The Statutes

[wesfau2]

I agree with this. Using "thing of value" to mean dirt on your opponent is stretching...a lot. A "thing of value" is "We can't pay you money, but we can give you this original Van Gough." Not information you can't put a monetary value on...

Perhaps not "emails" per se, but illegally obtained emails from the United States Secretary of State?  Valuable. 

I would also submit that in a race with stakes as high as the White House, a data dump of your opponent that significant would certainly be worth something.  There is value in them.

The only reason we don't have a monetary dollar amount to pin on them, is because the market for them is entirely black.  There are plenty of buyers for that kind of information, but none that want to be known as such.

[Kaos]

What legitimate means would that be?  Unless Hillary voluntarily turned them over or their production was compelled via subpoena, then they were obtained illegitimately.  That is to say: illegally.

Huge speculation on your part. Yuuuuuuge. 

At the time of the meeting, there was no public mention of any hacking or meddling or interference or any of that.  For all they knew Hillary's camp and/or the DNC had approached their side (and likely did in reality) offering to trade favors.  Zero reason to believe that the information was obtained through anything other than normal channels. 

This is a clear instance of you applying your personal biases and making assumptions based on your own hopes and dreams.  You see nefarious because that's what you desperately want to be true. 

[Kaos]

Perhaps not "emails" per se, but illegally obtained emails from the United States Secretary of State?  Valuable. 

I would also submit that in a race with stakes as high as the White House, a data dump of your opponent that significant would certainly be worth something.  There is value in them.

The only reason we don't have a monetary dollar amount to pin on them, is because the market for them is entirely black.  There are plenty of buyers for that kind of information, but none that want to be known as such.

Wrong. 

You're again assuming something that's not based in reality. 

Data dump of opponent's emails?  Nope. 

[AUChizad]

Perhaps not "emails" per se, but illegally obtained emails from the United States Secretary of State?  Valuable. 

I would also submit that in a race with stakes as high as the White House, a data dump of your opponent that significant would certainly be worth something.  There is value in them.

The only reason we don't have a monetary dollar amount to pin on them, is because the market for them is entirely black.  There are plenty of buyers for that kind of information, but none that want to be known as such.

I know "whataboutism" gets thrown around a lot, but in my opinion, it's just another word for "precedent", or not being a hypocrite. Why is the Clinton campaign getting dirt on Trump from Ukraine not apples-to-apples here? Opposition research is a ubiquitous part of American politics, and politicians are not offering up dirt on themselves consensually. The "whataboutism" applies, in my opinion, if the argument is that Clinton doing it is evil and treasonous, but the Trump doing it is a "nothingburger". And vice versa. I'm saying both are bad, both are unseemly, both are at least borderline unethical, but neither are illegal.

I'm just calling balls & strikes here.

[AUJarhead]

I know "whataboutism" gets thrown around a lot, but in my opinion, it's just another word for "precedent", or not being a hypocrite. Why is the Clinton campaign getting dirt on Trump from Ukraine not apples-to-apples here? Opposition research is a ubiquitous part of American politics, and politicians are not offering up dirt on themselves consensually. The "whataboutism" applies, in my opinion, if the argument is that Clinton doing it is evil and treasonous, but the Trump doing it is a "nothingburger". And vice versa. I'm saying both are bad, both are unseemly, both are at least borderline unethical, but neither are illegal.

I'm just calling balls & strikes here.

Basically how I feel about all of this.

[Kaos]

I know "whataboutism" gets thrown around a lot, but in my opinion, it's just another word for "precedent", or not being a hypocrite. Why is the Clinton campaign getting dirt on Trump from Ukraine not apples-to-apples here? Opposition research is a ubiquitous part of American politics, and politicians are not offering up dirt on themselves consensually. The "whataboutism" applies, in my opinion, if the argument is that Clinton doing it is evil and treasonous, but the Trump doing it is a "nothingburger". And vice versa. I'm saying both are bad, both are unseemly, both are at least borderline unethical, but neither are illegal.

I'm just calling balls & strikes here.

