Board 8 > lots of people have been talking about trump getting impeached

(+) Yeah! (+)

whats the deal there?
---

The current indications point towards Donald Jr. buying dirt on Hillary from the Russians for his father and then tweeting out the proof that he did it because he's a god damn moron.
---

When you inhale and exhale air, it can be used to vibrate special muscles in your throat to produce sounds we learn to recognize as words.
---

liberals are upset
---

Donald Jr. turned out to be the dumb Trump all along.
---

LapisLazuli posted...

The current indications point towards Donald Jr. buying dirt on Hillary from the Russians for his father and then tweeting out the proof that he did it because he's a god damn moron.

do you think he is going to be impeached?
---

GuessMyUserName posted...

Donald Jr. turned out to be the dumb Trump all along.

The secret is that they're all the dumb Trump
---

LordoftheMorons posted...

GuessMyUserName posted...

Donald Jr. turned out to be the dumb Trump all along.

The secret is that they're all the dumb Trump

Barron seems pretty smart. In fact many people are saying he is autistic
---

If I were a Democrat in congress, the last thing I'd want to do is to allow President Pence to happen.
---

Oxbridge posted...

If I were a Democrat in congress, the last thing I'd want to do is to allow President Pence to happen.

what are your thoughts on pence wanting to electrocute gay people?
---

very unlikely over this

I doubt anyone will even get in trouble. maybe jared kushner.
---

MariaTaylor posted...

very unlikely over this

I doubt anyone will even get in trouble. maybe jared kushner.

why are so many people saying it is going to happen then?
---

some people have difficulty divorcing their desires from reality
---

Please join us in the Politics Containment Topic for further discussion!
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Please join us in the Politics Containment Topic for further discussion!

this board needs less containment and more aggressive expansion!
---

iiaattgg posted...

Jakyl25 posted...

Please join us in the Politics Containment Topic for further discussion!

this board needs less containment and more aggressive expansion!

There are penalties for expansion like unhappiness rates, better to build a tall empire where there is much less upkeep needed.
---

SovietOmega posted...

iiaattgg posted...

Jakyl25 posted...

Please join us in the Politics Containment Topic for further discussion!

this board needs less containment and more aggressive expansion!

There are penalties for expansion like unhappiness rates, better to build a tall empire where there is much less upkeep needed.

LOL
---

if you want a more thorough explanation though I can write something up later. I'm a bit busy right now.
---

MariaTaylor posted...

if you want a more thorough explanation though I can write something up later. I'm a bit busy right now.

i would be very interested!
---

alright I'll answer the two questions separately because they require different answers

iiaattgg posted...

why are so many people saying it is going to happen then?

these are the same people who have been saying trump is finished or trump needs to be impeached for the last half a year or longer. what's happening here is these people want trump to be impeached and therefore they are using every event, conversation, or discussion as a pretext to achieve that end.

rather than: "trump has done something worth of impeachment and Group A has responded by putting into play the appropriate motions"

what we're seeing is: "trump has done something, and Group A has tried to find a way that this can be used as a reason to impeach him"

this is why the issue has repeatedly come up and will continue to come up again and again. they want to see him impeached at all costs and by any means necessary. it might happen at some point but as for the current state of things I don't see it happening over this event. as for the people who believe it will happen as a result of this e-mail exchange, well, I mean, who knows. it might. but I think it's more likely their bias is clouding their judgment and they really just want it to happen, and so they are arguing that it will happen.

iiaattgg posted...

whats the deal there?

