The moral aspect of Trump Jr.'s actions

[Rion]

I'm sorry, I actually looked at this issue (went beyond just listening to the sound bites) and found no evidence that Hillary (or her staff) had any "collusion with Ukraine."

Instead, what I found is that the Clinton campaign hired a polling company that was started by a former Ukrainian government official -- much in the same way some US politicians have formed similar types of companies to help with campaigns here in the US. In either the Ukrainian or the US examples, in neither case is is "working with the government" -- it is merely the person that started the company had a background in government before starting the company. If you have a source that says something different, I'd love to see it.

Next, the Clinton campaign hired the Ukranian company and paid them, including reporting the payments to the FEC. By contrast, the Trump campaign was looking to get free information from a Russian Government official -- at least per what the email claimed. There was no payment for the information, and the meeting was definitely not reported -- instead the Trump campaign only admitted to it after they were "caught."

It is unclear if the Trump campaign violated any law -- that is being debated by better legal minds than mine. Interestingly, there seem to be several Democrats that seem to think the Trump Campaign did not violate the law, and several Republicans that think they did -- this is not split along party lines, which makes me think we are getting an honest debate (at least from some) and that it is a very gray area.

At the same time, there are no laws that forbid campaigns from contracting with foreign businesses -- if there were you could have a candidate get in trouble just for buying his gas at a Shell gas station (Shell is a Dutch-British company). Granted, that example is not quite the same, as no information is coming from the gasoline, but it does show there is nothing that prohibits campaigns from buying goods or services from foreign companies -- even if the owner/founder of the company was once in a foreign government (just as some executives of Shell gasoline have likely served in government).

Last, I'm not aware of any attempt by the Clinton campaign to hide the fact they hired the Ukranian company. I can understand them not wanting to advertise it -- there is a real stigma to not "buying American" when you are running for political office. But, by contrast, the story from the Trump campaign (as others have noted) is that there were no meetings; then it changed to, okay, there were meetings but had nothing to do with the campaign; then it became, yes, it was about the campaign but just about adoptions with a Russian lawyer; then it changed to, okay, we took the meeting because she promised us dirt on Hillary but all she wanted to talk about was adoptions (never admitting that "adoptions" is code for a Russian ban on American adoptions because of American sanctions against Russia; so it is actually her wanting to talk about removing sanctions). And even the players have changed. Initially it was just the Russian lawyer, then it changed to how there were maybe a couple of others there; then it changed to 5 others, and then 6 others -- and then the sixth was identified as a "former" KGB agent. If this had been a Democrat and they kept changing their story, like the Trump team has, there is no way you wouldn't demand a full investigation with, at the end, locking those Democrats up.

Again, I can't say if a law was broken, or not. What I do know, there has been enough evidence that the Republican Congress, both House and Senate, have ongoing investigations. Even the Trump Justice Department thought, and appointed, a Special Prosecutor (after Sessions recused himself). The Democrats have had little to do with this investigation, other than to "cheer it on," much as Republicans would be if the situation were reversed. I'll be interested in the report of the Special Prosecutor.

Ukrainian efforts to sabotage Trump backfire

 

[Maren]

Ukrainian efforts to sabotage Trump backfire

Except there isn't a lot there. The article even states, after talking about Russia's efforts stemming from Putin, "There’s little evidence of such a top-down effort by Ukraine." More, it hinges on a single lawyer that consulted with the DNC, that it appears worked with the Ukrainian embassy to find information about the Trump campaign colluding with the Russians. There aren't even allegations that she shared the fact she was working with the Ukrainian embassy to find that information with the DNC, merely she just shared the information she learned with the DNC (apparently without providing the source of her information). And there seems to be no tie, at all, other than the DNC helping the Clinton campaign, that she did any work for the Clinton campaign or that the Ukranian government actually worked with the Clinton campaign.

I have no problem with an investigation into Alexandra Chalupa, to determine if she acted illegally, as well as what the DNC and, by extension, the Clinton campaign knew about her activities. I also have no issue with an investigation into the Ukraine (or any other state) attempting to influence our elections. But this isn't close to what we have seen, so far, from the Trump campaign and, again, there is no direct tie to the Clinton campaign here.

 

[Belk]

Thanks for the compliment and for making me laugh. Haha, one of my professors said something similar when I did this.

OK. Now I feel old. Anyone have any Geritol?