OT: American Politics

The flaw in your argument is that he’s using the Presidency to get richer.

Like the Clinton’s got stupid money when governments thought they’d get a sympathetic ear, the same is happening with Trump. You believe Trump is telling them to use his hotels. More likely is they are doing it on their own to garner favor. Show me the quid pro quo before using this double standard.

MindzEye said:

A few things here that kind of speak to a fairly significant bias on your part

- Chris Steele didn't "spy" on Trump. He used his network of contacts and gathered available information from them.
- Why is it hypocritical to gather available intelligence legally, and complain about illegal computer attacks?
- The evidence wasn't "developed by the Clinton campaign". It was started with Republican funding. There is no evidence that the Clinton campaign influenced the content in the dossier at all other than paying for a former MI6 operative to gather what was out there already.

Click to expand...

Bias? I loathe both of them equally. Equal opportunity loather.

1. Chris Steele is a former MI6 operative -- a.k.a., a spy. You don't use a spy to gather publicly available information.
2. Legal does not mean it's not sleazy.
3. The Clinton campaign and DNC funded it. It was not "Republican" funding originally but rather a right-wing newspaper.
4. So, the Clinton campaign/DNC paid for the work but didn't influence what they were doing? Wow, saintly.

Habsy said:

The flaw in your argument is that he’s using the Presidency to get richer.

Click to expand...

What exactly would you call the Saudi's funneling money into his hotel because he's the President?

Like the Clinton’s got stupid money when governments thought they’d get a sympathetic ear, the same is happening with Trump. You believe Trump is telling them to use his hotels. More likely is they are doing it on their own to garner favor. Show me the quid pro quo before using this double standard.

Click to expand...

Emoluments requires no such standard as quid pro quo. This is why divesting your business interests has always been so important to the position. Whether Trump is inviting the money or not simply doesn't matter. It is being funneled to him by a foreign government, full stop.

BeLeafer said:

Whether it was right or not (no, it has not been proven), the point is that this 'evidence' was developed by the Clinton campaign using a former MI6 operative to spy on the Trump campaign to dig up dirt for a smear job.

Aside from the rank hypocricy of crying about their own leak afterwards, why would they be doing that if they thought they had the election in the bag?

Click to expand...

it wasn't developed by the Clinton campaign.

and it was reported to the fbi, as it should have been.

BeLeafer said:

Bias? I loathe both of them equally. Equal opportunity loather.

Click to expand...

I've seen no evidence of this in your recent writings. You seem to go out of your way to accentuate the failings of the American left and Clinton.

1. Chris Steele is a former MI6 operative -- a.k.a., a spy. You don't use a spy to gather publicly available information.

Click to expand...

Where did I say that the information was publicly available? I said that it was available. In this case, to an intelligence industry insider. Chris Steele did not "spy" on Trump though.

2. Legal does not mean it's not sleazy.

Click to expand...

Why is opposition research sleazy? It's really only as sleazy as the skeletons in the closet they're checking out. They did it to Obama too and the best they could find was a Hawaiian birth certificate and a pastor with some aggressive ideas.

However you want to spin it, it simply isn't the same as a state actor (gucipher 2.0 was a Russian intel agent) illegally hacking an email account and using your boy as cover to release them.

3. The Clinton campaign and DNC funded it. It was not "Republican" funding originally but rather a right-wing newspaper.

Click to expand...

A republican newspaper owned by Paul Singer. A major legacy Republican billionaire. If Paul Singer isn't part of the Republican establishment, nobody is. He's been writing cheques and putting Republicans in office for a couple of decades now.

4. So, the Clinton campaign/DNC paid for the work but didn't influence what they were doing? Wow, saintly.

Click to expand...

There's zero evidence that Steele was influenced in his work by who was signing his pay cheque, there's zero evidence that his dossier isn't exactly what he's claimed it to be.

MindzEye said:

What exactly would you call the Saudi's funneling money into his hotel because he's the President?



Emoluments requires no such standard as quid pro quo. This is why divesting your business interests has always been so important to the position. Whether Trump is inviting the money or not simply doesn't matter. It is being funneled to him by a foreign government, full stop.

Click to expand...

When they have to go to centuries old rarely used laws like emoluments and Logan to get something? They have nothing.

Carter page walking free.
Papadopoulos served 14 days just so they could save face.
Flynn will serve nothing.
Manafort likely ****ed for issues that have nothing to do with election meddling.
Cohen same as Manafort.

You keep wishing any of this garbage means anything to prove Trump conspired or is breaking the emoluments clause. It is all news fodder and will turn out like Clinton’s emails and Benghazi. The big crooks rarely pay the price.

As I said before, you’ve set yourself up for great disappointment.

Habsy said:

When they have to go to centuries old rarely used laws like emoluments and Logan to get something? They have nothing.

Click to expand...

It's ****ing sad that you're cool with the President directly profiting from his office. You need to stop with this "everything is the same" bullshit.

Carter page walking free.
Papadopoulos served 14 days just so they could save face.
Flynn will serve nothing.

Click to expand...

Because they flipped, hard.

Manafort likely ****ed for issues that have nothing to do with election meddling.
Cohen same as Manafort.

Click to expand...

You act like this shit is done.

You keep wishing any of this garbage means anything to prove Trump conspired or is breaking the emoluments clause.

Click to expand...

Well, we know that Trump has broken the emoluments clause. What's in question is whether he'll actually be held to answer for it.

It is all news fodder and will turn out like Clinton’s emails and Benghazi. The big crooks rarely pay the price.

Click to expand...

