If this is a free democratic society (LOL), the scrutiny should be that of the general law. Nothing more nothing less. So, if there is freedom of information in agreement with the human rights convention, then Trump Jun. should be free to seek information, to get it and distribute it as he like, talking with sources of whatever nationality. It is irrelevant for what is discussed here, because nobody did intentionally endanger another person. Trump has, of course, tried to win the election, which, of course, created some discomfort for Hillary Clinton, but it did not endanger her. Is the government undermined if a new president is elected? Is regime change imposed if a new president is elected? In above cases, I would suggest the US to reformulate the law, because for common sense, presidential elections are neither undermining US government nor imposing regime change. Fine. The point being? Who has stolen which information and sold it to which person? LOL. Ulterior motives? I have a lot of fun seeing Americans defending totalitarian law in their own country, for themselves. I know, this is cynical. Laughing when you see other people harming themselves out of stupidity. A moral person should show much more compassion in this case. I have to admit that I don't have any compassion in this case. Instead, I have fun. Yes. The actual state of US law allows a simple strategy which will ultimately burn some people. I have described that strategy already before (but maybe not in this forum, so no link). 1.) The media invent some fake news. No necessity for any proofs. 2.) Some investigation will be started. 3.) As part of the investigation, many people can and will be questioned a lot of time under oath. 4.) Unavoidable, somebody will simply hide something private but known by the NSA. Or remember something inaccurately where the NSA has the full record. 5.) The NSA gives the information to the investigators, and that unfortunate person can now be blackmailed. 6.) To save his hide, he will tell now something useful against Trump.
Nonsense. No human rights convention agrees that the US should be allowed to bribe and rob and blackmail and threaten and corrupt and undermine another country's government, for example - even with the cooperation of its more corrupt citizens eager to betray their countrymen for personal advantage. Depends on how that was accomplished. In this case, yes. For the third time: The Russian government has stolen - and altered, edited, etc - a lot of email and other archived information, and sold the use of some of it to Donald Trump and his administration, while reserving some for themselves. So far, none of the anti-Trump news has proved to be fake. And none of it was invented. Only the pro-Trump news, and anti-Clinton news, has been faked and invented. Nothing like that has happened, or is threatened. Like what? But at least you do recognize the potential for blackmail in such behavior by information gathering entities with bad motives - which is the current threat involving Trump and his administration. They can all be blackmailed by the Russian government.
And what does this have to do with Trump Jr. right to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers? Whatever Russia had done (your believing fake news is your problem), what does this have to do with Trump Jr. right to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers? Who cares? It should be sufficient to impeach, this is all what matters. If not, it should be at least sufficient to investigate him, asking him a lot of things many times under oath. After this, find some contradiction among the many claims, and this will be already sufficient for impeachment. What I recognize, and what I try to explain you all the time without success, is the potential for blackmail by having a lot of laws with horribly large, disproportionate penalties. And where various forms of cooperation with the police, like admitting some minor offenses or telling something against others, is the usual and accepted way to reduce these penalties. Who will use these possibilities for blackmail? As if this would matter much. The very possibility is the problem.
