That is, the lies that have been told about Trump in order to hurt him.
Are you surprised that Snopes is doing such a thing? I am.
[Hat tip: Althouse.]
Churchill: life and art at the movies
[See ADDENDUM below.]
At Powerline I saw this post by Steven Hayward about a new movie on Churchill called “Darkest Hour,” set shortly before D-Day. It stars Gary Oldman in the lead role, and from the trailer posted at Powerline, it looks good. I plan to see it:
Oldman not only is made up to resemble Churchill facially, his posture is like Churchill’s and he sounds much like him as well, doesn’t he?
Or does he?
When I watched that stirring “We shall never surrender!” speech towards the end of the trailer, it struck me as too histrionic compared to Churchill’s own style. As a child I used to listen to Edward Murrow records that often featured short excerpts from Churchill’s most famous speeches, and I remember that his delivery of the most inspirational lines tended to be more subdued, with a sort of weary acceptance that stalwart courage and perseverance didn’t require shouting or rabble-rousing, it was merely what the Brits would do because it was who they were.
I’ve written about those Murrow records before, here. I think that listening to them as a child was the beginning of my admiration for Churchill. Luckily, YouTube provides many of Churchill’s speeches—and here’s the same speech, the real thing. You can hear the difference (listen especially to the last two minutes, but the exact part in the trailer starts at 11:25):
And notice what he says right after “We shall never surrender!”
[ADDENDUM: In response to a comment below by Brian Swisher, I did a bit more research and discovered that the Churchill recording may have been read later by Churchill, and was almost certainly not a recording of the actual speech in Parliament, where recordings were not permitted at the time. So perhaps we really don’t know what Churchill actually sounded like in the original speech; just in his later delivery:
But many Churchill Speech CDs, and LPs before them, contained only excerpts. Some of these were taken from the BBC broadcasts, but most were recorded by Churchill years later.
No recordings were permitted in the House of Commons at that time, leaving us with two inferior possibilities: Churchill’s broadcast speeches over the BBC, or in some cases postwar recordings, both of which””said those who heard them in the Commons””lack the fire of the originals.
So perhaps Churchill did indeed exhibit a bit more fire in the heat of the moment.’ We just don’t know, but the reports would indicate he did.
However, according to the linked article, there’s no truth to the rumor that an actor made the recordings. It was Churchill himself.]
How did the NY Times obtain Donald Trump Jr.’s emails?
The leak is assumed to have been a Trump insider. That makes a certain amount of sense, but I’m not at all sure.
The Times itself has given us a hint in its coverage, according to this:
The story ”” which the [Times] broke Sunday and reverberated Tuesday when Trump Jr. himself published the emails on Twitter ”” leaned on five unnamed sources confirming the existence of those emails. At least two of those came from inside the White House.
Speculation about the sources, especially if they are inside President Donald Trump’s close circle of advisers, added another element of drama to an already-frenzied political environment.
The article goes on to list some possibilities, but admits that none of them make a lot of sense because those with the motive didn’t have the opportunity and those with the opportunity didn’t have the motive. They range from Jared Kushner to Steve Bannon to the Russians to Mike Pence to Corey Lewandowski. Lewandowski makes the most sense to me, because he was fired not long after those meetings and the scuttlebutt is that Trump Jr. didn’t like him and was instrumental in the firing. Corey strikes me as a possibly vindictive sort, but would he really want to take the chance of bringing Trump Sr. down, too? And how exactly would he have gained access to the emails? Did he go to Hire-a-Hacker?
The Times actually said more specific things about its sources, describing them as “three advisers to the White House briefed on the meeting and two others with knowledge of it.” The paper didn’t say whether one of those five actually showed them they emails, or whether they got them from another source. But this description indicates to me that the sources most likely were not actually present at the meeting, which would rule out Kushner and Manafort (neither of whom I thought were the sources anyway).
Of course, the Times could be lying about the description of its sources, but I think the words were vague enough that there would be no need to lie. For example, “two others with knowledge of it” could be just about anyone, including the Russians. The “two others” could even be hackers hired by the Times to get the emails at the Times’ request (so they might have gained their “knowledge” of it from the Times itself, if the Times is really trying to be cagey here). It’s those three “advisors” who had been “briefed” on the meeting whom I find more intriguing. Note that it doesn’t say “advisors at the White House,” so it seems to me they aren’t necessarily part of the staff there and may even be somewhat distant from the administration. “Advisors” covers a lot of possible territory and a lot of people. But it may not include Corey Lewandowski, who lost his “advising” position long before Trump ever got to the White House and should therefore have been designated as a “former advisor to Donald Trump.”
The wording of the Times’ description of the leakers is actually a bit odd. Why would advisors to the White House be briefed on the Trump Jr. meeting? It’s been a year since the meeting occurred; what possible reason could they have had to be briefed recently, before the story broke? Or were they briefed a long time ago—and if so, what reason would they have to disclose the information to the Times now?
