Russiagate

1.) Care about this if you like, I couldn't care less.
2.) There was the known fact that Putin has supported in Ukrainian elections the "anti-Russian" Timoshenko instead of the "pro-Russian" Yanukovich, for the simple reason that she was known to be corrupt.
3.) google yourself.
4.) if it matters for you, your problem.
5.) Actually I'm more amused instead of taking sides. Who does more to damage the US world rule, Trump or his enemies? Hard to tell, both are quite good actually.
6.) LOL, somebody who believes US secret services.
7.) What do you expect, that I would whine about the poor US democracy being seriously harmed?

First of all: If I would be a leader of some state, I would not have signed this document as it is written down, for reasons quite similar - in this form, the state would have to violate it, or to interpret it in strange ways. But the situation is not as bad as you describe it. Let's see:
Art. 1: All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. Does not mean they have to remain free forever.
Art. 12: No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
Interference which is specified by laws is not arbitrary. Same for
Art. 17: (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property. If you interpret imprisonment as belonging to an association, ok, but imho quite strange.

If US imprisonment violates Art. 23 or not does not matter in this context, because it certainly does not require to free them all. In German prisons, you have some possibility to work, you will get some renumeration for this, if you don't like the jobs offered, you can choose not to work too. There is equal pay for equal work all imprisoned. And there is even payment for unemployment insurance, so that if you go out working all the time you have been imprisoned, you will receive unemployment payments.

Don't worry. After you will be imprisoned according to the law, in the prison you will receive food, clothing, housing and medical care. You will also have the right to use the prison library, and what else defines the cultural life of the prison community.

Ok too? I have not said that it is ok. I would despise him.

Again, I do not care about apparent fake news.

This does not change the fact that making things illegal which are basic human rights is not a good idea. And this type of reasoning are the good intentions the road to totalitarian hell is paved with. Amoral behavior will always hide as moral behavior, and once you try to forbid that wrongdoing nonetheless, and by the way forbid harmless things too, your fate is predefined.

LOL. This is what you conclude from the evidence known up to now? Remember the discussion about running an illegal porn server on a hacked computer, to present the victim as a distributor of illegal porn, where you argued it would be hopeless to prove this in court? If you were right, here there would be zero chance at all.

BTW, it seems you have misunderstood the point of my scheme. Intentionally or not - I don't know. But your answer is about something completely different. And nothing I care about, because I do not believe the nice fairy tale about rule of law in the US.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

That's a good point for everyone else to note - Schmelz here would be quite happy to see the US harmed. So he would see all the lies and deceptions in his posts to be for a good cause.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

And here we have the admission of your character (and ignorance) - the fact that you don't see why secret collusion with a foreign government to influence another nations electoral process is an issue... it's quite damming Schmelzer.

And yet, you cannot refute the statement...

Ah, so it is only OK so long as it is normal within YOUR culture. I get it now, you terrible bigot you.

So it's OK to do that to somebody ELSE, but not to you or yours... got it!

Prove it to be fake.

This does not change the fact that you are attempting to decry ALL laws because you think you have some pre-ordained right to be above them.

What a joke...

So long as it doesn't personally harm him, it would seem (what a saint, he is willing to look out for his friends and family, but everyone else, they can just go get fucked for all he cares!)

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

And allow him to run your town, handle your bank accounts, use the money he stole to buy property you can no longer afford - such as your parent's house, or every commercial employer in your area?

And all the news you don't want to care about is fake.
As always, with the guppy school of Republican media swallowers: Are they lying, or are they stupid?

Cheating and robbing and stealing are not basic human rights.

Such as yours - assuming your intentions are good, in promoting American fascism.

No, it won't. When it gets enough power, it won't hide at all. Trump isn't hiding what he's doing behind claims of morality, and if he can cripple the law sufficiently he won't hide behind claims of legality either.

Yep.

You refuse to see physical facts, again. Meetings that physically took place. Events recorded. The parallel with illegal porn would be a physical record of his hand delivering physical copies of it to people who had requested it explicitly and reviewed its content before agreeing to pay him for it.

I gave you full credit for being deluded about your scheme, and honestly having good intentions.

 

#cripplingstupidity | #WhatTheyVotedFor​

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

​

This is part of the problem with your argument. No, really, you can't even address basic questions↱:

• 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.​

And all you do is just lecture and repeat yourself as if you're somehow just too smart and important to give anything even a moment's decent thought.

You behavior is ignorant, rude, and offers nothing in good faith, and that is why you seem, for all your wasted words, to have nothing to say. Try attending reality instead of making up random excrement; quite clearly, you are incapable of defending your own arguments. Hell, you're not even capable of attending your own arguments.