so here's the tl;dr version

donald trump jr was contacted by a person who claimed they had incriminating evidence regarding hillary clinton and wanted to set up a meeting
donald trump jr said that he was busy but agreed to meet with this person anyway
further e-mails released by DTJ himself reveal that he did in fact set up a meeting with a female lawyer from russia
DTJ claims that the meeting was ultimately pointless and was basically just a waste of time

important factor at play here: I think based on the CC of the e-mails and the context the current understanding is that paul manafort and jared kushner also attended the meeting, and at the very least knew about it. this is why I believe it's possible that jared kushner may be in trouble although it doesn't seem all that likely (I'll explain later). rob goldstone, the man who initially contacted DTJ to set up the meeting is probably not in any trouble unless this blows up and turns into something HUGE which does not seem likely based on the physical evidence so far. very likely this just goes away pretty quickly like every other scandal of the trump administration so far (there's a reason for this as well)

reasons why people think donald trump jr is in trouble. essentially, they think he solicited a contribution from a foreign national. here's the issue with that line of thinking.

solicitation: he did not go out of his way searching for information. someone contacted him first. this doesn't fit solicitation by any definition. okay, so even if he didn't solicit it what about receiving information from a foreign national? well, actually, apparently he didn't even receive any information anyway. I'd be very surprised if anyone could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he did receive information since he can just simply claim that he didn't.

foreign national: as far as we know this woman was not an agent of the russian government and did not meet with them as a representative of the russian government. it's possible that she actually is one but once again this isn't really something you're going to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. from what I've seen she has claimed she is not and... well, for the more complicated stuff I'll wait till the jared kushner explanation. needless to say even if she is a member of the russian government this MAY not matter in certain contexts.
---

contribution: so here's the funny thing, even if he had received intel this is generally not counted as a contribution toward the campaign of any kind. this is typically regarded as opposition research (which is what DTJ refers to in his own official statement on the matter). as far as I know there is no precedent for anyone ever considering intelligence as a campaign contribution. although the counter argument here is that people do sometimes pay for the gathering of opposition research. so yeah this is maybe a gray area. but I mean if he says he didn't pay for it and he says that it has no value and he says it doesn't exist, and none of the people in the room will say otherwise... once again, reasonable doubt.

ultimately I don't even know or care if he did anything wrong. it's frankly too impossible to know what happened based on the currently available evidence. what I do know for sure is that legally it's very unlikely he will get into any trouble. and if DTJ is not even in any trouble I have no idea how people think Trump is somehow going to get impeached over what happened. at its most innocuous this story can simply be spun as 'DTJ went to meet with someone who offered free opposition research, but ultimately did not even have anything to offer. the meeting was a waste of time and disappointment for the trump campaign.' that seems to be the story they are going with, which makes sense, because it's probably the safest line of thinking to defend with (and very convenient if true)

about jared kushner, here is where things get complicated. he took a job in the trump administration and gained security clearance. applying for this requires him to fill out a form which states whether or not he had "any contact with a foreign government, its establishment (such as embassy, consulate, agency, military service, intelligence or security service, etc.) or its representatives, whether inside or outside the U.S."

from what I understand the angle of attack here assumes that he answered 'no' on this form and that he did meet with a foreign national. lying on this form is a felony. here are the issues with that line of thinking.

1. the russian woman does not appear to be a foreign national. she's just a person from a foreign country.

2. even if she is a representative of the russian foreign government jared kushner may not have been aware of this fact and, ultimately, he could say he was not aware of that fact. it's very, very difficult to prove that he knew this and intentionally lied about it. no lie, no felony. once again reasonable doubt rears its ugly head. proving that a person lied about something is very, very difficult.

now I'm sure people will read this and probably disagree with what I'm saying because they think something wrong transpired (maybe it did), but ultimately I'm not discussing whether something wrong happened or not. I'm discussing whether someone is in trouble. in order to get in trouble someone would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that DTJ broke some law or laws. as of right now I don't predict that happening in relation to this event.
---

people don't know how impeachment works
---

it's when a peach implodes, right?
---

The email from the lawyer says that the information about Hillary was part of the Russian government's support for Trump, so there's no waffling on "is this person really a foreign agent" stuff. Even if she wasn't and just claimed to be, DTJ still acted on that information as if it were true, which constitutes at least conspiracy to commit a crime, specifically campaign finance laws that forbid anything "of value" to be accepted by a campaign.
---

That being said, he won't be impeached because house Republicans are spineless boot-lickers and Democrats are disheveled scatterbrains.
---

trdl23 posted...