I’ve come up with a theory. It’s not a great one, but it’s all I’ve got at the moment. I think the “advisors” may not be particularly close to the president. They may even be people who are in the positions they’re in as holdovers from a previous administration (such as the head of the FBI, who may or may not count as an “advisor” but after all he does report to the president). The context in which these people might have been “briefed” could have been as a result of the process of some of Trump’s aides getting security clearances.
This is what I’m talking about:
Manafort and Jared Kushner…each recently had to disclose the meeting to the feds, Kushner as a condition of his security clearance and Manafort to federal investigators probing the Russia matter.
If they did disclose the meeting to “the feds” (and which feds?) that opens up a lot of possible names of people who had been “briefed” on the fact that there was such a meeting, and many of those people wouldn’t have been Trump-friendly and could tell the Times. I’m not sure whether any of those people could be called “advisors to the White House,” but they’d certainly fall under the heading of “others with knowledge” of the meeting. Then, after the Times is informed of the existence of the meeting and the emails, the Times (or someone else at the behest of the Times or the of leakers) hacks the emails or gets access to them through intelligence sources friendly to the “Resistance.”
That last bit—gaining access to the emails once they were known to exist—may have taken some time. That could have accounted for the delay in the story.
If you have a better theory, feel free to offer it.
I love this suit of Melania’s
Shortly after Donald Trump was elected, I said that one thing I planned to enjoy was Melania’s fashions.
And so I have.
I especially love the simple, elegant suit that Melania wore today on her visit to France. Not everyone can wear these midi skirts; it helps to be tall, and Melania is almost six feet tall even without her heels, so she can wear it with tremendous panache (hey, that’s French!).
I feel for Macron’s wife Brigitte having to stand next to her. Not only is she about fifteen years older than Melania, but she’s so much smaller she would look like a pipsqueak in comparison no matter what she wore. But I see her choice as especially infelicitous. A miniskirt? Why? I know she must think her legs are her best feature (I share that conceit about myself) and the legs tend to be the last thing to go, but miniskirts except for the most casual of occasions are not flattering to those over 60. Maybe not even for those over 50. They make us look somewhat desperate, I think.
Note also, the lengthy discussion of the various handshakes. This seems to be a relatively new obsession that arrived shortly after the election:
Dueling health insurance reform bills from the GOP
Republican senators Lindsay Graham and Bill Cassidy have rolled out their proposal:
Graham and Cassidy, who have been working closely with former Pennsylvania Republican Sen. Rick Santorum, argue that one of the main reasons that Republicans are having such a hard time agreeing is because they are working from the Obamacare template — particularly federal control of health insurance.
“The reason we can’t pass a bill is because we are trying to do it in Washington, so stop it,” Santorum, a CNN contributor, told CNN. Both senators agree that the key to making their plan work, is giving states flexibility. “A blue state can do a blue thing, a red state a red thing,” Cassidy said. “My state is going to repeal and replace Obamacare with something that gives power to the patient, but that starts with us giving power to the states.”
Basically, the bill would do a very Republican/conservative thing, which is to give the power back to the states. However, it would also retain some of the Democrat/liberal things from Obamacare, such as keeping in place the taxes that support Obamacare (but giving the revenue to the states, which is a more Republican thing), as well as a nation-wide ban on considering pre-existing conditions. Graham also said that the retention of the taxes might be temporary: “‘It may be that those taxes that are being kept will be eventually repealed, but it will be done as part of comprehensive tax reform, not as part of this,’ said Cassidy.”
They added that they are also supporting the McConnell effort, but putting this plan out as an alternative, and that we’ll “see which one can get 50 votes.”
More details at the link.
Not a bad compromise, in my book.
As for the McConnell plan, here’s a summary of the new provision adopted after a suggestion by Ted Cruz. It gives a lot more choices to the consumer, including catastrophic plans as one option, as long as insurers offer at least one plan that conforms to Obamacare as well. Subsidized high-risk pools would handle the pre-existing condition situation.
I’ve written several posts on the earlier GOP proposal and many on the health care insurance conundrum as a whole. To me, both of these bills would be improvements over what have now. I have no idea whether either of them will be able to pass. The MSM would have us think the answer is “no way.” But although I think the GOP will indeed have trouble getting behind one of the plans, I also don’t trust that the MSM is doing much more right now than stating its own wishful thinking. Prognostication has not been their strong suit lately.
Those three train heroes will portray themselves in the Eastwood film
This is a movie I plan to put on my “to see” list:
In an unconventional move, Clint Eastwood has tapped Anthony Sadler, Alek Skarlatos, and Spencer Stone to play themselves in his next movie, “The 15:17 to Paris.” The film will tell the story of the three Americans who stopped a terrorist on a train bound for Paris…
Following the news that this would be his follow-up to the box office hit “Sully,” Eastwood began a wide-ranging search for the actors who would portray the three Americans. The studio and Eastwood made their choices but at the 11th hour decided to have Sadler, Skarlatos and Stone portray themselves.