So, you know, try coming up with something that isn't utterly worthless. In the end, sympathizing with one's own straw man is as easy as it is cheap.

And like I said, nobody needs to make up fake news to warrant these investigations or mounting suspicions about various people's behavior. Simply doubling down on uneducated conspiracism requiring unanchored, customized definitions of words—

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.​

—is insufficient. Think of it this way, there are actually some Americans who, when everything seemed to go awry, worried that maybe the media and some Democratic voices were tugging too hard on the bit about inviting Russia to hack after Clinton's email. However, that's the thing; one can say stuff like candidate Trump said, and it probably doesn't come to anything unless it actually does: If Mr. Flynn had reported his contacts, and, you know, probably not pushed the Turkey op-ed when he did; or if AG Sessions had reported his contacts properly instead of trying to parse in a way he, as a former U.S. Senator and member of the Judiciary Committee ought to have known doesn't work; if President Trump hadn't wrecked his own comm shop by going out of his way to make criminally-implicating boasts about his own conduct after they worked really hard to give him cover; if Paul Manafort wasn't facing a blackmail attempt↱ overlapping a period when he drew circumstantially strange home equity loans↱ that also coincides with lobbying to alter Republican foreign policy↱; if, if, if ....

No, really, that last could be just run of the mill American business corruption—both Manafort and one of his partners in one of these loans each have their own histories of misusing investor funds.

So let us think about this for a moment: Manafort and Flynn alike have committed crimes in failing to register as foreign agents. Mr. Manafort was subject to a blackmail attempt. What part of this is fake news? That he worked for the Ukranian government? That someone tried to blackmail him? That he lobbied to change the platform? That he took suspicious home equity loans?

If only there was no DNC hack. If only this guy who keeps turning up in Donald Trump's circles despite occasional disavowals (e.g., 2008, 2015) hadn't boasted publicly about being in touch with the Russian hackers.

If only the Vice President hadn't lied to a reporter about what and when he knew about Mr. Flynn's failure to report contacts and agency.

If only, if only, if only.

The beginning of your conspiracist cycle requires fake news; there are plenty of real pathways to discovering the details of these apparently criminal messes. I mean, seriously, we can even go with: If only Donald Trump hadn't boasted of triggering an inexplicable diplomatic crisis with a foreign government that apparently had angered the president's son-in-law's family by offering loan terms Kushner Companies didn't like.

You're making any number of seeming mistakes, except they're not really mistakes if your purpose is to swindle for persuasion, unless, of course, they fail to be persuasive. And this is part of the problem with the uninformed generalization of your arguments; the idea that receiving or soliciting a thing of value↱ from a foreign national as part of a presidential campaign is something one agrees to not do simply by officially running for office is not by any means extraordinary. As I've said before, your rabid critique against the United States and American society prefers ill-informed complaint, but another problematic aspect is that your generalization allows for the basic outcome that one is not culpable because one did not know because one never cared to know.

To wit, it's one thing if it never occurred to someone that the American state they moved to from whichever state they lived in before might be one of the several that forbid deliberate collection of rainwater; no, really, it's a weirdly American variability owing to states' rights, and we might think most people don't even know such laws exist, but try to repeal them and everyone starts worrying about rain barons. It probably means a lot more along Colorado River ranch country than it does where I live in a regional raindish, and who knows what it will mean to us if our raindish goes dustbowl, but, yeah, I think mine is one of those states. And, yeah, nobody ever seems to think about it, and then it comes up because someone tries something really blatantly stupid, or else works to repeal the law because it functionally forbids living off the grid in the middle of the grid. (At farmscale, it's apparently a very complex question; the idiot neighbor in the subdevelopment who thinks he can collect enough rain to disconnect from city lines does nobody any good.)

Still, though, when you register to run for office you are agreeing to obey the laws and if one's reason for not knowing is that he didn't care to know, such as might be the Donald Jr.'s best excuse for an excuse, no, ignorance is not bliss.

Interestingly, I'm still dwelling, in Don Jr.'s case, on the question of our American culture of privilege; Kathleen Clark is discussing the legal niceties with Chuck Todd on msnbc, and taking a fairly modest line about the potential for exposure, but this sort of telling, especially lined up alongside the timeline of temporally and topically relevant statements from candidate Trump and his team, starts to make this really look like a bunch of petty crooks who have no real clue what they've gotten themselves into.

Which, you know, would be what it is, but this is the White House. Dumbassed petty crooks who don't care to know what they're on about just don't get any blissful breaks for ignorance, nor reasonable accommodation of crippling stupidity as a protected disability.

