I find Pence's policitcs rather revolting, but hey, I don't think he is a fucking lunatic like Trump.
That was and is very controversial, and the controversy - just like your bs on exactly the same irrelevancy here - took the actual content and issues out of the light, and helped defend the security state abuses and growing powers from public attention. Yes. It is. That's why it's illegal. No, that would not be fine, if it were the "same". But first let's deal with sitting President - that's the threat. 1) You have no idea what "the Left" in the US is doing. You don't know who they are, and you don't know how ignorant you are yourself. 2) If the various people trying to remove Trump are successful, which is unlikely but possible, they have a realistic chance of taking out Pence at the same time - he's entangled, and not clean. He might even go first - when sound governance took Nixon down, they got rid of Agnew first - which helped greatly in collecting support for taking out Nixon. 3) The situation for the Left is not much different than in any recent Presidential election - the better of two lousy choices, chosen for the welfare of the country and its citizenry. Imagine the Left facing a vote for Clinton last year - same basic kind of decision. Entertaining for those who wish ill upon the US, especially those blind enough to not see the genuine danger they are put in by Trump's election and the rise of fascism in a military power like the US, but hardly a mystery or paradox - it's the common situation for the libertarian left in almost all recent Presidential elections, including the one just past where they were faced with voting for Clinton in the battle States.
The "left" fighting for Pence? Are you on drugs? Who are these "lefties" rooting for Pence? Choosing between a mentally unstable POTUS and a mentally stable POTUS - sanity versus insanity- it really isn't much of a choice.
Except it isn't fine. That's why Snowden is hiding out in Russia. The press didn't cause Snowden to steal NSA documents. Snowden did that all on his own. The press didn't collude with Russia; Snowden did. No it's not the same. Snowden didn't attempt to corrupt American democracy. Trump Junior, Trump Senior's senior staff, and Russian intelligence agents did. Seriously, you don't see the difference? Of course not, you are a Russian. You don't understand the importance of elections. In the US elections aren't rubber stamps as they are in your beloved Mother Russia. In your beloved Mother Russia corruption is the norm. Russia is one of the most corrupt nations in the world. That's not the case in the US. Except that's blatantly untrue. Hillary's campaign wasn't doing the same thing. She didn't collude with Russia. She didn't even collude with Ukraine. Yeah, it's those damn facts again comrade. The DNC sent some people to Ukraine to investigate the charges make by the Ukrainian government against Trump's campaign chairman. That's normal opposition research. You mean like your Russian and Republican buddies....? Unfortunately for you and your Russian and Republican comrades, the US has a long standing history of non-partisan criminal justice. That's what happens in a democracy comrade. But then you don't like democracies. You like dictators like Stalin. You don't have all that fighting; you have mass murder instead. This isn't about imprisoning Trump Junior. This is about protecting our democracy. One of the things which makes America, and other Western democracies, great is the fact that they openly air their dirty laundry. They don't let it grow moldy and toxic in some basement where it ultimately erodes the foundation. That's why the US and the West are successful and your beloved Mother Russia isn't. How people will ultimately view the US depends upon how the US handles this crisis. Will our democratic institutions stand or fall? Thus far, American democratic institutions are holding. My bet is on American democratic institutions. The US and the world are prospering. Your beloved Mother Russia isn't. Enjoy your popcorn, you should be attending to your business. Unlike your beloved Mother Russia, if Trump Junior has violated the law, he will be prosecuted, and he will have his day in court. He, along with Trump's closest advisers, have hired lawyers to defend them. The left is fighting for American democracy. It's not fighting for Pence. Pence just happens to be next in line. Trump has and continues to threaten that democracy. The left is fighting Trump. It's called democracy comrade.
The question is not if these publications have been controversial, but if they have been legal. A "yes it is" disposed. That would be at least a strategy which makes sense. A purely hypothetical idea: Maybe Trump has chosen Pence not only to buy some support from the right-wing Republicans, but also having in mind that having somebody even worse for democrats than himself would be additional protection against the predictable attempts to impeach him? A German commentator has made another funny suggestion: That Trump himself has initiated this continuation of the Russiagate, so that the media are busy. And the things which really matter will remain outside the media focus. Learn to read. What was named "fine" was that the press published what Snowden has stolen. So, publishing stolen documents is fine. Further joepistole facts disposed.
LOL...More Schmelzer delusion and illusion: the unfortunate fact for you is there is nothing fine about what Snowden did, and there is nothing wrong with the press reporting what Snowden did. It's what a free press does comrade. Now I realize you struggle with that, being a Ruskie and all; but that doesn't change the truth of the matter here.
Hopeless. Maybe somebody else can explain him this simple point? Last try: This was my point. Once the free press is doing this all the time, and it is fine, it means, publishing (and, before publishing, seeking and receiving) stolen information is fine. Not? Too complicate? And once to publish even stolen information is fine, it follows that even if Trump Jr. would have received stolen information, this would be nothing worth to mention. The aim of getting this information was obviously the same as of the free press - to publish it in one way or another.