Sources say that, while the three will have good-sized roles, the film is expected to begin during their childhood and show their friendship leading up to the moment that changed their lives. That means the roles will not be full-on leads.
I don’t think Eastwood would do this if the three hadn’t screen-tested well. After all, he wouldn’t want to make a bad film. I remember how telegenic and articulate I thought they were, in addition to their heroism and modesty and just plain niceness, when they were in the spotlight doing interviews.
Politics and morality
Every now and then someone in the real (not cyber) world asks me what I do, and I tell them I write. A smaller number of people will then ask me what I write about.
Because I don’t like to talk about politics very often, I will sometimes answer “Oh, it’s eclectic. Lots of things—the arts, science, nature, world events…” and I trail off, hoping they’ll stop there. But sometimes it goes further. Or sometimes I’m in a more revelatory mood, and I answer “Well, I write about politics mostly.”
A discussion sometimes ensues in which I’m careful to point out that I hate politics and don’t like to discuss it a lot. So, why do I write about it? That’s a hard one to answer, but the best I’ve been able to do is that it’s fascinating (as are the arts, science, nature, world events…).
Which brings us to today’s topic, as revealed by the Donald Trump Jr. episode. But this post isn’t really about Donald Trump Jr. and his emails at all (you’re welcome!); I have bigger fish to fry. It’s about how we judge politics and politicians.
My train of thought was engendered once again by something commenter “Big Maq” wrote:
It is NOT that we have to come up with proof of something illegal, nor do we have to have a perfectly fitting analogy to get to the same point.
It is that what has transpired is something we’d, rightly, very much see as completely wrong if it were a dem who did it.
No, I would not see the same actions as particularly wrong no matter who did it, as I wrote in my post yesterday. But in the larger sense, I don’t think it’s clear why I should see it as particularly wrong, much less completely wrong—except in the sense that politics in general is “wrong,”* [see below] because politics commonly has many distasteful components to it. I have never had a particle of interest in engaging in politics myself, and most people share that feeling. But opposition research is part of the business of politics, and people connected with a campaign are allowed to talk with nearly anyone as long as they don’t do something illegal like bribe them or meddle with voting machines or the like.
We can imagine bad motives on the part of a political player. And we can imagine that, had that person the opportunity, he or she would even be doing something illegal. But unless such illegal actions occur, a meeting like that is not “wrong,” (maybe stupid, given the circumstances? But “stupid” is not “wrong”), nor did the emails suggest anything like bribery was being contemplated.
Now, I’m certainly not against the investigation continuing. Perhaps this activity by Trump Jr. is just the tip of a large iceberg, with the really bad stuff remaining to be discovered. But other than that possibility, I do not find it “wrong,” much less “completely wrong”—except, as I already said, in the same sense that politics is “wrong” (i.e. distasteful, like sausage being made).
As Jerry Pournelle has written:
When I was a campaign manager for Mayer Yorty in the Yorty campaign, I received countless offers of information for sale about the Mayor’s opponent, former LAPD Lieutenant Bradley. I ignored most of them. One or two were intriguing enough that I accepted meetings with the offerer; on at least one occasion, the offer was through a third party, just as in this situation. In that particular instance, I was offered a number of unsubstantiated rumors which I could have someone run down, mostly of crime victims unhappy with Bradley’s police performance; worth nothing, as it happened, but I think I paid $20 for copies of the documents, none of which proved useful. Another time, the information might have been true, but the compiler made it clear it was dirt on Bradley’s daughter who had famously once been arrested for shop lifting in a department store for attempting to leave wearing a dozen or so pairs of new underwear. I quickly stopped that conversation: the Mayor had directed that we would never use anything related to Bradley’s family in the campaign, a policy I fully agreed with.
Another time, I did pay about $50 to a private investigator for documents relating to some investments Bradley had made, but after inspecting them I could not see any use for them.
Although no criminal acts were involved in any of this, I never informed the Mayor or Campaign Director Salvatore about any of these meetings; why would I? It was just another part of the campaign.
(By the way—Yorty was a Democrat, but if Pournelle was a Democrat back then, he doesn’t seem to have been one for a long time.)
This question of politics and morality is one that has dogged the Republican Party in particular for as far back as I’ve been blogging, and probably further. There are two wings on the subject, and they don’t get along very well. Let’s call them the Don Quixote and the Sancho Panza wings. The Don Quixote wing is commonly found in what the Sancho Panza wing calls the GOPe. The Don Q’s tend to be loudly critical whenever a member of the GOP (particularly one more conservative than they) fails to be squeaky clean. The Sancho P’s consider the Don Q’s insufferable, self-righteous, preening, egotistical RINOs who’d rather show us all how moral they are than actually try to win against opponents who are far more immoral than they.
There, did I get the picture right?