The email from the lawyer says that the information about Hillary was part of the Russian government's support for Trump, so there's no waffling on "is this person really a foreign agent" stuff. Even if she wasn't and just claimed to be, DTJ still acted on that information as if it were true, which constitutes at least conspiracy to commit a crime, specifically campaign finance laws that forbid anything "of value" to be accepted by a campaign.

Assigning monetary value to such a thing is going to be a hard case to make.
---

red13n posted...

trdl23 posted...

The email from the lawyer says that the information about Hillary was part of the Russian government's support for Trump, so there's no waffling on "is this person really a foreign agent" stuff. Even if she wasn't and just claimed to be, DTJ still acted on that information as if it were true, which constitutes at least conspiracy to commit a crime, specifically campaign finance laws that forbid anything "of value" to be accepted by a campaign.

Assigning monetary value to such a thing is going to be a hard case to make.

"Of value" doesn't mean money necessarily. I'm pretty sure there's already precedent on that.
---

trdl23 posted...

red13n posted...

trdl23 posted...

The email from the lawyer says that the information about Hillary was part of the Russian government's support for Trump, so there's no waffling on "is this person really a foreign agent" stuff. Even if she wasn't and just claimed to be, DTJ still acted on that information as if it were true, which constitutes at least conspiracy to commit a crime, specifically campaign finance laws that forbid anything "of value" to be accepted by a campaign.

Assigning monetary value to such a thing is going to be a hard case to make.

"Of value" doesn't mean money necessarily. I'm pretty sure there's already precedent on that.

so you think he is going to be impeached then?
---

If Maria posts in the politics topic maybe it will be worth reading
---

MariaTaylor posted...

1. the russian woman does not appear to be a foreign national. she's just a person from a foreign country.

A person from a foreign country IS a foreign national.

Just so we're clear.

From the US Federal Code:

A “foreign national” is anyone who is not a “U.S. person.” A “U.S. person” is any one of the following: U.S. citizen; Lawful permanent resident (green card holder); and “Protected Person” i.e. political asylum holder.
---

Eddv posted...

MariaTaylor posted...

1. the russian woman does not appear to be a foreign national. she's just a person from a foreign country.

A person from a foreign country IS a foreign national.

Just so we're clear.

From the US Federal Code:

A “foreign national” is anyone who is not a “U.S. person.” A “U.S. person” is any one of the following: U.S. citizen; Lawful permanent resident (green card holder); and “Protected Person” i.e. political asylum holder.

do you think he will be impeached?
---

SovietOmega posted...

When you inhale and exhale air, it can be used to vibrate special muscles in your throat to produce sounds we learn to recognize as words.

you're the best
---

Eddv posted...

MariaTaylor posted...

1. the russian woman does not appear to be a foreign national. she's just a person from a foreign country.

A person from a foreign country IS a foreign national.

Just so we're clear.

From the US Federal Code:

A “foreign national” is anyone who is not a “U.S. person.” A “U.S. person” is any one of the following: U.S. citizen; Lawful permanent resident (green card holder); and “Protected Person” i.e. political asylum holder.

"foreign national" was also my own editorial. look at the actual text which I cited to see what is illegal.

(Edit: basically I used the wrong term there when I was discussing it later. what's relevant is that the text which explains what is legal or not only talks about agents of foreign governments, which the woman did not seem to be. essentially I did mistype there, but me making an error doesn't make what Kushner did illegal)

(Edit to the Edit: also to be even more specific that text is not even describing anything illegal. it's just asking "did you do this thing." if Kushner lied while filling out this form then Kushner committed a felony. this does not appear to be the case. even if this was the case it would NOT make what DTJ did illegal.)

pjbasis posted...

If Maria posts in the politics topic maybe it will be worth reading

no thankz
---

iiaattgg posted...

Eddv posted...

MariaTaylor posted...

