Jill Stein looped into widening investigation of Russia and Trump Jr. connections

[BainsBane]

The ongoing defenses of Stein suggest people may have forgotten or don't know about this.

Stein’s name was included in a Senate Judiciary Committee letter requesting all communication between President Trump’s son Donald Trump Jr. and a number of others, including Russian officials and other members of Trump’s presidential campaign.
. . .

The Senate panel wants documents relating to a recently revealed meeting between Trump Jr. and a Russian attorney, among others. Former campaign chairman Paul Manafort and Trump's son-in-law and adviser Jared Kushner were also at the meeting.

But investigators seem to be casting a wider net by asking Trump Jr. for “all communication to, from or copied to you relating to” a long list of individuals that include Stein.

“We expect that you have already taken care to preserve relevant documents in light of investigations into Russian interference being conducted by Congress and federal law enforcement and counterintelligence agencies,” the leadership of the committee wrote in the letter dated July 19.

The letter asks for the documents by Aug. 2.

http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/343292-jill-stein-looped-into-widening-investigation-of-russia-and-trump-jr

Why was Stein in communication with Don. Jr? And in refusing to comply with the Senate request, is she covering up for herself or the baby elephant killer?

And why on God's earth would anyone who opposes Trump defend her?

[FarPoint]

1. This woman needs locked up....

Rotten the core.

[BainsBane]

2. Well, I do not care for her either

But evidence is required to lock someone up. It's still early days.

[FarPoint]

5. My intuition remains keen...

Expose her for her deception

[mjvpi]

118. Part of the Russian plan was, and still is, to breed decent in the opposition party.

Posts like this are not valuable to our side. The Russians are still engaged in trying to splinter the progressive left. At DU we aren't allowed talk about the primaries but it seems like every day there is Bernie bashing and attacking of Jill Stein. My experience with supporters of both those candidates is that they are very passionate about certain issues. The environment, income inequality, education quality and affordability, single payer health care, election integrity. These are the people and issue that we need to own. we need to stop driving that wedge. That's what the Russians want to have happen in 2018.

If we want to go after people who didn't vote with the Democrats and had Russian support, let's stick to, say Mitch McConnel. Is PAC received $250 million dollars from sources linked to Russian money. He blocked Obamas agenda for 8 years, not with ideas, but with politics. Save our venom for those that truly deserve it.

[green917]

130. Well said!

I've almost left the site on a few occasions because of the vitriol directed at senator sanders. Your comment is spot on!

[R B Garr]

136. Wrong. Stein is a fraud and a liar. The Russian oligarchs promoted her campaign, which

shows she doesn't care about "income inequality" and single payer like you listed since she didn't mind that an ignorant Republican used her as a stepping stone to gain power. She doesn't mind oligarch money at all, and the sooner people quit pushing these stale talking points, the better.

Stein didn't care one bit about defrauding millions of hopeful Democrats out of MILLIONS of dollars with a fraudulent recount scheme designed to collect money. She collected their money like the fraud she is.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/guess-who-came-dinner-flynn-putin-n742696

&quot Stein did well enough to help Russia achieve its aims. Her vote totals in the crucial states of Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan were all greater than Clinton's margin of defeat, and arguably denied Clinton an Electoral College victory.)"


"RT's criticism of the U.S. election," said the report, "was the latest facet of its broader and longer-standing anti-U.S. messaging likely aimed at undermining viewers' trust in U.S. democratic procedures and undercutting U.S. criticism of Russia's political system. RT Editor-in-Chief Margarita Simonyan recently declared that the United States itself lacks democracy and that it has 'no moral right to teach the rest of the world.'"

Jill Stein declined an NBC News request for comment."

[mjvpi]

145. Please use you energy to promote ideas that will resonate with Stein's voters.

Let's attract voters with a message of universal health care, voting integrity, a new emphasis on public education,hell, I'd even put tax reform in there. Why should capital gains be taxed at lower rates than the income of those of us who work for a living. If we get rid of tax loopholes we can reduce the national debt. Let's attack the Republicans not other voters whom we agree with.

We have been warned that there is still an active program running to disrupt the next elections. Forget about Jill Stein. This sight has rules about talking about things that happened in our own party that we need to correct. Too bad on that. Those are things that we have the ability to change. This is something we have no ability to change and blaming Jill Stein is pointless, unless you are bent on dividing people who do actually agree on most issues. Let's make our party better and try to attract Stein supporters. That's how we will have their support and the votes to put us in control of the government. Blaming them for the loss is pointless.

