If he traded influence or promised specific action based on money received, yes it would be extremely unethical and illegal. Money chain linking Trump to Russia money also gives Russians leverage over Trump.
First, this is in 2010, so there's no way anyone could have guessed that Trump would ultimately become President, so obviously there's no trading of influence contemporaneous with the transactions there. But more than that, it's just so many steps removed and such a minor participation even in the property with his name on it, there's no reason to think any of the participants would know or care about the other parts of that "money chain".
Was Putin even directly involved in the oversight decision on that financing by VEB? If so, what does it mean to have a stake sold "via" midlake resources? Did the bank know that that was how the transaction would be structured? What funds did Midlake receive, for doing what? Is this Alexander Shnaider person the sole shareholder of Midlake? Did he subsequently obtain and use those funds to finance construction of the Toronto property? Why would VEB, or this unknown investor, have any clue what Schnaier was going to do with those funds? And most obviously, why on Earth would anyone think that Trump's company, simply by virtue of selling naming rights to a building in Toronto and taking back licensing fees (which is a relatively simple agreement), would have any idea that any of this had occurred?
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
Yes, that was in 2010, but in 2017, Trump is the President, and will not detach himself from his companies, like that one, nor show his tax returns
There's the worrisome connection.
That's a totally separate issue, though. I, of course, completely agree that his failure to divest himself of his business interests is unacceptable and I would really like a law that requires candidates and presidents to release tax returns on an ongoing basis, not just for the purpose of determining foreign influence but to see just how rich these guys are getting from holding the office.
The question was whether anyone thought that particular infographic, that particular transaction, was in any way incriminating or indicative of any Russian connection that should be remotely interesting or concerning. Because it really, really isn't.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
The Following User Says Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
True, Russia may be a "bad guy" but the US has little problem dealing with "bad guys" if it serves a common goal, in which case is the fight against ISIS.
This is not an excusal here. You're assuming precident with vague accusations
Quote:
There's even an agreement that the two countries signed in 2014 to do exactly that:
This does not mean that is either a) wise to divulge something you felt was so strongly secret you didn't divulge too allies, or b) wise to divulge in a boast without having been part of a planned disclosure.
Quote:
Haven't they though, at least to the UK who've implemented a similar ban on laptops. And there were reports that Canada and France were thinking about such a ban but perhaps determined that they weren't likely targets of such an attack.
It was specifically reported they haven't shared with allies. It seems to me you are picking and choosing which parts of the multiple reports your believing to for your interpretation
Quote:
Mostly my posts were to separate the difference between what Trump has been claimed to have provided to Russia, compared to what the media has provided to world.
Even for those who blame Trump for releasing classified information about the program or the name of the city, but he should not blame for outing the Israeli operative, the facts of which were provided by the media.
Really? He declassified material that was entrusted to him by an ally. Not only that, he gave it to a state actor that is hostile not only to the US, but the Ally that gave the Intel. I'm not sure how you rationalize that to "he was probably doing it to improve security" while arbitrarily disregarding many salient parts of the reporting.
The media isn't blameless, but your suggesting the President was not only acting with good intentions, but the correct one as well. Strange take to be sure
The press leaked that it was Israel, and that it was related to the laptop bomb threat. Neither of those details were necessary for the story (arguably I'll admit). You can make the argument they didn't divulge too much and I'll listen to that, but to suggest they have no moral obligation when reporting declassified information is not reasonable IMO.
The press has no moral obligation to anything. That was (sadly) decided by the Supreme Court along time ago. Also, declassified information is publicly available information. Anyone can get access to it, if they ask for it. So all the press is doing is providing a conduit to that information and acting as a filter. There would be more information in a FOIA request than the media provided, so it could also be argued they are not doing a complete service to the public because of the filtering out of those important details. The fact that the media did provide some filtering, and acted to a level of responsibility the executive did not, speaks a lot about the acknowledgement of their obligations. I appreciate that you think the media released more than they should have, a point we disagree on, but the intent was to shine a light on the egregiousness of the action by the executive. It was the executive branch that made the specific content of the information released the story, not the media.
The media's focus was the transgression of the disclosure in the presence of foreign actors. The executive then used the declassification angle as a defense, then stated the information release was not specific, all of which the press proved to be inaccurate. If there was an improper release of information I would be up their asses in a second, but they have been very reserved in their approach to this and other stories where there has been damaging information they could have provided.
That's a totally separate issue, though. I, of course, completely agree that his failure to divest himself of his business interests is unacceptable and I would really like a law that requires candidates and presidents to release tax returns on an ongoing basis, not just for the purpose of determining foreign influence but to see just how rich these guys are getting from holding the office.
The question was whether anyone thought that particular infographic, that particular transaction, was in any way incriminating or indicative of any Russian connection that should be remotely interesting or concerning. Because it really, really isn't.
I disagree, it is very interesting, because it shows the President, (who, by the way, won't show his tax returns, or cut ties with his businesses) has business ties to Russia, which makes anyone wonder, what he is hiding in regards to Russia, as President.