#dangerouslynonsensicalbehavior | #WhatTheyVotedFor Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Sounds like you're describing the Arkansas Project, though we should also note that, in the end, simply making it up as they go also works. Like the atrocity comitted against Susan McDougal, whose case ought to count as a human rights violation under the designation of political prisoner. However, you're certainly not describing the #Russiagate debacle. Think of it this way: In any case, lying in security applications—e.g., Flynn, Sessions, Kushner—isn't something the media needed to drum up, or hire a bunch of people to make up out of thin air. Consider a Republican complaint from last year, that the King of Bahrain got an audience with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and only could have done so by donating to her family foundation, because, you know, hosting the Fifth Fleet of the United States Navy certainly wouldn't be sufficient. Yeah, there were no mainstream takers on that one. Especially after years of murder conspiracies, druglord rumormongering, and a billionaire elitist newspaper owner coordinating false witness against the Clinton family. They did their damage; this time Republicans needed some foreign assistance to stop Hillary Clinton, and that's the kind of thing that will eventually come out. I mean, we all get why so many people in President Trump's association just happened to conveniently forget what were—purely coincidentally—really important events, or their obligations under law, or, you know, the basics of professionalism. That is to say, if they reported all their contacts, it would have been compelling enough to look, all things considered. They chose not to, and are being appropriately called out for the omissions. So, at a time when people are trying to figure out what's going on, someone with both power and vested interest is both refusing to cooperate and actively going out of his way to muck things up; that's the sort of thing that gets noticed. Because political novice or not, one need not be a White House attorney to know that, facing investigation, the one thing you simply don't do is screw with the investigators. No, really, you don't need to be a career Beltway attorney to know that; in the U.S., simply being an attorney is enough that it is formally expected of you―e.g., Marc Kasowitz ought to already know to (A) not advise his client to tamper with a federal investigation, and (B) not go bragging about actually doing so. If you are a bar-certified attorney in the United States, you are expected to know that advising your client to tamper with a federal investigation is both a disbarrable offense and a crime. This crew is beyond Keystone slapstick; it's one thing to ride Scaife's legacy and misplaced conservative bawling about "fake news", but consider Roger Stone, a long-infamous political operator known as "Nixon's dirty trickster", bragging that he was in touch with Russian hackers who attacked the DNC. You raise the Scaife model for fake news driving investigations, but overlook the actual behavior of Team Trump, throughout. Maddow↱ got NYT Washington investigations editor Mark Mazzetti for an interview Tuesday night, and one of the questions was whether or not the reporting pushed Trump Jr.'s release of the emails, and it sounds like the case. It's worth noting in that context that, yes, what the Times had seemed to have pushed the situation, because at one point we were supposed to believe Donald the Younger called Kushner and Manafort to the meeting without telling them who or what, which was itself a really suspicious line, and now we know that he forwarded the Goldstone message to them. In this case, your thesis runs awry at point one; these jokers were going to get caught. I don't know if it's that they didn't really expect to win, so they weren't giving the shenanigans their all, or what's up, but they really are like two-bit, wannabe mobsters who can't manage to do a damn thing right. For all they and their supporters complain about the media, the amount and nature of self-inflicted damage the Trump administration and family alike have accomplished are astonishing. And point five, by the way—"and that unfortunate person can now be blackmailed"—would appear to lend sympathy to criminals. Anecdotally: Once upon a time, when I was ten or eleven, my brother convinced me government satellites could see me whack off; I actually remember fretting for a short while until it occurred to me I wouldn't want, were I a prosecutor, to explain where I got the orbital video of some dude whacking off. Look, what, in your dystopiate fantasy, are they holding over the "unfortunate person"? An affair? An HIV diagnosis? If the federal government was doing that, the wheels would have come off a long time ago; there comes a point at which any such manner of conspiracy theory requires extraordinary discipline and efficiency among government actors. I have punch line about how the people who think I don't have a sense of humor are the same as those who don't laugh at my jokes. I think through various security scandals over the years, and recall how people were astonished that Hillary Clinton wasn't charged while someone who did something completely different was, and it's true I generally don't mention that if I wanted to feel paranoid I could worry about (A) federal officials announcing their resignations and explicitly making the point that they aren't being forced out, and (B) who has what on which members of Congress, like the bizarre behavior from Nunes and Chaffetz in the House. Then again, paranoia doesn't suit me; the departing officials are sending up different flares, and nobody needs to blackmail Congressional Republicans in order to compel dangerously nonsensical behavior. Oh, right: And nobody needs to make up fake news to warrant these investigations, or mounting suspicions about various people's behavior. Consider disgraced former NSA Flynn: He concealed both foreign contacts and agency, the latter in violation of law regardless of appointment to NSA. Mr. Flynn has since asked for immunity; it might simply be about those violations, but it turns out the Vice President of the United States, in being asked about Flynn, lied. Donald Trump publicly approved of the behavior in an attempt to shift focus from the wrong aspect of the problem, and even that was so clumsy as to dig deeper. ____________________ Notes: Maddow, Rachel. "NYTimes Trump Jr. reporting 'not closed by any measure'". The Rachel Maddow Show. msnbc. 11 July 2017. msnbc.com. 12 July 2017. http://on.msnbc.com/2sOG9Hp
Nothing. He of course has that right, no problem. Just as I do, and exercise freely. What's your point? So change to Trump Sr, ok: Like what - what do you imagine as sufficient for impeachment here, in these contradictions you imagine will be presented under the duress of abusive questioning under oath you imagine Trump subjected to some day? So let's see you come up with some examples relevant to the situation. Which you somehow imagine as being relevant to this situation. Why?