The two situations are not analogous.

[AUChizad]

The two situations are not analogous.

I'm guessing your position really is whataboutism as I defined it.

Please explain why they're different.

[War Eagle!!!]

What legitimate means would that be?  Unless Hillary voluntarily turned them over or their production was compelled via subpoena, then they were obtained illegitimately.  That is to say: illegally.

No where in anything that I have read, did the meeting or planned meeting talk about emails.

[Snaggletiger]

Basically how I feel about all of this.

Yep

[Kaos]

I'm guessing your position really is whataboutism as I defined it.

Please explain why they're different.

1) Where did the meeting with the Ukranians happen?
2) Who initiated it?
3) Was information actually exchanged and how was it used?
4) How long did it go on (more than three years)
5) What was Clinton's position at the time?
6) What was the position of the people who were involved in the meetings?

There's a difference between a single non-meeting and a long history of exchanges/conversations/efforts

[bottomfeeder]

I got this to say about the whole mess.

[wesfau2]

No where in anything that I have read, did the meeting or planned meeting talk about emails.

Fair point.  The phrase was "official documents."  Which could be more damning.

[wesfau2]

I know "whataboutism" gets thrown around a lot, but in my opinion, it's just another word for "precedent", or not being a hypocrite. Why is the Clinton campaign getting dirt on Trump from Ukraine not apples-to-apples here? Opposition research is a ubiquitous part of American politics, and politicians are not offering up dirt on themselves consensually. The "whataboutism" applies, in my opinion, if the argument is that Clinton doing it is evil and treasonous, but the Trump doing it is a "nothingburger". And vice versa. I'm saying both are bad, both are unseemly, both are at least borderline unethical, but neither are illegal.

I'm just calling balls & strikes here.

I'm not absolving anyone, regardless of party.  I'm simply laying DJTJr's own admissions alongside the applicable US Code provisions.

[AUChizad]

For me, this is bearing out the reason I was ambivalent to who won this election. I thought Trump was probably a smidge more terrible than Hillary all around, but that that would be at least counterbalanced by the fact that the media would actually hold him accountable for said terribleness, whereas I'm fairly positive any and all Clinton malfeasance would be poo-poo'ed as Fox News conspiracies. We probably wouldn't know about Ukraine, and no one would bother one tiny bit to look for it.

I do think they're overcorrecting even more than I expected, maybe even to a point that causes more harm than good as a whole. But I do still prefer a president be held to this level of scrutiny over allowing them to get away with any and everything with zero criticism.

[CCTAU]

For me, this is bearing out the reason I was ambivalent to who won this election. I thought Trump was probably a smidge more terrible than Hillary all around, but that that would be at least counterbalanced by the fact that the media would actually hold him accountable for said terribleness, whereas I'm fairly positive any and all Clinton malfeasance would be poo-poo'ed as Fox News conspiracies. We probably wouldn't know about Ukraine, and no one would bother one tiny bit to look for it.

I do think they're overcorrecting even more than I expected, maybe even to a point that causes more harm than good as a whole. But I do still prefer a president be held to this level of scrutiny over allowing them to get away with any and everything with zero criticism.

I almost agreed with you(felt a little dirty) until you said,  "this level of scrutiny"!

This is not scrutinization. This is outright attacking. I too want ALL government to be held accountable, but this is not it.

[Kaos]

I almost agreed with you(felt a little dirty) until you said,  "this level of scrutiny"!

This is not scrutinization. This is outright attacking. I too want ALL government to be held accountable, but this is not it.

Yep.  Scrutiny is looking at what happened not just making crap up because they mad.

[wesfau2]

Yep.  Scrutiny is looking at what happened not just making crap up because they mad.

Junior published this all himself.  There is no dispute that this happened.

[War Eagle!!!]

Fair point.  The phrase was "official documents."  Which could be more damning.

"Official" to who though? The music publicist?

[Kaos]

Junior published this all himself.  There is no dispute that this happened.

"This" is nothing. 

[The Prowler]

"This" is nothing.

I agree, it's nothing...compared to what's coming.