1. the russian woman does not appear to be a foreign national. she's just a person from a foreign country.

A person from a foreign country IS a foreign national.

Just so we're clear.

From the US Federal Code:

A “foreign national” is anyone who is not a “U.S. person.” A “U.S. person” is any one of the following: U.S. citizen; Lawful permanent resident (green card holder); and “Protected Person” i.e. political asylum holder.

do you think he will be impeached?

Donald Jr holds no elected office so no.
---

Also in general the entire situation is REALLY messy thanks to Manafort and Flynn both registering as agents of the Russian government after the election.

Like frankly speaking theres a lot wrong with what was done. Especially since the crime that this meeting entails is conspiracy and even if it isnt enough to nail DTJ to the wall all by itself (and its not) this is going to add to the preponderance of evidence by the time Mueller puts it all together and recommends criminal charges.

I do think Kushner is the most likely to eat said charges alongisde Flynn and very probably Manafort.

I think even with no smoking gun connected to Trump that all of this has fatally poisoned his credibility in international affairs.

He wont be impeached - well not unless some more shoes start dropping but after looking at these DJT emails who the hell knows.

Basically I started off thinking Trump was just handling all of this stupidly for prides sake but now i feel less certain.
---

huge misconception is that people think events like this are damaging to trump's credibility

keep in mind there's been "scandals" of this level like... I dunno, every week since about a month before he was sworn in. doesn't seem to have had any impact so far. the reason is because the people participating and perpetuating these discussions have a huge blind spot and are actually very, very bad at noticing what the other side is doing.

as someone who reads lots of discussion from both sides of the aisle I can pretty much tell you this

1. when stories like this break, the trump supporters generally just do not give a shit. it does not negatively impact their view of the administration at all. obviously I do not have a magic window with which to view every trump supporter so this is not a magical absolutely true statement. I'm just talking about the communities which I have specifically observed with my own powers of perception.

2. the people who go nuts about these stories and basically "lose faith" in trumps administration are... well... they're the same people who already had no faith in trump's administration to begin with. essentially no actual viewpoints are being changed. it's just people on Side B breaking stories to themselves and then invigorating themselves by reading about how Trump is like totally DONE FOR this time. except, as history has shown us, he has never actually been "done for" at any point during this entire string of scandals.

I've probably heard the phrase Watergate more times in the last six months than I did in the entire 20 years prior combined.
---

MariaTaylor posted...

as someone who reads lots of discussion from both sides of the aisle I can pretty much tell you this

Why would you do that to yourself? Are you a masochist?
---

Jakyl25 posted...

MariaTaylor posted...

as someone who reads lots of discussion from both sides of the aisle I can pretty much tell you this

Why would you do that to yourself? Are you a masochist?

if I never speak to anyone who disagrees with me then I will truly have no idea what is going on in the real world.
---

I dont mean politically - in the end trump will live and die with his tax and infrastructure bills. Whether they pass and whether they actually lead to positive economic activity

I mean diplomatically.
---

because it's fun to read both sides and see what they both have to say.
maria's pretty accurate on the assessment too, though this one's hitting harder than the other scandals have and has some strong possibilities of greater fallout. there's now a legitimate reason to ask for emails from manafort, kushner, and trump jr, for example. now the scandal has actual legs and people have distanced themselves.
---

Eddv posted...

I dont mean politically - in the end trump will live and die with his tax and infrastructure bills. Whether they pass and whether they actually lead to positive economic activity

I mean diplomatically.

I guess we'll see. honestly I don't think it matters much either. politicians are just people too. the world leaders already on the anti-trump hype train will predictably lap this story up, while people with a good relationship with trump will probably continue to not care.

Wanglicious posted...

because it's fun to read both sides and see what they both have to say.
maria's pretty accurate on the assessment too,

heh, thanks.