Comrade, I suggest you read my last post again, this time more slowly. You are obfuscating. The free press didn't collude with Russia. Donald and his merry band did that all on their own. Outside your beloved Mother Russia, that's what a free press does. It seeks information and it publishes that information. But it doesn't collude with Russia to subvert America's democratic institutions as Trump and his merry Russians did. It's really not that difficult comrade. It appears Trump and his merry band of Ruskies came to an agreement: Russia's help undermining the election in exchange for sanctions relief. That's what it looks like comrade. We now know Trump's senior advisers meet with a number of Russian intelligence officers, and Russian "information" on Clinton and sanction relief were discussed. After that meeting Russia began releasing the information it stole and its fake news operations began in an effort to tilt the election toward Trump. And we know that secret meeting, kicked off a series of secret meetings between senior Trump advisers and Russian intelligence officers with the most recent secret meeting occurring just a few days ago.
The way this whole collusion mess seems to be stacking up, I’d say Pence’s hands aren’t much cleaner than Trump’s. Probably more fitting to make references to Ryan supporters.
I agree. Pence has lawyered up too. As more is discovered, he's looking at some culpability too. https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...-innocent-dont-buy-it/?utm_term=.42ba94d18764
This Trump Junior story keeps changing. First it was just a meeting with a Russian lawyer to discuss adoption issues. Which is kind of odd given Trump was just a candidate. Then we learn, well, it wasn't adoptions it was to discuss dirt the Russians had dug up on Clinton. Then we learn, they didn't discuss adoptions. They discussed American sanctions on Russia. Now we learn there were more people in the meeting, including a Russian counterintelligence officer and an interpreter. The list keeps growing, and Junior's story keeps changing. Given the presence of the Russian counter intelligence officer, it is likely Russia has a tape of that meeting. If Russia has it, there is a possibility the US has it. Wouldn't that be interesting.
Does this poster actually believe that? It's a real question. It comes up with all these American fascist propaganda posters - are they really lying that blatantly , or are they really that stupid? We have to keep swatting these flies, or they take over: 1) That wouldn't be the case even if it made any difference whether the info was stolen or not. Publishing stolen info, using it for private gain, using it for blackmail, and using it for advantage in a political campaign, are different situations both ethically and legally. 2) Junior broke the law, a good law against cheating and betraying and so forth, if all he got was a copy of yesterday's newspaper as "information". (So did Manafort and Kushner, btw). 3) Snowden and the Russian government are completely different moral and legal entities in this situation. If an American citizen like Snowden had hacked the DNC and arranged to bring the info to Junior, Junior would not automatically have committed a crime - it would depend on whether he had made some kind of illegal deal with the guy. With an agent of the Russian government, he has - there is no legal deal he can make.
My point is a completely different one. I compare what is known from the emails, in the hard way, provable at a court in a civilized country, with UDHR art. 19. Nice technique. One introduces yet another thing, blackmail, which has nothing to do with the actual situation. If the emails prove this, then this law violates UDHR art. 19. You are nonetheless free to think that it is good law. UDHR 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. Interesting how easy Americans fall back into modes of reasoning which I associate with Stalin and Hitler time, when getting information from foreign information sources ("Feindsender hören") was a crime: Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! This type of language was very popular at that time too.
That isn't true. Your point was what you posted, and I quoted. This: Not something else. The question was whether you believed it - stupidity (since willful ignorance is a form of stupidity) - or whether you instead are simply posting whatever advances your agenda without regard for the truth (I call that lying, although bullshit is the accurate term). It is directly relevant, an immediate foreground concern, and was introduced weeks ago as a standard aspect of the Trump campaign's dealings with Russian mob/government figures. Why do you imply that it is new or irrelevant? And why do you ignore the point made - which is that the Trump campaign dealing in damage and agitprop with the Russian government is in a completely different moral and ethical, as well as legal, position from an American newspaper dealing in information with an American whistleblower? That is a false statement. Despite multiple corrections you continue to misrepresent the law involved as dealing with information, even claiming it violates this: so are you lying, or stupid?
Because various general conspiracy theories proposed earlier about "Trump campaign dealings" are irrelevant. Yes, and I continue to do this, because this is all what I can see from the published emails. Trump Jr. was offered some useful information, from evil foreigners, and he was trying to get it. Baby talk or DNC conspiracies are not relevant for this.
But specific observations of Trump campaign dealings made all along are not. So you can't see that Junior, inviting Manafort and Kushner, was acting on behalf of his father's campaign, and dealing with the Russian mob/government, with the explicit motive of obtaining goods and/or services useful for damaging Clinton. Ohhhhkaaay. Guess we have to go with stupid.
Which makes this morally evil, so that art.19 is no longer applicable? Helping your father is, indeed, evil, this shows fascist "family values" ideology, not? Naming the hope to receive some information "dealing" makes this morally evil, so that art.19 is no longer applicable? Oh, I see, Russian. That's evil. And something useful for damaging Holy Hillary - that's already evil without any doubt. Here the very hope is already criminal and should be punished.