The Trump candidacy—and now the Trump presidency—has generated a perfect storm of discord between these two wings. There has been internal discord, too, within the Don Q wing, with some managing to hold their noses and support Trump for the duration of the election in order to beat their archenemy Hillary Clinton. Others couldn’t even do that. And the current Donald Trump Jr. controversy has exposed the same divide.
As for my own point of view—as you might imagine, it’s somewhere in-between. But it’s probably a bit closer to the Panza wing than the Don Q’s, because I think I see politics realistically as a business in which the aim is to win and a lot of unpleasant and not-so-laudable actions are going to be taken along the way. All else being equal, I’d prefer a candidate so wonderful and so charismatic that he or she can be both noble and a winner at the same time. But I don’t demand it, and I don’t get my tonsils in an uproar if it doesn’t happen. In fact, I realize that such creatures are very very rare in the world of politics, and always will be.
Illegality is a different thing, and I don’t defend it. And I try my best to use the same standards for both sides. That said, I prefer conservatives to liberals, and less state control over more, and so in recent years when I vote it tends to be for the more conservative of the options.
[* This discussion of politics being “wrong” in general reminded me of something John Updike once wrote regarding his attitude towards the war in Vietnam. In this post I offered this Updike quote from his essay:
The Vietnam war””or any war””is “wrong,” but in the sense that existence itself is wrong. To be alive is to be a killer; and though the Jains try to hide this by wearing gauze masks to avoid inhaling insects, and the antiabortionists by picketing hospitals, and peace activists by lying down in front of ammunition trains, there is really no hiding what every meal we eat juicily demonstrates. Peace is not something we are entitled to but an illusory respite we earn. On both the personal and national level, islands of truce created by balances of terror and potential violence are the best we can hope for.
Updike said that in an essay he wrote in 1989. You can find the entire text of his essay here. I strongly urge you to read it if you haven’t already.]
Let’s make an analogy
There is no doubt in my mind that if Chelsea Clinton (the best analogy I can think of) had done something similar during the campaign to what Donald Trump Jr. did, the coverage and outrage would be minimal in the MSM. The press on the right would probably try to make something of it, but with a lack of success.
Commenter “Big Maq” here has expressed the idea that, if the same set of circumstances were happening only the alleged perps were on the left, most people on the right (including commenters at this blog) would be up in arms about it:
Nothing illegal [that Trump Jr. did], some [on the right] say. Well, we know very well that many of the same folks are frustrated with the the same kind of “legal” reasoning of right and wrong on the left.
Nothing illegal with the AG meeting with bill clinton on the tar mac. Hey, “where’s the proof?”
These are the same people who probably chant “drain the swamp!”.
I’ve noticed ever since I started immersing myself in politics over a decade ago that both left and right defend their side and attack the other for similar offenses. That’s human nature, of course. That’s why I especially value the opinions of the few people I’ve seen on either side who seem to really be looking at things objectively. Jonathan Turley has been one, Andrew C. McCarthy another, and Alan Dershowitz has sometimes (not always, by any means) been another.
I like to think of myself that way, too, but of course my own objectivity about myself could easily be called into question. But I think that political “changers” have a bit more of a chance of being objective in that sense, since they’ve looked at life (and politics) from both sides now.
I also have a legal background and I tend to be legalistic—some say, much too legalistic—about a lot of issues and offenses on both sides. Just to take an example, one that you might not be aware of, I have long maintained that Bill Clinton did not commit perjury during the Lewinsky affair (to avoid going into that whole song and dance right now, I refer you to this, and please follow the links you find in that comment of mine). This tends to drive a lot of people on the right crazy, but it is the way I see it and I think I am correct (again, see the comment) although that is not a popular opinion on the right.
Lastly, I want to mention that Big Maq’s analogy—the Lynch meeting with Bill Clinton on the tarmac during the 2016 campaign—is a very flawed one. The discussions on the right about the Lynch/Clinton meeting centered on the impropriety of Lynch’s meeting because she was the AG and because Hillary Clinton was under investigation at the time. It had everything to do with the rules about her special position and the appearance of impropriety. My own post on the subject says as much:
At any rate, we don’t know what was said. However, AGs and people connected with a matter that’s being investigated by that AG are not supposed to have conversations about golf or anything else. They’re supposed to scrupulously avoid any situation that has the appearance or impropriety or offers the possibility of impropriety. Both parties here are and/or should have been well aware of that. Anyone who pretends otherwise is either ignorant or disingenuous.
The repercussions in terms of what will happen to Hillary Clinton are unknown, but the upshot is that in the ensuing hue and cry over the meeting, Lynch has said she will accept the recommendation of the FBI in the matter of the Hillary Clinton investigation. That leaves FBI Director James Comey in a more powerful position than anyone had expected.
I can see no analogy whatsoever in that particular case.