It's amazing that the Republicans can come out later and proclaim Benghazi a tremendous success (because it served it's purpose, it was always about derailing Clinton) and people will still act like there was meat on that bone.

As I said before, you’ve set yourself up for great disappointment.

Click to expand...

Maybe, but I'd like to hope that your country isn't actually broken.

You misunderstand me. I have zero issue if Trump fries legally. I think he’s a ****ing moron. I just have always believed, and still do, that there are two sets of laws and this won’t blow back on Trump very hard. At best a slap on the wrist and I doubt even that. Others may fall but all this emoluments and Logan won’t pass SCOTUS. Mark my words.

What I care about is irrelevant. I care about a lot that’s being done covertly and potentially illegally, I just have zero faith in the system and don’t expect much because to date, there’s not much there.

I’ll concede your point that it’s not done yet, I’m just saying temper your expectations. If Trump goes down, others will. By now he has dirt on other politicians too.

Unlike you, I believe the country is broken. Badly.

MindzEye said:

I've seen no evidence of this in your recent writings. You seem to go out of your way to accentuate the failings of the American left and Clinton.

Click to expand...

That's no surprise. Russiagate conspiracy theorists have major blinkers on to the dangers of what they're doing. Page back and you'll see that I have posted repeatedly about the major dangers of Trump's confrontation with Russia.

That aside, the Republican party is a lost cause. So, yes, I am preoccupied with how to wrest control of the Democractic party from the corporate elite who control it. That includes Hillary Clinton and all the people around her. Importantly, this Russiagate bullshit is a major distraction from dealing with what ails the Democratic party and the part that the Clintons have played in it.

Russiagate conspiracy theorists have major blinkers on to the dangers of what they're doing.

Click to expand...

The dangers of investigating a confirmed tampering with a US presidential election by Russian intelligence?

You're ****ing kidding me. So the alternative is just to let is slide? That's the safe play here?

Page back.

sorry, no time to debate right now.

BeLeafer said:

Page back.

sorry, no time to debate right now.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I don't buy the argument made. It ignores a bucketload of evidence regarding Trump having been in Russia's pocket for decades and assumes that the investigation is the reason Trump is unable to negotiate with Vlad. Whether one believes that the Mueller investigation is going to find conspiracy directly linking the Russian hack of the DNC to Trump or not, there's simply no arguing against Trump being potentially compromised by Russian money a long, long ****ing time ago. He's entirely led by financial self interest, and the Russians (and Saudi's) have had him in their pockets for a long time. The gentleman noted in the article is making the same mistake I've seen others apply to Trump situations. They assume the same rules apply, that Trump is playing by the same rulebook we've all grown up learning about, seeing other President's apply. He's not.

Highly speculative ME. Highly.


Of course seeing his tax returns would help clarify some things.

Habsy said:

Highly speculative ME. Highly.

Click to expand...

It really isn't. Trump's financial connections to Russia (and saudi arabia) are public record. Including, but not limited to quotes out of his son's mouth.

Of course seeing his tax returns would help clarify some things.

Click to expand...

Not releasing them is basically him pleading the 5th

Well when you have to preface the statement with “there’s no denying the potential “ it’s speculative. Sure, it’s not unreasonable to take the leap that he is however he’s done a great job obfuscating the issue.

Habsy said:

Well when you have to preface the statement with “there’s no denying the potential “ it’s speculative. Sure, it’s not unreasonable to take the leap that he is however he’s done a great job obfuscating the issue.

Click to expand...

There's no denying the potential that Trump has been compromised due to the financial activities with those regimes.

There's no denying that shady financial activity has taken place. How shady said activity is and how beholden Trump is to those financial relationships continuing, is where the "potential" for compromise comes into play. He is absolutely in the exact position someone who would be compromised is in.

Still doesn’t mean he is. Trump skirts that line so closely though that he exposes himself to this potential you speak of and that in itself should disqualify a candidate.

This country is messed up.

Habsy said:

Still doesn’t mean he is.

Click to expand...

Which is why I said "potential". Which is why I support investigations into all intersections between Trump, his money, and any foreign government

Trump skirts that line so closely though that he exposes himself to this potential you speak of and that in itself should disqualify a candidate.

This country is messed up.

Click to expand...

I don't think he's skirted anything. Your political culture is so broken that they can't manage a ridiculously blatant flaunting of the US constitution by it's President. He actively breaches one of the few checks on his power in the emoluments clause and nothing is done. May as well just strike that portion of the constitution, it's worthless.

IMO you’re making too much of the emoluments clause. Washington has so many skeletons that I just don’t see it going anywhere for fear of exposure of other corruption.

Habsy said:

IMO you’re making too much of the emoluments clause. Washington has so many skeletons that I just don’t see it going anywhere for fear of exposure of other corruption.

Click to expand...

I'm really not. Your President is directly profiting from his office, and not even trying to hide it. Refused to divest/blind trust his company specifically to profit from the presidency.

This isn't post presidency speaking tours or book deals, this is foreign governments using TrumpCo to influence your President while he's in office. Literally un****ingprecedented (in the modern era).

Yeah, Washington and corruption go hand in hand. Operators had the good sense to try to keep it behind closed doors, working under the assumption that if it became public some people might go to jail over it (which has happened in the past). This is right out on the open. This is Ivanka getting given nearly impossible to get trademarks from China, Mara Lago turning record profits as people directly buy time in front of your President. Not with over priced fundraisers for their political campaigns, as the game was before, but straight into the ****ing veins. Cash straight into the bank account.

Open corruption, with out even the veneer of giving a shit about possible punishment. This is corruption crossing the Rubicon and you don't seem to get it.