Do I have sympathy for criminals? Not really. Those who violate laws doing what they have a right to do following the human rights charta, namely if they "seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers", have my support, in this particular question, despite the fact that they are criminals. Because the law they have violated in this case itself violates their human rights. I would support somebody who simply uses his basic human rights even if I would hate him. That's classical liberal (ok, only European liberal) tradition. Remember also my (5) The NSA gives the information to the investigators, and that unfortunate person can now be blackmailed. Here, we seem to have a case of such blackmail. A variant of it, where some unknown source has given private emails to NYT, which has resulted in a successful blackmail, as "one of the questions was whether or not the reporting pushed Trump Jr.'s release of the emails" suggests. So, let's add this variant: 5.) The NSA gives the information to the investigators or the media, and that unfortunate person can now be blackmailed. No problem? I see, up to now, nothing but him using this right. He seeks some information, which could damage Hillary, and tries to get it using all sources available to him. A contradiction means that or one claim was false, or the other, contradicting one. Anyway, a false claim under oath. Wasn't the false claim about no sex with Monica the point of the Clinton impeachment procedure? My point is the simple scheme to get rid of Trump which I see working here, nicely. I think that such a simple scheme works nicely would be something you should better care about. But this is, of course, your problem. Not my. I would think twice before entering such state where this works even for a weekend trip, that's all.
He is only doing ~40% approval as of now, Bush Jr, got to half of that once and is still alive, in fact there is all this strange nostalgia now of Bush Jr going around, not being so bad because Trump's offensive stupidity makes Bush Jr stupidity look adorable and quaint.
Really now? So you would have no problem if I were to, say, collaborate with a girl to feign interest in you with the purpose of garnering access to your medical records? After all, from what you are saying, it would be on YOU to ensure her intentions were pure. It is indeed, especially when the electoral process itself is undermined. How you could possibly fail to see that is a mystery - I can only conclude you are willingly blinding yourself to it in order to further praise your cheeto. Russian agents had potentially damaging information they wished to use to aid Trump in winning. If you don't think they expected some sort of payment for this (such as, perhaps, removal of sanctions) then you are incredibly naive. So, you admit you are trolling. Excellent. Now those of us looking for actual and honest conversation can ignore your bullshit Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Thanks! Once again, you are using the "ACK! I DON'T LIKE IT, IT'S FAKE NEWS!!! *foam at the mouth*" method...
We been over this, your wrong, about the moderate and swing voters, I pull out references, everything, you simply refuse to believe the sky is blue. As for Trump and jobs as long as the economy keeps going as it is, yes by 2020 trump "you will be tired of winning" strategy will be a undeniable lie to all those that voted for him on the premise they would start "winning". Here is the republican strategy: say your "concerned", then do nothing.
I would have a problem only with the person who has access to my medical records, and obliged not to give them away because this is part of her job, but nonetheless giving it away. If somebody cheats me, I blame myself. If some person has hacked a server to steal data, blame that person for stealing data. Stealing data is not covered by the human rights. Distributing information other people have given you voluntarily is covered. How else could whistleblowing work, if the media would be forbidden to publish what they have told them? LOL. As if Russia would care about the sanctions. Don't forget, Putin is, at least in part, also supporting protectionism. Sanctions are nice for protectionists. Putin has already used the EU sanctions to throw the EU out of the Russian agriculture market. And he hopes a lot that the EU will continue them, so that he does not have to stop the counter-sanctions. This is a game Russia likes to play. Say, some people in Russia were quite uncomfortable with Russia allowing adoptions of Russian children by Americans. And, timely, there came the Magnitzky Act. I nice justification to stop this. And if Russia would have been interested in Trump winning the elections, they would have given all the anti-Hillary infos for free.