The Donald Trump Jr. scandal continues
I guess I have to keep writing about this one, because it seems to be the only thing in the news right now. That’s hyperbole, of course, but as Paul Mirengoff of Powerline wrote today (and remember, Mirengoff has not been any sort of kneejerk Trump supporter in the past):
The mainstream media is in a state of ecstasy over the story of Donald Trump Jr.’s meeting with that Russian lawyer. It’s easy to understand why. After months with nothing to feed on, the media now has a scrap. In this context, the meal feels like a feast.
So, let’s plunge in and feast on some scraps, shall we?
I will now summarize what we know so far, and the conclusions I draw (knowing that things may change with future revelations, if any come):
(1) During the 2016 campaign, Donald Trump Jr. was acting as a private citizen campaigning for his father; he didn’t hold any official position in the Trump campaign hierarchy. However, we can assume he certainly was checking in with his father often. The extent of their coordination is unclear, however, and there is no evidence Jr. ever talked to his father about this particular meeting. Trump Jr. denies that he did, and in this case I happen to believe him, because he got absolutely no useful information from the meeting with the Russian lawyer (which occurred in June of 2016, a very busy time for the campaign).
(2) Trump Jr. is said to have publicly denied ever meeting with any Russians. If he did say that, it would be a lie. However, I’d love to get the exact wording of his denial and see what he actually said about this. I haven’t been able to find a word of it so far, so if anyone can find a link please put it in a comment so I can ascertain what he said (for example, whether he said “Russians” or limited the denial to members of the Russian government). I thought I’d struck pay dirt when I saw a link to this video entitled “Trump Jr.’s emails conflict with denials of contact between campaign, Russia,” but when I listened to the video I didn’t hear any conflict between the emails and the denials on the video. Instead, the video featured denials (mostly by other Trump aides) that the Trump campaign had colluded with Russians who’d been meddling with or hacking the US election. Trump Jr’s planned meeting was with a person who might have had dirt on Hillary Clinton (although Trump Jr. expressed his skepticism by adding “if it’s what you say”). But in fact the meeting demonstrated she had no such knowledge at all. It turns out there was nothing with which to collude; her agenda was something else entirely—an adoption law.
(3) When Trump Jr. met with the Russian lawyer (see this for more details about her), he initially thought she was some sort of Russian official but she was not. At what point did he learn that she wasn’t a Russian official? We don’t know; it may have been before the meeting, but it’s certainly likely that he had discovered it at some time before the meeting was over.
(4) Trump Jr. now says this about the incident: “this is before the Russia mania. This is before they were building it up in the press. For me, this was opposition research… So, I think I wanted to hear it out. But really, it went nowhere and it was apparent that that wasn’t what the meeting was actually about.” That seems to have been the case, at least according to reports so far of what transpired.
(5) Trump Jr. was a political neophyte at the time. He says he’s since learned more (I bet that’s true) and would have done things a bit differently.
(6) To me, the single most potentially damaging thing in the emails is this: Goldstone made a reference to Russians trying to help Trump’s campaign. The wording goes
…offered to provide the Trump campaign with some official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary [Clinton] and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father.
This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr Trump…
Nothing we have learned so far, however, indicates that Trump Jr. believed there to have been such support from Russia, just because Goldstone referenced it. Receiving an email that alleges something doesn’t mean you accept the premise or have had any previous contacts with the group mentioned, but it is very plausible that Trump Jr. was very intrigued and wanted to learn more (his claim of “opposition research”).
I don’t think I’ve written a single word about Donald Trump Jr. up until this incident came out; he just wasn’t on my radar screen (except I think that in one post I mentioned his childhood reaction to the Trump divorce). So I have no vested interest in defending him. I don’t know what sort of person he is, abominable or upright or anything in between. I try to look at the whole thing in an objective light, and what I see so far is a tempest in a teapot. That could change if more is revealed, but that’s my conclusion at this point.
I think what happened is this: a somewhat naive and in-over-his-head Donald Jr. got a tip that someone might be able to give him some damaging info on his father’s opponent. That would have been fabulous opposition research, nothing seemed illegal about it to him at the time, and he said “Fine.” He should have run it by some lawyers who might have warned him off (or who actually might have said “go ahead,” for all I know), but he didn’t. When the meeting actually occurred, however, it was so disappointing, boring, and unrevealing that he probably did fail to mention it afterward to anyone. It’s even possible he forgot about it till the evidence of it came out later, although he certainly might have remembered it and was covering it up because he knew the opposition would make hay of it.
Not a single bit of this was a crime. Was it smart? No. Was it exemplary or admirable? Absolutely not. But I see it as an example of the type of thing that happens in politics every day—some sort of slightly shady and/or slightly nasty operation that fizzles, and then when asked about it, some sort of denial from the parties that may not be the truth, and certainly is not the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
Obviously, the investigation into possible links between Trump and Russia will continue, as it should. If a smoking gun is found, so be it. This is not that smoking gun, although the media and the liberal/left will do its utmost to convince us it is, and they may even succeed.