The press has no moral obligation to anything. That was (sadly) decided by the Supreme Court along time ago. Also, declassified information is publicly available information. Anyone can get access to it, if they ask for it. So all the press is doing is providing a conduit to that information and acting as a filter. There would be more information in a FOIA request than the media provided, so it could also be argued they are not doing a complete service to the public because of the filtering out of those important details. The fact that the media did provide some filtering, and acted to a level of responsibility the executive did not, speaks a lot about the acknowledgement of their obligations. I appreciate that you think the media released more than they should have, a point we disagree on, but the intent was to shine a light on the egregiousness of the action by the executive. It was the executive branch that made the specific content of the information released the story, not the media.
The media's focus was the transgression of the disclosure in the presence of foreign actors. The executive then used the declassification angle as a defense, then stated the information release was not specific, all of which the press proved to be inaccurate. If there was an improper release of information I would be up their asses in a second, but they have been very reserved in their approach to this and other stories where there has been damaging information they could have provided.
I guess we'll never agree, in that I don't think the Supreme Court adjudicates morality
That's a totally separate issue, though. I, of course, completely agree that his failure to divest himself of his business interests is unacceptable and I would really like a law that requires candidates and presidents to release tax returns on an ongoing basis, not just for the purpose of determining foreign influence but to see just how rich these guys are getting from holding the office.
The question was whether anyone thought that particular infographic, that particular transaction, was in any way incriminating or indicative of any Russian connection that should be remotely interesting or concerning. Because it really, really isn't.
That particular infographic looks like a 7 degrees of Kevin Bacon indictment.
However, I find it peculiar no one is discussing the Manafort subpoena. Perhaps because the Comey issue is more pressing than Trump/Russia?
I guess we'll never agree, in that I don't think the Supreme Court adjudicates morality
Conservatives will disagree with you wholeheartedly. While they like to toss out the claim that the court is not qualified to decide moral issues, they regularly play in that space, and conservatives are demanding a more activist court to regulate morality through law. The court stating that media has no obligation to the public in regards to promotion of truth, is dabbling in those very moral issues and making arguments one way or another. This is more philosophical than pragmatic, and I hate those arguments. Bottom line is the press should hold true on their obligation to speak truth to power, and I feel they have done so in a very well managed way in this instance.
Says:
"The Post is withholding most plot details, including the name of the city, at the urging of officials who warned that revealing them would jeopardize important intelligence capabilities."
and does not mention Israel anywhere in the story.
I haven't read any updated or follow-on stories from WaPo, so I do not know if they've subsequently shared more information. Regardless, I feel they were right in restricting the info in the beginning and would have hoped that more Media would have done the same.
Has any media source said the name of the city where intelligence was gathered, though? I've seen a lot of media sources say that they know the name of the city but have been told not to release it. And Washington Post has since said that the country involved is Israel, so apparently that isn't the same level of sensitivity as the city.
That particular infographic looks like a 7 degrees of Kevin Bacon indictment.
However, I find it peculiar no one is discussing the Manafort subpoena. Perhaps because the Comey issue is more pressing than Trump/Russia?
I'm waiting for the other shoe to drop on that one. More information needed. He looks dirty, he smells dirty, and he sounds dirty, but I think we need more information to determine how dirty.
I disagree, it is very interesting, because it shows the President, (who, by the way, won't show his tax returns, or cut ties with his businesses) has business ties to Russia, which makes anyone wonder, what he is hiding in regards to Russia, as President.
It doesn't show that at all, though. You might as well accuse me of having business ties to Russia because I bought a coffee this morning and it turns out that Putin owns shares of Starbucks.
I would not be surprised if there are incriminating transactions that show fairly direct ties between Russian oligarchs and the Trump organization. In fact I'd be surprised if there aren't, given that his son has admitted as much. But that just isn't one of them. It's meaningless. I have no idea why it would be printed, other than misleading sensationalism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist
However, I find it peculiar no one is discussing the Manafort subpoena. Perhaps because the Comey issue is more pressing than Trump/Russia?
Probably. I'm not sure anyone remembers Paul Manafort, because it's been so long since he's been on TV. For the record, Duffman, Trump's relationship with Manafort is far more important than selling naming rights to a development whose construction may or may not have been partially funded with money obtained through the sale of a steel mill whose purchase was financed with money originally loaned by a Russian bank.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
Conservatives will disagree with you wholeheartedly. While they like to toss out the claim that the court is not qualified to decide moral issues, they regularly play in that space, and conservatives are demanding a more activist court to regulate morality through law. The court stating that media has no obligation to the public in regards to promotion of truth, is dabbling in those very moral issues and making arguments one way or another. This is more philosophical than pragmatic, and I hate those arguments. Bottom line is the press should hold true on their obligation to speak truth to power, and I feel they have done so in a very well managed way in this instance.
I don't care really what portion of society agrees or not. By very definition, function and practice they are different. You can't argue blue is red. Only religious courts try to adjudicate both.
For example, there is no law requiring the press to withhold publishing suicides. However, doing so has a demonstrable affect on increasing "copycat suicides", so they go largely unreported.
