Attempting to get certain materials and not succeeding is viewed the same way as if they got them. Conspiracy doesn't require success. Thats if you even believe that the meeting went no where. Remember that days leading up to the meeting Trump went on tv boasting about learning stuff about Clinton that he will releasing. There's a email chain showing the planning leading up to the meeting. Then, the meeting happened 2 days later. Trump said he didn't know about the meeting and Jr said he didn't tell dad(bullshit). Now, Trump is drafting the denials about what the meeting was and wasn't about. For the record, I actually do believe the meeting wasn't as successful as they wanted because Trump didn't really follow up on what they might learn. But that doesn't matter. There was like 8 people there.
Yes, it does depend on it being the emails or related to the emails rather than any kind of legal opposition research, and no one publicly knows that for sure. That's the whole question the entire investigation is revolving around, for this meeting in particular and everything else.
Also, merely meeting up with them might not be illegal per se, but if perhaps they met up to discuss doing something illegal to help tilt the election coughhackthednccough, that would be a much bigger issue. I’m sure it’s just a coincidence that after this meeting took place and after Trump publicly called for Russia to hack into Hillary’s emails, they happened to do just that.
I would say that is something easily probable at this point. If it is the case. They know when the meeting happened, they know when the alleged hack happened, they know when Trump made the remark. If those align, then what?
That’s up to you guys whether is rises to the point of removing him from office. At this point, there are mountains of circumstantial evidence and some direct evidence pointing to Trump and the campaign being everything that a lot of us have been saying for some time now. You have to sit back a digest the situation and think of the gravity of it all. You have to contextualize your feelings without using whataboutism and think about how you would feel if crooked Hillary or Obama did 1/10 of what Trump has done. There has to be a greater cause and sense of patriotism than just liberal tears.
I feel like if the situation was reversed with Hillary we’d get the same reaction from the left, they’d contextualize it the exact same way the trump supporters are now. Witch hunt, trumped up charges, grand right wing conspiracy and so on. In our cultural political reality supporters are going to not look at it objectively. Just not the way our universe works. Actual non circumstantial evidence, an inescapable smoking gun is the only way it shakes out with trump being taken out of office. From the way you’ve been describing it it really feels like mueller might end up in a Comey situation with a case he could guarantee would make it through a trial.
Sure, I think there will always be people on each side who would dig in for their team. But the media was quite harsh on her for all of her transgressions before she was even a candidate. In this case, I think there is obvious fuckery going on staring us right in the face and we have people like this...
Sure, maybe. But then we're talking about what Democrat voters *might* theoretically do, and ignoring what Republican voters are actually, actively doing *right now*.
What Democrats have never down played serious shit because it was someone on their team coughBillClintonJaunitaBrodrickcough? Or the Clinton Foundations questionable timelines with donations and Hillary’s state department work that was down played, rationalized, or ignored? I get it, our whole criminal justice system is built on different interpretations of the same set of facts. We are always going to see things differently based on our side. Again it comes down to hard smoking guns that can’t be ignored.
Then the GOP needs to go after the big ones and stop focusing on bullshit like Obama wearing a gray suit, saluting with a cup of coffee, or a private email server. It makes the GOP seem petty and desperate. You got pay for play evidence? Release it to the masses and don’t shut up about it til the powers that be address it.
So... The EPA has just rolled back some previous restrictions on asbestos... so companies are now allowed to use it again in manufacturing. https://archpaper.com/2018/08/epa-asbestos-manufacturing/ There is now a Russian asbestos mine that is selling asbestos with Trump's face on it... "approved by President Trump". https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...h-the-presidents-face/?utm_term=.faf909d09227 This should be really interesting... because despite what the idiots appointed to the EPA say, asbestos has some very, very real health implications. It'll be interesting to see what companies decide to take advantage of the EPA's loosened restrictions.
I think decades of "if you or a loved one has been diagnosed with Mesothelioma you may to be entitled to financial compensation" ads have made companies more cautious than a single administration's corrupted EPA can convince them to forgo.
Whoa, whoa, whoa. That's almost like the private sector would handle the knowledge of the health consequences without additional governmental controls. We can't have that.
No, they will fear that the EPA's orders won't protect them from civil liability based on decades of cases the EPA will reverse its position the second a non-psycho returns to the Oval Office anyway Both of which are government controls.
The thing about asbestos is that it isn't always dangerous. The types that are dangerous are the type that is friable, even then it is only really dangerous if it is disturbed. Being involved with construction, we see a lot of structures that require remediation. The facilities that have firewalls and pipe insulation made from asbestos require much more attention that those that just have mastic securing tiles to the floor that contain asbestos because you are really only concerned with airborne particles from disturbed asbestos. At the end of the day, if asbestos is legal, the likelihood of it becoming used en masse again is very unlikely. You have 30 to 40 years of building materials development that has occurred. I'm sure much of the stuff they use these days will turn out to not be so good for you either. Anyone ever been around commercial spray foam insulation? I have a hard time imagining that stuff is good for you either.
The legality of it is irrelevant to the proven negative health effects - talcum powder is perfectly legal yet J&J is has had about a billion $ in damages awarded against them in the past 3 years, and those negative effects aren't anywhere near as established as the effects of asbestos. So yeah, its unlikely that contractors and developers are going to suddenly start using it again. As for friability, that's dependent on time and circumstance. The safest form is probably transite, but if it is around long enough transite panels and pipes will start to degrade. And eventually someone is going to want to remove or alter those pipes and panels in some way, and suddenly that material can be made friable mechanically. But hey, all of this is good for me - I work in environmental consulting, and have held certifications as an asbestos investigator, planner and manager. Next up - PCBs, Agent orange, and thalidomide are all back in production.
I say every poison should be brought back. Let’s DDT the crops and create a generation of flipper-kids again, that way they’re born in the praying position. And let’s run pure flouride through the taps, it healthy because the dentist uses it to clean our teeth! It can’t be bad for you if the president declares that it isn’t. You know, electro-shock therapy was really good at quieting down noisy psychos. Let’s warm up those terminals already.
It's always entertaining to see how different news organizations put their spin on the same info. Also, for anybody in Ohio, can you explain what this means? https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entr...too-close-to-call_us_5b6a5c94e4b0fd5c73deb2c9
Its just drumming up site clicks. Midterm elections just arent that exciting. Since the Civil War, 92% of midterm elections have seen the party occupying the White House lose a considerable amount of seats in the House, an average of 30 per cycle. The anomalies can easily be speculated on. FDR gained seats in his first mid-term likely due to the New Deal recovery. Bush gained some in his likely due to 9/11.