[ADDENDUM: Commenter “Cap’n Rusty” linked to this interesting post by Jerry Pournelle that gives some perspective on how this sort of thing works in most campaigns.]
A bit more about the “collusion” story
There’s a certain deja vu feeling today, isn’t there? The Donald Trump Jr. collusion story is being covered as though it were a bombshell revelation of the utmost importance, evidence of extreme wrongdoing and criminal as well. Whether it’s treason or collusion or both or something else the anti-Trump forces can’t agree on, but they all agree it’s terrible and singular and the only thing that’s happening today, and far different from all the other anti-Trump stories they’ve been peddling that haven’t really changed much of anything, including people’s minds.
But I see it as very much in the vein of all those other bombshells that pretty much fizzled. Of course, there could be further revelations that would change the picture. And even without that, it already could have legs if enough people believe it does, because the court that matters right now is the court of public opinion. But covering this story feels like covering all the others, and fills me with a sense of exhaustion and fruitless repetition.
Adding to that feeling is the fact that I went to bed very late last night and got up relatively early this morning.
A lot of Twitter Lawyers and/or People Who Play Internet Lawyers on Twitter are making the claim that any willingness to accept information from a foreign source is violation of campaign finance laws — the claim is being made that this is either a solicitation of something “of value” or else a solicitation of an “in-kind” contribution.
A trial lawyer writes at Dan Abrams’ Law Newz site that this is just the chatterings of non-lawyers or lawyers yapping outside their fields of actual expertise — because campaign finance rules specifically permit any foreign national to volunteer services, including, specifically, information. The only forbiddance is that such volunteers cannot be compensated, which would make them non-volunteers.
That seems pretty clear, doesn’t it? We’re talking about money being exchanged, and that’s not even being alleged for Trump Jr.
Moreover:
The hystrionic partisan Jake Tapper is claiming, meanwhile, that these emails demonstrate “collusion” without any possible counterargument. Collusion means “cooperation with a corrupt purpose,” and cooperation includes the idea of “working together” or, second definition, “rendering aid.”
Trump Jr. did not offer to work with Russians, nor to render them aid. He stands accused of being willing to do what the media does as its daily trade — listen to a source with possibly interesting information.
What’s more—wait for it—you know who is alleged to have committed similar acts to Trump Jr.’s? None other than Democrat operatives, on behalf of Trump’s old opponent Hillary Clinton. These are quotes from a story that appeared in Politico last January (and, as Ace says, hardly garnered any interest at all at the time):
Ukrainian government officials tried to help Hillary Clinton and undermine Trump by publicly questioning his fitness for office. They also disseminated documents implicating a top Trump aide in corruption and suggested they were investigating the matter, only to back away after the election. And they helped Clinton’s allies research damaging information on Trump and his advisers, a Politico investigation found.
A Ukrainian-American operative who was consulting for the Democratic National Committee met with top officials in the Ukrainian Embassy in Washington in an effort to expose ties between Trump, top campaign aide Paul Manafort and Russia, according to people with direct knowledge of the situation.
Maybe yes, maybe no. I take it all with a grain of salt, but I believe these things may happen somewhat regularly these days on both sides. They’re part of the nasty sausage-making business of politics. But they are not the special province of Donald Trump Jr., and they do not consitute crimes of any sort.
The “collusion” story marches on
[See ADDENDA below.]
There’s a lot of news about possible Trump-campaign collusion with the Russians.
Or is should that be “news” as well as “collusion”?
A great deal of it has to do with a NY Times report that Powerline’s Scott Johnson characterizes this way:
In today’s episode the Times reports that before Donald Trump, Jr. arranged a meeting with “a Kremlin-connected Russian lawyer he believed would offer him compromising information about Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump Jr. was informed in an email that the material was part of a Russian government effort to aid his father’s candidacy, according to three people with knowledge of the email.” The Times has posted related stories here on the pageant angle to provide context.
In today’s installment of the collusion comedy none of the four Times reporters has seen the email. The Times does not report that anything was delivered in the meeting. So far as we can tell from the story, the thing was some kind of a hoax…
There is no evidence that the Russian lawyer had damaging information to deliver. There is no evidence that the Russian lawyer delivered damaging information. There is no evidence that Trump Jr. asked the Russian lawyer to come back with damaging information. There is no evidence that Trump Jr. would have promised the Russian lawyer anything if she had agreed to return with damaging information. There is no evidence that Trump Jr. came away from the meeting with anything but disappointed expectations.
Is this some kind of a joke?
That’s a rhetorical question, of course. I can assure everyone the Times does not mean it as a joke.
I’m with Jonah Goldberg (not known for his Trump fanship) on this:
…[T]he real reason I don’t write about the [collusion] story much: I just don’t know. There’s an investigation going on. It will produce its findings. Until then, my attitude is purely wait-and-see.