... wow. Just wow. Thankfully for the rest of civilized society, you on't get the make the rules. Purchasing goods you know are stolen is a punishable crime, as it should be. Really? Russia doesn't care? http://www.latimes.com/politics/was...-sanctions-abruptly-1498069279-htmlstory.html So I guess Russia was just like "lol nope!" and cancelled the meeting out of hand, right? Now I know you are just lying outright, especially given that we have email correspondence SHOWING that Russia wanted Trump to win. Nobody is buying is Schmelzer... your schit Schtinks.
If America makes some unfriendly sounds, there will be, of course, some similar unfriendly diplomatic response. If you think this tells much about how much Russia cares about sanctions you are wrong. First, learn to read. If I write "If X then ..." it tells nothing about if X is true or not. I have simply no opinion about this. Maybe Putin wanted Trump, maybe not. Putin knows, I don't know, and the question is not interesting for me at all. If you think these emails tell something about what Russia wanted, instead of simply telling us that this lawyer wanted a meeting with Trump Jr., ok, feel free to believe. BTW, I have a bridge to sell. No, the bridge I have to sell you is a really beautiful one, no sh...
The information, as he was duly informed in the emails, was from the Russian government, whom you blithely declared were merely gathering information, ignoring the fact that they hacked into the DNC and stole said information.. You missed that from the email he released? Perhaps that is how it is in the cave you live in. Out in the real world, if you a) suspect that a foreign nation is interfering with an election which even 5 year olds understand is illegal and b) that foreign nation contacts you because they want to give you the info they gathered through their interference with the election to help you win, then no, only a moron would think that they have a right to talk to that person or agent of said foreign nation. Put simply, say you are in negotiations with someone to buy a TV, and that person tells you that the TV is stolen. Knowingly buying that TV that you know is stolen is a crime. Now tell me where in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, does it advocate breaking the law and colluding with a foreign nation to interfere in an election? I mean, talk about taking Article 19 out of context.. I have seen people attempt to apply stupid interpretations to Article 19. Yours is up there. You should perhaps refer to Article 21 (3). Pay particular attention to the words "genuine elections". A foreign nation actively colluding with one party and illegally hacking and stealing from the other party with the express bid of ensuring their preferred party one does not fall under the banner of "genuine elections". In fact, it is in direct contradiction to not only Article 19, but also Article 21 (3) at a bare minimum. Theft, collusion, illegal acts, are not covered by the Declaration. Sorry to disappoint you.
Hahaha, oh man oh man... I think I'm done dealing with you. I prefer those that actually stick to reality. Go beg your beloved Putin for favors, you won't find any here. To set the record back on track from Schmelzers attempted diversion: potential charges include criminal or civil violations of campaign finance laws that prohibit accepting anything of value from a foreign government or a foreign national. The promised Russian “documents" and "information” would have been an illegal campaign contribution from a foreign government — and a priceless one at that.
Yes. All what I was able to see there was that some Emin claimed to some Rob that there exists some information. The "fact" that it was the Russian government which has hacked the DNC I ignore, of course, like all fake news. Yes. So what? Was there any claim that Trump Jr. has paid some money for this? Moreover, I'm not sure if the press is not allowed to pay informants, simply because they have got their information in some not very legal ways. LOL. The point of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is not about the right of individual persons to break laws. It is about the obligation of states who have signed it, that they should not have laws which forbid to do the things they have a right to do. In case you have not recognized: I do not care at all about the fate of poor Trump Jr. If you, following some old local traditions, hang them after tarring and feathering, so be it. All I tell you is, you don't have the rights you can read about in that fantasy named declaration of human rights. Just in case you have believed you have such rights.