It's amazing, some days, what breaks Americans will cut for stupidity if the idiots are rich, white, and masculine enough. Bringing dangerously slapstick villainy to the seat of American government, though, is an entirely different issue. Their best excuse—willful negligence—isn't an excuse at all.
____________________

Notes:

Beauchamp, Zack. "Legal experts say Donald Trump Jr has just confessed to a federal crime". Vox. 11 July 2017. Vox.com. 12 July 2017. http://bit.ly/2uRNlDP

Burris, Sarah K. "Reminder: Manafort got the GOP to change their party platform to be more Russia-friendly". Raw Story. 9 May 2017. RawStory.com. 12 July 2017. http://bit.ly/2ueZkxA

Dayen, David. "Former Trump Campaign Manager Paul Manafort Took Out $19 Million in Puzzling Real Estate Loans". The Intercept. 24 February 2017. TheIntercept.com. 12 July 2017. http://bit.ly/2t4DNYW

Vogel, Kenneth P., David Stern, and Josh Meyer. "Manafort faced blackmail attempt, hacks suggest". Politico. 23 February 2017. Politico.com. 12 July 2017. http://politi.co/2tNpIfA

 

You can have an issue with whatever you like. My point is that making what Trump Jr. has done illegal is a violation of human rights. If you don't care, and think that this issue is more important - your choice.

(Stupid defamations disposed. Learn to read.)

No reason. Its even funny if you believe it, so continue to believe it. I just tell you that I don't believe it.

No. It does not matter at all what I think to have, the point was what is written in the human rights declaration.

Learn to read. Just to clarify: I despise cheaters in general. This does not mean that they should be imprisoned. I despise you too, and this also does not mean that you should be imprisoned.

????????????????? The original question was "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?"
That's a rather unimportant issue for me, so that despising him is sufficient as a penalty. And it has nothing to do with my bank account, my property and so on, and has also nothing to do with the problems other people, say, with HIV, can have with this. Ok, I was stupid to answer an off-topic question, sorry, that's all.

No. News about the weather in Hawaii is something I don't care about, but there is no reason to believe it is fake.

So what? I have not seen in the human rights declaration anything that these are basic human rights. (I do not think this declaration has much to do with basic human rights, but this is something completely different. It is at least what some governments have accepted as basic human rights. Even if only for propaganda reasons.)

BTW, it is quite funny to observe how "conspiracy theory" has changed its meaning into the opposite. In what I have seen there is no conspiracy at all. Trump Jr. was fooled by some lawyer who offered some useful information she did not have to reach some meeting. Tiassa names this a "conspiracy theory" and lists a lot of other facts or "fact" (I have not checked, lack of interest) which suggest what? I would name what this nice collection suggests a conspiracy.

 

But news you don't want to care about, you do have reason to believe is fake. In fact, that is your only visible criterion for deciding something is fake news - since you never reality check anything, you never gather information, and you believe lots of fake news when it suits you.

So Donald Trump Jr had no basic human right to cheat and rob and steal.

No, it isn't. See previous quote.

But the criminal behavior of the Trump campaign is an important issue for Americans (they are being cheated bigly), and so despising the perps is not sufficient.

The famous eyesight - wo bist du.

No, he wasn't. He wasn't fooled, he was offered an opportunity to commit a crime and betray his country for personal gain - an offer he accepted.

The people who have are informed, you are not. Your claims are ignorant, and that's partly why they are wrong.

 

If you think so for yourself, your choice. I evaluate questions which are interesting for me and try to distinguish fake news from real news based on the information available for me. If I like the news or not does not matter. (Ok, it may distort my evaluation, nobody is perfect).

Of course, not. But he has the right to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

And this is the point. He was offered information about Clinton. The offer did include information that the promised information comes from Russia. But, remember, the right is to seek information regardless of frontiers.

Did the offer include information that the promised information was obtained in somehow illegal ways? If yes, quote, I have not seen this.

And even in this case, this would be problematic. As long as he did not offers the criminals some reward, supporting them in this way.

 

No, you don't.
Whether you honestly believe that's what you are doing is an unanswered question, but it would be a pretty obvious self-deception if you did.

The right to seek information does not include the right to cheat, rob, and steal - which is what Jr there agreed to do.

But not regardless of the cheating, robbing, and stealing involved.

Yes. There were no legal ways.

Wo bist du.

His presence alone was an offer of significant rewards. There was no other reason for it - the criminals certainly didn't need that doofus to mediate their slandering of Clinton to the media, and dealing with him involved a fairly large risk (as we see now). Criminals of that caliber don't make trouble for themselves and take risks like that without expectation of reward.