But here’s the thing: I wouldn’t be surprised by almost any finding by Robert Mueller. If he found no truly damning evidence of collusion, that wouldn’t surprise me at all. Nor would I be shocked if he found evidence of collusion. Sure, if he unearthed a videotape of Trump and Putin plotting their strategy over shvitz, I’d find that shocking. But you know what I mean…
It’s the same thing with this Donald Trump Jr. story. There were no meetings with Russians. Well there was that meeting about adoption with that Russian lawyer (attended by the campaign manager). Well, it was a meeting about opposition research that turned into a meeting about adoption, but I had no idea the Russian government was involved. Then the NYT reports last night about an email saying the meeting was pitched as part of a Russian-government operation. Then this morning the Russian lawyer says it was the Trump team that was desperate for Clinton dirt.
Now this story may end up being wrong, because shady Russian lawyers lie and the press screws stuff up a lot on this kind of thing too.
I think Goldberg is too kind to the press there. Some of what the press routinely does is “screwing stuff up,” some of it is knowingly lying, some of it is telling the truth, and a great deal of it is looking for dirt on Trump and being so eager to find it that the MSM will print anything it thinks will damage Trump, and spin it in the worst possible light.
But unfortunately for the Times, an awful lot of people (not just me, although I count myself among them) do not trust the Times and its spins—especially on the subject of Donald Trump.
On the latest Trump-collusion story, Powerline’s Paul Mirengoff (not ordinarily a Trump fan) adds:
So far…no evidence has emerged that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia in the computer hacking. And “so far” now means about a year.
Instead, we are told that President Trump’s son met with a Russian lawyer who is said to have “Kremlin ties.” Allegedly, he met with her after it was suggested to him that she had information damaging to Hillary Clinton and/or the Democrats. This is, as Scott says, the new meaning of collusion.
The problem is that there’s nothing wrong with a campaign operative meeting with a person, Kremlin ties or not, who may have adverse information on the opposing candidate or her party. You can call such a meaning “collusion” for effect if you like, but that’s taking liberties…
The Trump, Jr. story isn’t about collusion. So far, as Scott [Johnson] says, it’s about collusion comedy.
Ah, but you know what? Surprise, surprise; the anti-Trump forces aren’t laughing. They’re saying the usual this must mean something.
I doubt it—although (as Goldberg said) nothing would surprise me.
[ADDENDUM: I was going to add that I await the comments of Andrew C. McCarthy and Jonathan Turley on this (they’re the legal guys I trust the most on these topics), and sure enough, Turley has weighed in:
…[D]oes any of this constitute a clear crime or even a vague inkblot image of a crime?
No, at least not on these facts.
Richard Painter, an ethics lawyer under former President George W. Bush, has declared that the meeting “borders on treason.” Article III defines treason as “levying War against [the United States], or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.” Trump Jr. went to a meeting on the belief that a lawyer had evidence of criminal collusion by Clinton with a foreign power. That is a rather curious basis for a charge of treason and would make traitors of countless campaign operatives…
MSNBC justice and security analyst Matthew Miller said Trump Jr. could now go to jail because “it doesn’t have to be money ”¦ it can be, potentially, accepting information. So he’s potentially confessing in his statement to committing a crime.”
Of course, the crux is “other thing of value.” Under this approach, a court would have to include information as a thing of value like money and then declare that Trump Jr. solicited the information by agreeing to go to the meeting. If that were the case, the wide array of meetings by politicians and their aides with foreign nationals would suddenly become possible criminal violations…
Consider the implications of such an unprecedented extension of the criminal code. The sharing of information ”” even possible criminal conduct by a leading political figure ”” would be treated the same as accepting cash. It would constitute a major threat to free speech, the free press and the right of association. It would also expose a broad spectrum of political speech to possible criminal prosecution.
Please read the whole thing.
My guess is that McCarthy will say essentially the same—but that won’t stop the baying hounds. There is no dearth of people—legal “experts” and otherwise—who are more than willing to twist the law with “unprecedented extensions of the criminal code” in order to get Donald Trump.]
[ADDENDUM II: More legal experts weigh in and agree that there’s no illegal violation here. See William A. Jacobson at Legal Insurrection, as well as John Hinderaker at Powerline.
Professor Jacobson writes:
The emails [released by Donald Trump Jr.] show no actual evidence of “collusion” or illegality. There is nothing indicating the information to be offered was stolen or otherwise improperly obtained, or that other than being willing to listen, the Trump campaign was involved in how the information was obtained. To the contrary, the promised information was “official records and information.”
This also took place prior to the hack of the DNC being publicly known, so there was no reason to suspect that this was hacked information. Notice how the narrative has changed from the Trump campaign colluding with the Russians to “hack the election” to the Trump campaign being willing to have a meeting with someone who may have damaging oppo research.
And of course, there was no there there. There’s no indication any information actually existed.