You ignore it because you dislike it... unfortunately for you, this does not change reality. I suggest you get used to dealing in reality, rather than your pathetic little fantasy land. If you believe that Russian agents are going to hand over that information without some form of payment, then you are a bigger fool than I thought. Yet what you are claiming now is that you feel there should be NO LAW that can inhibit what you perceive to be a right... Well, I feel I should have the right to walk into the grocery store and walk out with a cart full of food I didn't pay for. Oops, guess what, just like what you have posited, me wanting something doesn't' make it a right!
LOL, yet another person who speculates about what I think. I ignore it because I have insufficient information. There could have been good reasons for Putin to support Clinton. Clinton was known to be corrupt, what would be better than a corrupt president of the enemy? And, moreover, it does not matter. It may matter for Trump-fans. I'm not. I support Trump as less evil, that's all. If Putin has really hacked DNC, or voting machines or whatever, my comment would be nice job, FSB. If you think they would have to care at that time about receiving some promise to get something in exchange, then you are the fool. If Trump would have been elected, based on such information, Russia could expect something good even without such a promise. There should be, indeed, NO LAW that would inhibit the rights described in the Human Rights declaration. This is the point of the declaration. Else, it would be simply a peace of paper from Stalin time not worth to be read except by historians or researchers of propaganda techniques. Based on which article of the declaration of Human Rights?
Hardly any need to speculate - your actions and words speak plainly for all to see. Point 1 - Collusion between Team Trump and Russia has already been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The only question now is "how much". Point 2 - There is no good reason for Putin to support Clinton (what are you even babbling about?) Point 3 - In what was was Clinton "corrupt" as you claim? Because she got paid for giving speeches, as many other pubic figures have in the past? Point 4 - It does matter. Point 5 - You support Trump. He is not "less evil" than Clinton. He is using the presidential office to enrich himself and his friends and family... which is illegal. Point 6 - What "if"? I believe every US intelligence agency has said the same thing, as have multiple other worldwide agencies. I'm going to guess at this point you won't believe it unless Putin himself says it happened (since, you know, a Russian spokesperson has already admitted it in those emails...) Point 7 - "nice job"... yeah, a Russian Apologist like yourself would only say that... http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/ Okay, so, if NO LAW can inhibit these rights, then I guess we need to let all the rapists, murderers, child pornographers, and numerous other violent criminals out of prison... after all, OUR LAWS are infringing on THEIR RIGHT to freedom (article 1), privacy (article 12), their property (article 17), the right to not belong to an association (article 20), the right to work, to free choice of employment, and remuneration (article 23). After all, that is what you JUST SAID - NO LAW would inhibit those rights. Articles 25 and 27 - Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control. and Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits. I believe it to be my cultural right to do so. (go ahead, prove me wrong) I also find myself financially pinched, and so cannot pay for the nourishing and nutritious food that my body needs.
If somebody cheats your parents, your brothers and sisters, your friends, your grandmother - that's ok too? (btw: since you care about them in particular: access to medical records is involved here - Putin's agents, as we may now describe Russian hackers in general, have apparently stolen them as well). Exactly. That's why it's illegal. He seeks to coordinate with the Russian mob and agents of the Russian government, pay them to commit a crime from which he benefits and share with them in the proceeds. I do care. I'm very worried that this scheme - enforcement of even clear and damaging violations of very basic law against someone powerful and wealthy - will not work any more, in the US. Because I see it not working - I see reputation supplanting law, at the very highest levels of US government. And fear is the most effective reputation there is. So you should worry as well. Because if so, the people no longer subject to law have nuclear weapons and belligerent, self-aggrandizing, shortsighted agendas in your town even more than in mine. Your famous eyesight again - the most comical source of information about what isn't supposed to exist in the real world on this forum. (Then again, how else would we know? It's not like the events and circumstances come with tags on them saying which of them didn't happen and don't exist). Ever play peek-a-boo with a small child, who covers their eyes to hide themselves? There's a German version, the adult says iirc "Wo bist du". I say to you: There you are.