Clearly they expected Junior to provide bigger rewards than Fox News or the Koch brothers for Clinton dirt, for example. And clearly they didn't go to them, after dealing with Junior - they were satisfied. The only question is what they got, and count on getting still.

 

The usual defamations disposed.

Really? I have not seen evidence for this yet.

Explain. If, say, Hillary has sold US interests to Russia, for some payment via Clinton foundation, and somebody from the Russian side (I doubt that legal or illegal according to Russian law would matter in this question) tells Trump Jr. about this, which US law is violated?

LOL. (I know, it is a quite cynical laugh, because if this type of reasoning becomes decisive in US law, that will have quite horrible consequences, and the world leadership in imprisonment rates will reach new highs. Remember what IYO counts an illegal porn server running on your computer some time, with pics from your environment provided by the provider? Nothing.)

Clearly, lol. If there is something I would name conspiracy theory, it would be this type of reasoning. BTW, it matters what the bad guys expected in your fantasy? What matters is what you can prove Trump Jr. thought, not?

And the argument itself is quite weak. If those evil guys were really the Russian government, their interest would have been simply that Trump wins. Nothing else would be expected, Trump winning would be sufficient. (And, if we consider what has happened up to now, Russian can be quite satisfied with the results. The US works hard to discredit itself, from above sides.) In this case, whatever they do would work better if Trump knew about this before.

 

Wo bist du
(- peek a boo - the world is still there, even when you don't look.)

None so far. Why do you ask?

Are they lying, or are they stupid?
Although it is a bit reassuring to note that the American Trump voter is not uniquely chuckleheaded in this world. There are 63 million of them, after all.

Try comprehending it first: They had dirt on Clinton - that's valuable stuff. Fox pays, Koch pays, Breitbart pays. Plenty of media is eager. Bannon, the media expert, is right there. They instead shop it to dimbulb, who doesn't even run a TV station. Is this an accident on their part? They don't know any better? You believe that, seriously?

Nope. What he did is enough - what he wrote in his emails and said in justification (after lying five times) is just nails in the lid.

So the Russian mob/government - which you suggest these agents took a vacation from their normal connection with and went freelance for some reason - would throw away leverage like that out of charity. or obliviousness, or why do you think?
That's ridiculous.

Although there is another possibility I hadn't considered. All the Russians I've met have been math guys at the local university - pretty bright crowd, got a lot on the ball. Maybe they aren't typical. Schmelzer might be better informed than I am about Russian mobster IQ. Maybe Russian mob/government types really are just morons, complete idiots, clueless incompetents who would take a treasure trove of Clinton dirt in he middle of the campaign and use it to get to meet the great Trump's oldest son just to get his autograph or a selfie with him or something, tell their children about their exciting day.

But Junior still broke the law by accepting their offer.

 

This will be, obviously, your new standard answer whenever I ask for evidence. Makes some sense. Iceaura asks, wo bist du, evidence, and does not find it, so is unable to present it.

First, I don't believe that the Russian government, if it would do something similar, would care about a few dollars Breitbart pays. If they are small players who have to care, all the Russiagate disappears into some cheaters presenting themselves as having connections with Russian government. Once Trump Jr. has believed the story (instead of simply taking a look at this, even if the probability of success is only 5%) he would not have expect that he will be asked for something in return. This is the same as those offers of some millions from Nigeria. One may take a look at them, one may even answer, but when they ask for some payment, they are out.

If this is enough, the law violates the human rights declaration. At least I have not seen anything going beyond his attempt "to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers".

You have forgotten to paint the "ridiculous" bold and in some color. This would have made your argument much more convincing.

Then, think again. Starting hypothesis (for the sake of the argument) would be that Putin decided that it is better for Russia if Trump wins. What he will do? Ok, steal some information discrediting her (instead of simply asking his oligarch friends how much they had to pay Clinton, but, ok, that's evil Putin). What to do now with this information? Ask Trump and Clinton who pays more? Give it to NYT for 10 000 dollar and not publishing it? Not to give it Trump if what he offers is below 100 000 dollar or so? Or simply give it to Trump? Simply think about the question how much it is worth for Russia if it could place a person one likes on the top position of the enemy. This is something which counts in billions, if not more.

 

At least in Germany, imprisoning people following analogies is explicitly forbidden. This is considered to be a central point of a state of law. Indisputable, supported by the constitutional law. Not sure about the US, the common law allows analogies, but if analogies allow to imprison you, my condolence.

So, the press can pay for stories, even if the information has been stolen, but Trump Jr. is forbidden to even hear if some guy who claims to have information really has some.

She was not an informant because she was a cheater, presenting herself as having information. Everything else is nonsense.