Jacobson adds that Trump Jr. showed “incredible amateurishness in how this was handled.” This consisted of not doing it through “surrogates and allies…to provide key players with deniability and distance.” In addition, Professor Jacobson says that Trump Jr. didn’t show enough suspiciousness towards “someone who approaches with such a promise” of a tip. But Trump Jr. had actually written [emphasis mine] “If it’s what you say I love it especially later in the summer.” That certainly shows some doubt and skepticism.
Jacobson adds:
Don’t think for a second the media or other Trump opponents actually care about the substance of Trump Jr.’s emails or meeting. If they actually cared about collusion with foreign governments, the January 2017 Politico report on actual collusion between Clinton allies and the Ukrainians would not have gone down the media memory hole.
My guess is that this won’t change any minds.
John Hinderaker writes:
…[T]he [released] emails support Trump Jr.’s statement that he attended the meeting because he had been told that the Russian with whom he would meet had negative information about Hillary Clinton…
This would obviously have been of great interest to the Trump campaign, and Trump, Jr. would have been foolish not to schedule the meeting. In one of the emails he says, “if it’s what you say I love it,” an entirely appropriate response that also showed an appropriate degree of skepticism. Trump may have assumed that the incriminating information would relate to the uranium transactions that are described in Clinton Cash, but there is no elaboration in the emails.
Second, someone in this chain is obviously lying, and it isn’t Donald Trump, Jr…Why any of these people would falsely claim to have dirt on Hillary is unclear…
…[O]nce again, the New York Times and the Washington Post have made fools of themselves by trying to fashion an anti-Trump news story out of entirely innocent materials.
I disagree on that last sentence. The papers believe they’ve struck pay dirt (of course, they always believe that, or hope that) and a lot of people concur with them. As I already said, I doubt this news will change many minds (although time will tell). But so far the story certainly hasn’t hurt the Times and the WaPo. They may be spinning the meaning and significance of the events wrongly (not that the left will ever see it that way). But this time they weren’t far off on the actual content of the emails. For the newspapers, this constitutes a rare victory.]
Young Japanese find that sex is scary
Especially when it’s with other people.
Well, you know what? It is kinda scary, especially when you’re young and a virgin. But it used to be—long, long ago, when I was a sweet young thing—that there were certain urges that propelled one into it despite any fear.
I grew up in an era when sex was scarier than today in certain ways. It was much more difficult to get birth control, so the risk of pregnancy was higher. Abortion was illegal (see this for a previous post of mine on the subject). Society placed a huge stigma on it, and on unwanted pregnancy as a whole, even if you married. A girls’ reputation could suffer not just from a pregnancy, but from having sex too easily and with too many people (and in some groups, one was too many).
But there were forces that propelled us into having sex and into getting married—because back then, the two were linked. The link was neither inevitable nor inextricable, but it was much tighter than it is today. And we wanted to marry (both men and women, for the most part), because marriage was the entree into officially approved sex and adult life, as well as children and a better standard of living and a social life that revolved around coupledom. In addition, sex was a force that was hard to deny (and who would want to, anyway?), and it was more difficult to satisfy the need to have sex outside of marriage unless one consorted with prostitutes or what was then called (unironically) sluts.
Now, it’s different. Very very different. Feminism is part of it, the sexual revolution that began in the 60s is part of it, leftism is part of it, economics (people of either sex can be self-supporting) is part of it, technology is part of it. Porn is ubiquitous and varied online, and very easily available. Ditto sex dolls as a substitute/surrogate. It’s also more difficult to negotiate a world in which women who seemed to be saying “yes” can claim “no” ex post facto, and the world will almost automatically take her side. Divorce is so ubiquitous as to be a serious consideration whenever a marriage is contemplated.
But we’re not talking so much about marriage, although that’s down, too, in Japan. We’re talking about sex.
Another phenomenon that’s not mentioned as often—but which I was thinking about the other day—is the chilling effect near-constant sexual stimulation can have. Chilling effect, you might ask? Wouldn’t it be the opposite?
Not always. I was in the car yesterday and happened to pass a young woman walking her dog. As I drove up on her from behind, I noticed (could not help but notice, really) that “behind” was quite literal in this case, because she had on tights of a shiny light material that clutched her hindquarters and revealed everything even more clearly than if she’d been walking down the street naked. She was young and had a nice figure, and she looked like a spotlight was shining on her butt saying “Look at me! Look at me!” It was literally glowing.
And that was rather mild, really, compared to what one sees every single day on the main street of just about every town in America. I contemplated how that would feel if I were a guy, having to constantly damp down my reactivity and arousal in order to not be in a constant state of turmoil. It’s certainly possible (and necessary, really) to do it, but couldn’t one of the costs (for some people, anyway) of the continual damping down be a difficulty in considering sex sufficiently pressing to brave the slings and arrows of actual real-life relationships?
[NOTE: Why this shying away from sex should be happening to such a particular degree in Japan is a question I cannot answer.]