The Dots are Getting Connected

[JasperL]

Right. I just don’t see where the problem is with this stuff. Trump, through Cohen, seems to gane been negotiating a licensing agreement with a Russian investment company. The Russians were going to build and own the property while paying the Trump organization a fee for using the Trump name. There is simply nothing unusual about such an agreement and, without the context of the source documents cited, all the other stuff can be chalked up to friendly banter.

If he wasn't running for President and negotiating directly with the Kremlin as he's doing it, you would be correct. You'd also be at least MORE correct if Trump and everyone involved and close to him didn't lie, repeatedly, about their efforts to do this deal while he's also running for office. And of course all this time, his negotiating partner in the deal was actively boosting Trump's election.

The point is none of what he did with regard to the Russia property is illegal, but it's pretty incredible some significant part of society is pushing down the road to normalizing Banana Republic standards on our POTUS, where he trades financial favors with what is generally considered a geopolitical foe, and we go, "Well, it's legal, so no problem!!"

 

[JasperL]

Good point.

Right, because negotiating a lucrative deal with a foreign country, while running for office, and then lying about it repeatedly, while that country is also engaging in active measures to elect the candidate, deserves complete "forbearance," because we now have the ethical standards for POTUS as the average Banana Republic.

 

[Gaugingcatenate]

Mine is makes sense at least it does to adults.

Its, yours was a silly nonsensical platitude to be avoided to the extent of not to be used BY the real adults. And that last sentence of yours is worded about as properly to make sense as... well, an example would make no sense as yours is totally senslessly self describing.

Yano?

 

[Xelor]

Yes - I was glad to see those raids. It will yield a treasure trove of financial records helping to document the Russian ownership of Trump and why he is so loyal to them. He has been severely compromised for a long time now and we cannot have a US President who is owned by another nation.

It certainly augurs to do...

 

[<alt>doxygen]

I think "Well, it's not illegal" should be Trump's 2020 campaign slogan.

I guess it's OK for your government to lie to you. It's not illegal.

I don't know why you can't take a step back and objectively evaluate how absurd this position is.

Are you saying you don't care if the government lies to its citizens? It's not illegal, right?

"If the president does it, it's not...".

I heard that somewhere before, and it was already being used by The Cult in year 1 of Trump's presidency. The founders probably didn't think the EC would allow something like Trump. The POTUS certainly does have a lot of "rights" no one else has.

 

[JasperL]

Isn't the point that if an activity is not illegal, it's not prosecutable?

I think the point is, or should be, that there is more at stake than "prosecutable" or not.

 

[Praxas]

much like "you can keep your doctor" lol (laugh out loud!!!)

That's funny, I did keep my doctor. Thank you for pointing out that wasn't a lie.

Why is Trump asking for money from the American Taxpayer to pay for a wall he PROMISED that Mexico will pay for?

 

[Cardinal]

I focused on this little (but telling) gem of your text. If something is NOT ILLEGAL (i.e. is perfectly legal) then despite your hyperbole someone deserves all the "forbearance" the law if not politics allows. :coffeepap:

And every time something is illegal, it’s a “process crime.” We see your game.

 

[nota bene]

I think the point is, or should be, that there is more at stake than "prosecutable" or not.

But the only legal question is whether something is prosecutable. We can speculate and condemn all day, but the only redress available will be in court.

 

[nota bene]

Right, because negotiating a lucrative deal with a foreign country, while running for office, and then lying about it repeatedly, while that country is also engaging in active measures to elect the candidate, deserves complete "forbearance," because we now have the ethical standards for POTUS as the average Banana Republic.

If Trump hasn't done anything illegal, you're left to criticize without redress. That's the point.

 

[Acadia]

What makes you think Trump had any dealings with VTB Bank? I don't see that in the LOI. In the LOI, I see Trump selling his name, under certain conditions, to the developer. I don't see anything in there about Trump agreeing to borrow money from any bank.

Sounds to me like you aren't so much connecting dots, but manufacturing dots.

Hallucinating dots. Side effect of TDS.

 

[JasperL]

Unlike most, I seldom try to argue from "moral high ground" which is often based on personal bias when it comes to what is or is not "moral." Whenever I do however, I try to make certain to state such is my "personal opinion" and not a fact.

In order for something to be "unethical" there has to be an accepted code of ethics which applies to the action being contemplated.

I would think it an accepted code of ethics that when someone is running for POTUS that he or she refrain from, during the campaign, actively negotiating a lucrative business deal with what is generally considered a geopolitical foe. At a minimum, we should, I think, reasonably expect that arrangement to be made public, or at least not repeatedly lied about.

Furthermore, that Trump and the campaign repeatedly lied about the deal is evidence enough that even they knew it violated our expected 'code of ethics' for someone who ran for and won POTUS.

 

[SonOfDaedalus]

Isn't the point that if an activity is not illegal, it's not prosecutable?

If Trump signs a nuclear agreement that favors Putin with the hopes of getting Putin's approval on a real estate deal, that may not be illegal but it is cause for impeachment. Do you agree? Or do you feel that betraying your country to an adversary is OK because it's not illegal?

 

[Xelor]

Right, because negotiating a lucrative deal with a foreign country, while running for office, and then lying about it repeatedly, while that country is also engaging in active measures to elect the candidate, deserves complete "forbearance," because we now have the ethical standards for POTUS as the average Banana Republic.

