Trump Jr./Russian lawyer meeting: Jr. knew info was part of Russian Gov effort

[Beet]

This whole story is nuts. I know people like EnglishPete don't care, but it's just absurd. What kind of nation has a government more loyal to a foreign country than its own so-called people? Does anyone think Putin would think it fine and dandy of Medvedev used his position to put German interests over Russian ones, and overlooked attacks on Russian citizens to protect the attackers? Would Xi Jinping be okay if Li Keqiang used his position to favor the United States, over China? Would Israeli opposition parties resist retaliation for terrorist attacks just because they're opposition? It would be unheard of in any other country. Only in the United States is it perfectly normal for an entire governing administration to repeatedly take the side of foreigners over its own so-called citizens. What's the point of even having a country if it's like this? You should form a country with those you have the most in common and loyalty with.

[Beet]

JA, I think your mistake is fundamentally taking sides based on who you like or dislike. I admit, that the CIA and neocons are more than strangebedfellows - ugly ones, but the wretchedness of those entities is quite independent of the likelihood that Russia would try to wreck American elections, or that Trump's circle would cooperate in those efforts. It's fair to say there's no character argument to be made in favor of the actual accused that, "they would never do such a thing, because of scruples."

As far as Assange, I have two problems with him. One is that back in 2010 he was accused of sexual assault by two women. If that is true, then he has certainly lied and it would be strange to say he is of good character. Most of his defenders who swear by his good character must be assuming that the two women are lying, but I have never seen any proof of this. To say he is of good character is to say they are of bad character, since it makes them false accusers. If he is to given the presumption of innocence of rape, surely they are to be given the same of false accusation? My second problem is that at the turn of the year, he promised to give himself up in the chance Obama pardoned Chelsea Manning. Making such a promise had clear benefits to him if Obama did not pardon Manning, since it would have enhanced his reputation as a principled man while making Obama/the US government look bad. But when Obama did pardon Manning, he still did not give himself up. How is that not then, a clear lie? I am no expert on Assange to be sure, but it seems he has definitely lied about this and thus cannot be called innocent.

Edit: Finally, I agree that the Democrats should not try to politically benefit from this or politicize this. I don't think it benefits them as much as some might think anyway - and it is also not fundamentally about relations with Russia as a foreign policy matter - but it should be a bipartisan issue that goes beyond politics. What this issue is about is nationalism, and national loyalty in a democracy.

[Beet]

And that's all I plan to comment on the Russia-Trump stories.

What if Mueller ends up bringing indictments against a slew of people around Trump for actually colluding with Russia in some way or another? And if he recommends to the House impeachment against Trump?

If they feel there is sufficient evidence to support that, then he should be indicted and impeached. I never said I didn't believe collusion was possible; I simply said I am, thus far, remaining a skeptic on the matter due to the parties involved.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't believe in any conspiracies. Nobody is creating fake evidence to use against Trump or his team; I believe whatever they find is genuine. But as it stands there has not been any evidence that has amounted to transforming this investigation into an actual indictment of anyone. That could change at any time, especially considering Trump & co.'s sheer incompetence and stupidity, but so far, that has not happened. What I've been saying is that I distrust the deep state because I believe they have financial and political motivations to oppose the Trump Administration's position on Russia due to their desire to relaunch a Cold War with the Russians. That has been evident for years now. What also disturbs me is how Democrats have been so willing to ally with the deep state and Neoconservatives to, knowingly or not, fan the flames of a Cold War 2.0. It's what the deep state has been craving; look at Romney's campaign, the campaigns of other Republicans in 2016, the Clinton campaign, Neoconservative journalists and think tanks, etc... Democrats are cozying up with the wrong crowd for political purposes - and that's what bothers me. What happens when Democrats take power in 2020 or 2024? What will be our approach to Russia? What role will Neoconservatives and the deep state be delegated in that Administration?

Tl;dr Trump may have colluded with Russia, but Russia did not successfully hack our election or endanger our democracy. If collusion is proved, then he should be indicted and impeached. However, the motivation thus far by the deep state and Neoconservatives has been their staunch opposition to Trump's friendly approach to Russia, with which they want to create Cold War 2.0 and have been quite vocal about for years now. They've been making such noise about all this, and Democrats have been happy to aid them, for political purposes. It doesn't matter whether all these investigations amount to something or nothing; they want to destabilize and delegitimize the Trump Administration, not out of patriotism, but disagreements over foreign policy.

A democracy can't survive if partisan differences within it are greater than its citizens' identification to it over foreign autocracies. Then this country just becomes a playground for every foreign power.