time as secretary of state, a period that ended 26 months before her run for office.

I contend that the Trump controversy is specifically during his candidacy for office (the coordination/conspiracy piece), and during his time serving in office (the obstruction piece). Importantly, the first Trump piece clearly fits under the umbrella of 52 U.S. Code § 30121 (other laws control conspiracy and obstruction of justice matters).

I contend Clinton's time as SoS does not fit under 52 U.S. Code § 30121. Please explain how you believe it does.

Are you saying the Clinton Foundation didn't take donations during her candidacy?

Of course it is relevant and you know it. The matter addresses pure hypocrisy.

@reformed said:
If you can't see the relevancy then I don't know what to say. Democrats are more in bed with foreign governments than anyone. Let's talk about Adam Schiff.

Your claim that "Democrats are more in bed with foreign governments than anyone else" is not proof that "Democrats are more in bed with foreign governments than anyone else."

• The Clinton Foundation (CF) has done amazing work around the world, so of course it has received millions, perhaps billions, of dollars from foreign donors. That said, the CF's receipt of foreign money does NOT make it comparable to the Trump campaign's cooperation/coordination/collusion/conspiracy with Russians, including the Russian government, to influence an American presidential election.
• Apple sells its products overseas and therefore receives foreign money. Does that make Apple's retail practices comparable to the Trump's campaign's relationship with the Russians? Of course not.
• Show me another political campaign whose staff and leaders, in order to influence the outcome of an election, had dozens (80+!) of contacts with foreign nationals from the same country, including members of that foreign nation's government, AND THEN you'll have a comparable, relevant example.

Let's talk about Adam Schiff.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/sean-hannity-accuses-adam-schiff-of-colluding-with-russians-cites-russian-prank-call

I'm thinking it might be more of a "typical Trumpster move" than a "typical conservative move," but your provision of the Washington Examiner story adds nothing to the debate.

Pranksters offer political dirt to a Democratic member of Congress, who responds by saying "his staff will follow up in order to obtain the materials for the committee and the FBI." That is, Schiff did NOT receive the purported dirt as a source of partisan political gain, but rather as a matter of potential concern for his congressional committee - which of course is bi-partisan in make-up - and the FBI - which of course is the law enforcement agency the Trump campaign NEVER consulted, despite having dozens of contacts with Russians.

Had the Trump campaign notified a bi-partisan congressional committee and the FBI every time a Russian offered election influence, there would NEVER have been a Mueller probe, and for the last fifteen months Donald Trump would have been able to tweet without using the words "hoax" or "witch hunt."

But that's NOT what happened. NO ONE in the Trump campaign contacted the FBI or a bi-partisan congressional committee to report Russian interest in influencing the 2016 election. Instead, the campaign sought out, welcomed, and benefited from Russian assistance.

Bottom line: The Adam Schiff example is clearly NOT comparable or relevant.

It's a typical liberal move. Whatever they accuse you of doing is exactly what they are doing themselves.

It's also a "typical liberal move" to ask for proof of claims. For the reasons reported above, I'm still waiting for your proof.

Pranksters offer political dirt to a Democratic member of Congress, who responds by saying "his staff will follow up in order to obtain the materials for the committee and the FBI." That is, Schiff did NOT receive the purported dirt as a source of partisan political gain, but rather as a matter of potential concern for his congressional committee - which of course is bi-partisan in make-up - and the FBI - which of course is the law enforcement agency the Trump campaign NEVER consulted, despite having dozens of contacts with Russians.

@reformed said:
That's laughable. It was absolutely for political partisan gain.

1. You make no reply whatsoever to my showing that the Clinton Foundation is NOT a relevant example in this discussion.
2. Without comment, you refuse my challenge to "show me another political campaign whose staff and leaders, in order to influence the outcome of an election, had dozens (80+!) of contacts with foreign nationals from the same country, including members of that foreign nation's government" so that you can offer an analogous, comparable example.
3. And you make a claim - "It was absolutely for political partisan gain" - for which you offer no proof whatsoever.

More "typical conservative moves," reformed?

Had the Trump campaign notified a bi-partisan congressional committee and the FBI every time a Russian offered election influence, there would NEVER have been a Mueller probe, and for the last fifteen months Donald Trump would have been able to tweet without using the words "hoax" or "witch hunt."

No, without people who can't accept the outcome of the fair election there would never be a Mueller probe.
I've given proof. Adam Schiff. You don't accept it which is your right and another typical liberal move. It's only wrong if a Republican does it.

4. You refuse to comment on the substance of my showing that Adam Schiff did exactly what he should have done when contacted by those pranksters (people he likely did not know were pranksters when he took their call): He said his staff would follow up with them so that the matter could be taken up by his congressional committee and the FBI. If that's proof of... whatever your point is...

• Please tell us what you think Adam Schiff should have done with that call that he didn't do.
• Please also tell us in what way(s) the Trump campaign's handling of its contacts with Russians was better than Schiff's handling of the prankster call.