If Trump hasn't done anything illegal, you're left to criticize without redress. That's the point.

Red:
Excuse me?

• "Journalists who want to be taken seriously will stick to the "Five W's" and take a refresher course in journalistic ethics."
• "If Warren's going to try to seize the moment, she needs to seize the facts first."

 

[Mycroft]

I would think it an accepted code of ethics that when someone is running for POTUS that he or she refrain from, during the campaign, actively negotiating a lucrative business deal with what is generally considered a geopolitical foe. At a minimum, we should, I think, reasonably expect that arrangement to be made public, or at least not repeatedly lied about.

Furthermore, that Trump and the campaign repeatedly lied about the deal is evidence enough that even they knew it violated our expected 'code of ethics' for someone who ran for and won POTUS.

Perhaps it would be accepted...perhaps a majority of politicians would not find it acceptable.

Perhaps you can talk some Congressmen to pass a law, but I doubt it.

But I wonder...what do you suggest for a penalty? And, would you apply that particular ethical standard and penalty on EVERY politician?

 

[Cardinal]

If Trump hasn't done anything illegal, you're left to criticize without redress. That's the point.

The death of ethics.

 

[JasperL]

But the only legal question is whether something is prosecutable. We can speculate and condemn all day, but the only redress available will be in court.

But the legal question simply isn't the only question. The Constitution conveniently allows for another redress outside the courts for wrongdoing by the POTUS.

Furthermore, condemning bad behavior by POTUS is very much a legitimate end to itself. If not impeached, he may run for reelection, and it's IMO appropriate and necessary for society in general to punish bad, but legal behavior, if nothing else at the ballot box. In this case, the public should have known (or not been lied to) about Trump actively negotiating a deal with the Kremlin as he's seeking our votes for POTUS. If people don't care, fine, but those who do in the next election should IMO take that into account in a very serious way. It's just NOT IMO remotely acceptable. We're not a banana republic.

 

[smallvoice]

or like Praxas claiming to be "independent"...

much like "you can keep your doctor" lol (laugh out loud!!!)

 

[smallvoice]

Not much knowledge there?

Who is obama hussein and what are the keys to our voting system?

 

[JasperL]

If Trump hasn't done anything illegal, you're left to criticize without redress. That's the point.

I addressed most of this point above, but since when it criticizing without legal redress somehow illegitimate or even unproductive? If things are working well in this country, NOTHING you can criticize about a politician involves illegal conduct, but we make value judgments every day about what policies or parties to support, what candidates to support, for whom we will vote, etc. Virtually all of our interactions in the political sphere involve criticisms or praise unrelated to 'legal' redress.

 

[apdst]

I focused on this little (but telling) gem of your text. If something is NOT ILLEGAL (i.e. is perfectly legal) then despite your hyperbole someone deserves all the "forbearance" the law if not politics allows. :coffeepap:

The Leftists want to ignore the ex post facto law part of The Constitution.

 

[JasperL]

Perhaps it would be accepted...perhaps a majority of politicians would not find it acceptable.

I don't care what a "majority of politicians" find "acceptable," and I'm surprised you'd outsource your own ethical standards to such a group. More importantly I find it surprising you believe that the country should do so.

Perhaps you can talk some Congressmen to pass a law, but I doubt it.

But I wonder...what do you suggest for a penalty? And, would you apply that particular ethical standard and penalty on EVERY politician?

It's honestly depressing how far down into the putrid sewer Trump is dragging this country. All you're doing there is advancing the principle that "if it's legal, it's appropriate" standard on the POTUS.

If that's your ethical benchmark, fine, but I find it pretty abhorrent personally. I don't live my life that way, and I don't expect the POTUS to operate on an ethical bar sunk into the muck.

 

[Lutherf]

The source document exhibit is referenced -- you did bother to read the footnote, right? -- as:

HPSCI, Felix Sater Document Production, Email from Felix Sater to Michael Cohen, “Andrey L. Kostin – CEO
VTB Bank,” October 12, 2015. [Bates #FSHR00001]​

What that tells you is that the email was provided to the House Select Cmte on Intelligence by Felix Sater (or his attorney) and that the document (exhibit, or as Congress calls them "productions"), when the majority gets a "round tuit," its unique reference identifier (Bates number) will be "FSHR00001."

You can call your member of Congress to ask for it. I don't know whether s/he'll provide it to you in advance of all other exhibits having been released.

Right. Like I said, it isn't available.

 

[Mycroft]

I don't care what a "majority of politicians" find "acceptable," and I'm surprised you'd outsource your own ethical standards to such a group. More importantly I find it surprising you believe that the country should do so.



It's honestly depressing how far down into the putrid sewer Trump is dragging this country. All you're doing there is advancing the principle that "if it's legal, it's appropriate" standard on the POTUS.

If that's your ethical benchmark, fine, but I find it pretty abhorrent personally. I don't live my life that way, and I don't expect the POTUS to operate on an ethical bar sunk into the muck.

First of all, I made no judgement on your proposal. I simply pointed out some of the considerations involved with enacting those ethics.

But tell me...who do you think will be responsible for enacting your proposal? Hint: It would be Congress.

 

[Xelor]

Right. Like I said, it isn't available.

What exactly are you implying?

• The email's content is found in the referenced document.
  • Did you think they fabricated the email's content?