Wanglicious posted...

though this one's hitting harder than the other scandals have and has some strong possibilities of greater fallout. there's now a legitimate reason to ask for emails from manafort, kushner, and trump jr, for example. now the scandal has actual legs and people have distanced themselves.

and yeah it's impossible to know what the future will hold. this is my prediction based on the current physical evidence (and knowing what I do from previous scenarios). obviously if they crack open some e-mails and find some ridiculously damning evidence that will change things and my prediction will have turned out to be wrong.
---

What would be "damning evidence" in your opinion?

If clear proof of intent to collude with a foreign government to influence an election is not damning, I mean.
---

MariaTaylor posted...

the world leaders already on the anti-trump hype train will predictably lap this story up, while people with a good relationship with trump will probably continue to not care.

A sizable number of world leaders being on the anti-President hype train is really not inconsequential.

I also think there are more people in the neutral or forced- neutral column among world leaders than you're giving credit for. Like what you describe is the actions of partisans or faux partisans but even amongst americans "unaffiliated" is the second largest group.

But yes what you describe - our growinh hyperpolarization - is actually a really bad sign for our republic.
---

LapisLazuli posted...

The current indications point towards Donald Jr. buying dirt on Hillary from the Russians for his father and then tweeting out the proof that he did it because he's a god damn moron.

lmfao, look at what liberals actually believe.

In reality, some DNC mole set up a meeting between Don Jr. and another DNC mole pretending to be a Russian government lawyer (looking at her facebook reveals a bunch of photos from anti-Trump protests, lmfao). The lure was information on Clinton which Don Jr. never received because it was all a set up. Don Jr. released the full e-mail chain so that the lying press wouldn't be able to exploit the story with vague bullshit. It's fucking nothing.
---

MariaTaylor posted...

if I never speak to anyone who disagrees with me then I will truly have no idea what is going on in the real world.

I suppose it depends on how far you're taking it.

If I made it a point to check in on HuffPo and Breitbart all the time, I'd hate life.
---

Jakyl25 posted...

What would be "damning evidence" in your opinion?

If clear proof of intent to collude with a foreign government to influence an election is not damning, I mean.

if such evidence existed it would be pretty damning I suppose. the situation we're talking about does not match the description you are giving. that's the problem here.

Eddv posted...

A sizable number of world leaders being on the anti-President hype train is really not inconsequential.

oh I don't think it's inconsequential. I'm just saying that people already on the anti-trump train reading anti-trump articles and it making them upset at trump doesn't really shift the balance at all. this principle holds true whether you're talking about the ratio in the board 8 politics containment topic or in the EU. people who already hate trump getting a negative impression of trump from something happening does not actually bode any worse for trump than how it was before the thing happened. those people already hated him to begin with.

Eddv posted...

I also think there are more people in the neutral or forced- neutral column among world leaders than you're giving credit for. Like what you describe is the actions of partisans or faux partisans but even amongst americans "unaffiliated" is the second largest group.

pretty sure independent is the largest group. also maybe I'm giving the neutral category people too much credit but somehow I doubt they'll be super inflamed over the ten thousandth breaking story of something not even illegal happening.
---

Eddv posted...

I dont mean politically - in the end trump will live and die with his tax and infrastructure bills. Whether they pass and whether they actually lead to positive economic activity

I mean diplomatically.

Honestly, people have just been building up cognitive dissonance in regards to the actual efficacy of their party's presidents for decades, maybe centuries, and none of those previous presidents had nearly the disturbing, Kim Jong-un level of cult of personality that Trump does.

Regardless of how awfully his policies screw over the American public by and large, his supporters will just pull numbers, and studies, and a massive quantity of anecdotal evidence out of their collective posteriors that says he was a solid president.
---

MariaTaylor posted...

if such evidence existed it would be pretty damning I suppose. the situation we're talking about does not match the description you are giving. that's the problem here.

Yes, it absolutely does. Not for Trump Sr, no, but for the three involved.
---

okay, be sure to let me know when charges have been filed.
---

I just don't know how much clearer it could be


"The Russian government wants to give you info to hurt Hillary and support Trump."
"I love it!"

If that's not intent to commit collusion, what is?
---