And this is what I'm arguing about. If what Trump Jr. has done, according to the emails, is illegal, then your government infringes your human rights. If you don't care, feel free to ignore my postings about this.

Off-topic disposed.

Nonsense. I make some very specific points. It is quite common here in the responses to go away from these specific points and to argue about something vaguely related to this, questions I don't care about.

Let's explain what I care about. The techniques which will be used to get rid of Trump. Here I have presented a scheme which, if US law is sufficiently totalitarian, will work for sure. The totalitarian mindset. Why constitutions do not protect anything.

Here we have a nice example for the last question. We have the UHDR, art. 19 Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers. And we have a guy, who has heard that somebody has some valuable information for him and wants to talk with him, and has accepted this. And all you cry "hang him", nobody even cares about his own rights. And all this simply because he is a political enemy.

 

You are conveniently omitting the part where said information was gathered ILLEGALLY.

Then again, deception and lies by omission seem to be your schtick...

 

Trump just threw his son under the bus. Trump denied knowing anything of the Russian meeting. It was all his son's doing. Trump had nothing to do with it. That's incredible. Furthermore, it's pretty damn gutless.

Don't give me this crap about Trump's loyalty. Trump has only one loyalty, and that is to himself. Trump is loyal to no one, not even his family. He would do anything to save his miserable ass, and that’s a very dangerous thing when you have the nuclear codes.

 

Not really shocking... I'm actually surprised he didn't deny knowledge of Trump Jr overall, given his past behavior.

 

It will continue to be my answer whenever you claim to not see things that are in front of your face - like a little kid covering their eyes in the peek-a-boo game - whether you ask for evidence or not. Because that little mince has aged badly. You've begun not seeing things you typed yourself.

I doubt Putin's guys are as clueless as you are.
In standard mob procedure, Putin would use it to damage Clinton and gain favors and leverage on Trump, including immediate help with the Republican Party platform and other troubles he can address prior to the election (remember that the Republicans have traditionally been the hardline anti-Russian Party, until after earlier Russian hacking when their tone changed dramatically - probably a coincidence) -
a carrot and stick routine (Putin has stolen Republican and Trump stuff as well, so the demonstration of Clinton damage is also a threat), at once getting benefits that do not depend on Trump winning and getting blackmail pressure on the Republicans as well as Trump if he does win (unlike you, the Russians are not confused about whether or not Junior and the rest were breaking the law - and that's blackmail territory, right now: Trump is due to be very cooperative with Russian interests in Syria, Ukraine, etc, ).

That is false. No human right to cheat and steal and betray your countrymen for personal gain exists.

But they would care about damaging Clinton, and Breitbart would be an ideal vehicle - and capable of doing favors, as well. Just not as big as Trump's favors.

Of course he would expect to be asked for something, to come to an understanding of some kind. He's stupid, but not that stupid.

Wo bist du.

She had information, which her fellow Russian mobsters proceeded to release in return for whatever Trump promised them. But that is irrelevant - Junior had already broken the law.

 

How does this follow? All what counts is what Trump Jr. has known about this info (which never appeared).

It does not follow at all that this Crown prosecutor of Russia got the information in some illegal way, given that it was claimed to be information about dealings with Russia, thus, things which Russia will know based on these dealings.

Obviously not. I thought you refer to the use of analogies in courts cases, quite typical for law based on precedence cases.

In the case you have now, in Germany nothing would happen. I have never cared about campaign finance laws, and they are irrelevant here, and the only free speech restrictions during elections I'm aware of are cultural. Beyond Holocaust denial, which is not specific to elections.

I simply thought this is clear. If secret information is leaked to the press, it is not the press which will be punished, but they look for the whistleblower to punish him. Not? What Snowden has told us about the NSA was stolen, not? They look for Snowden, not? Has there been any process against any press which has written anything told by Snowden? This would be new to me. So, I think they can publish stolen news. You said they can pay for stories. I have combined this into my own summary of the situation, no quotation marks, thus, no claim that you have said this.

Quite typical laws for police states. This "colluding with a foreign power" is something Stalin would have liked to write into law code too.

And informant which does not give information is not an informant.

I thought "will be used" is about the future, not the past, not?

I have lived in the time of the free internet, where I could freely download instructions for making bombs. Forgotten the name of that anarchistic manual which was for download on many free speech sites just out of principle. That the terrorism hysteria was used to take away many rights of the people should be obvious.

PS: Remembered: The Anarchist cookbook

IOW, a cheap defamation, to be disposed.

Anti-Putin-fantasies disposed.

Of course, he would expect it, as well as I expect it when I read, just for fun, an offer of some lawyer of a late Nigerian millionaire.