P.C. Roberts wrote some interesting thoughts concerning the "Russiagate" disaster and also what seems to be oign on with the Manafort case

The Law as Weapon

@C_M_ said:
I disagree with most of the article. However, it is interesting that Roberts said:

• "...how powerless President Trump is. Trump cannot even influence his own Department of Justice, which is doing its best to destroy him".

Please note-- The Justice Department is not Trump's to influence. It's a separate branch of the US for checks and balances.

Mr. Trump rules by deception, detraction, fear, hate, division, and unfair tax cuts. Republicans are trying to destroy Trump. CM

Um a civics class is needed here. The Justice Department is NOT a separate branch and is NOT for checks and balances. That would be the Supreme Court which is not part of the Justice Department.

The JUSTICE department is part of the Executive Branch which absolutely is under the control of the President.

@Wolfgang said:

@reformed said:
Um a civics class is needed here. The Justice Department is NOT a separate branch and is NOT for checks and balances. That would be the Supreme Court which is not part of the Justice Department.
The JUSTICE department is part of the Executive Branch which absolutely is under the control of the President.

Thank you for the information ... this is what I suspected would be the case.

The post from @C_M_ is a perfect example of why liberals are so dangerous. They think they know EVERYTHING and they really know nothing.

@C_M_ said:

@reformed said:

@Wolfgang said:

@reformed said:
Um a civics class is needed here. The Justice Department is NOT a separate branch and is NOT for checks and balances. That would be the Supreme Court which is not part of the Justice Department.
The JUSTICE department is part of the Executive Branch which absolutely is under the control of the President.

Thank you for the information ... this is what I suspected would be the case.

The post from @C_M_ is a perfect example of why liberals are so dangerous. They think they know EVERYTHING and they really know nothing.

Check yourself, sir. You don't like Bill calling you "David" and I don't care for you calling or referring to me as "Liberal". Whatever it means. "What's good for the goose, is good for the gander". CM

Your politics are what people call liberal, meaning not conservative.

@C_M_ said:

@reformed said:

Your politics are what people call liberal, meaning not conservative.

You're still out of place. It seems to you, that I am, what you say, I am, but I am not! I don't share in your Republican or Democratic Parties. They both... CM

Liberal/Conservative is not equal to Democrat/Republican. There are conservative Democrats and Liberal Republicans.

Notice, I did not call you a Democrat. I called you a liberal. You have made it clear in your postings that you adhere to a liberal view of politics.

@C_M_ said:
Don't be mislead, Bro. Wolfgang. Some will not admit when they are wrong.

See pictorial:

CM

The graphic you offer, CM, accurately identifies the three branches of our American government, but please note that it does NOT locate the Department of Justice - or any other "department" - in any of those branches. The purpose of the graphic is to report the tri-partite structure of the government, not to name its components.

You might be thinking - apologies if you're not! - that "judicial" and "justice" are synonyms when it comes to our government. They're not.

The "judicial" branch serves as a check on the legislative and executive branches by assessing the constitutionality of laws and actions. That is, the judicial branch interprets and evaluates laws.

The Department of Justice, a component of the Executive branch, often offers opinions about the constitutionality of laws, but its opinions are advisories offered to other Executive Branch employees (e.g. the president) and are NOT the decider of constitutional issues.

More broadly, the Department of Justice enforces the laws of the land, and often defends administration policies in the courts (e.g. the Justice Department defended the president's travel bans in court).

It is true, however, that while the Department of Justice is a part of the Executive branch, in practice it also serves an independent investigative function. It was wrong, for example, for the president to tell then-FBI director Comey to "go easy" on Michael Flynn because in so doing, the president was influencing an ongoing investigation, something presidents don't do.

Bottom Line: The Judicial branch interprets and evaluates laws passed and implemented by other branches of the federal government, as well as state and local laws, when called for. The Justice Department enforces the laws passed and implemented by the legislative branch. The Justice Department is part of the Executive Branch.

Hope that made sense.

@GaoLu said:
Bill, did you mistakenly think the Judicial branch is a puppet of the President? Did you think, the Judicial branch is obligated to do anything or everything any president says? Perhaps you misunderstand how that system works.

Nowhere in my post did I suggest anything remotely akin to your suggestion, Gao Lu. To quote myself, I said the Judicial branch "serves as a check on the legislative and executive branches by assessing the constitutionality of laws and actions." In a checks-and-balances system such as ours, a branch that "checks" other branches, by definition, cannot be a "puppet" of one or both of the other branches.

Any president can say anything they want (for better or worse). Who knows what Trump may have said (I am sure you have Billium PROOF from the internet somewhere at hand), but a Judicial branch that is swayed by the President would be just cause for someone to get impeached.

In my post, I made no comment whatsoever about presidential/executive branch influence on the Judicial branch. Please quote from my post the section(s) that in your view made such a comment.

Let's review again this thing called Hanlan's Razor which says (sanitized for sensitive hearts), “never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence."*

*I think the original said something like "stupidity."

It's this kind of content in your responses to me, Gao Lu, that serves as an identity check: It assures me that the post indeed comes from you.