[R B Garr]

147. This is not what Stein talked about, though. Her prime time appearances were straight up

smears and lies on Democrats. This is the hoax that gullible people fall for. All her prime time appearances were geared to undermining people who could actually get elected. It's great that she is being exposed for the fraud she is.

It's the continual undermining and smearing that lulls people into believing that Democrats don't help working families and all the other things the Democratic party actually does stand for. Jill Stein is a liar and a fraud. Her collusion with Russian oligarchs is getting her scrutinized by the Feds, and that is wonderful.

These 3rd party lies need to be called out.

[mjvpi]

157. The blame game won't win us the next election.

Who give a s$$t about Stein. It's her votersthat we want. Continuing to bitch about her simply isn't constructive in the least. We would do much better to examine and correct ( which te DNC is working hard to ) some major mistakes that were made by us.

The constant bitching about Bernie and Stein at DU coupled with a self imposed band on constructive self criticism has driven me to actually posting my ideas on DU! I am agnostic but I find great wisdom in the serenity prayer.
" God grant me the serenity to accept th things I cannot change, the courage to change the tings I can and the wisdom to know the difference"

Jill Stein is something we cannot change.
As Demacrats, mistakes(even though we won the popular vote) we made are things that we need to examine because they are thing that are within our ability to change.

I would urge everyone who spends time bitching about Stein and Bernie to to pray for the "wisdom to know the difference".

[R B Garr]

162. Do you have something to share about voting third party or something??

You seem to have personal experience with this...? It would be great if you can share some experiences you've had with 3rd party voters who regret their decision and are now focused on the Democratic party instead of 3rd party lies. That would go a long way in establishing groundwork to help those folks to actually vote for someone who can get elected instead of throwing their votes away based on some pernicious lies from a self-promoting grifter like Stein who doesn't really mind oligarchs after all.

My experience here with Sanders is that he says something that makes news currently and people post about it. Not everything he says about Democrats is helpful. Maybe you have some experiences to share about politicians who make unhelpful comments about Democrats...? That would go a long way. Maybe describe some people who have had a realization that Democrats have been maligned unfairly?

I guess I'm saying that it works both ways. That "constructive self criticism" you mention really isn't that at all. It's just a constant undermining, much of it intentional so that a third party sounds attractive to some people influenced by that. We've seen enough of that, and I hope Democrats fight back against it.

[beachbum bob]

152. stein and her supporters destroyed any chance of america having the american dream as we have seen

understand she was a puppet, just like trump..

[BainsBane]

3. This is who we see defended

All while calling for Feinstein's head.

[FarPoint]

126. Yeap...

My pleas fell onto deafness

[ismnotwasm]

4. I despise that woman

She fooled a lot of people.

[FarPoint]

6. That post Presidential Election recount deception...

Lots of DU'ers took the bait....I took a lot of flack from posters here for my harsh warnings about Stein.

[AllyCat]

106. Yep, I sure did. I just wanted SOMEONE to stand up to what happened here in Wisconsin.

I got taken in a grift. I'm still surprised how many got duped by her in the election. And then I got hit with this (which went exactly nowhere) except into Stein's/Putin's pockets.

[BainsBane]

7. $10 million

Is what she pocketed from her recount scam. It was clear at the time she was hugely inflating her ask. She took advantage of people distraught over the election outcome. She's a grifter, not unlike Joel Osteen.

[mcar]

19. I am ashamed to admit I donated to her phoney recount effort

I was that angry and desperate, IOW a perfect dupe. $10 so it was a lesson learned.

[BainsBane]

27. Many people were desperate

I was suspicious from the outset because the ask was so inflated. Then when she met the already inflated number, she raised it. Now she's even richer than she was before.

[AnotherMother4Peace]

35. I did too - $50.00. I asked for a refund due to fraud, but nothing. nt

[LiberalLovinLug]

127. What was "phony" about it? How was this a "scam"?

Say what you will about Stein and the Green Party, but I haven's seen any evidence of any scam other than the wild minds of grumpy Stein haters.

For one, all the money went into a separate account meant for the recount, not into the Green party coffers. And whatever left over money which was about 2 million, went to form a group called Count My Vote. Whose mandate is:

https://www.wpr.org/jill-stein-unveils-post-recount-effort-wisconsin

Stein said the refund will be spent on ongoing election integrity efforts like getting rid of voting machines and having automatic audits where optical scanners are used to count hand-marked paper ballots. In addition, Stein called for automatic recounts when there are close races or questions that raise red flags.

"We also want to include in this ensuring we have a right to vote and that we put an end to voter ID laws to this interstate cross check that has taken millions of voters potentially off rolls, also ranked choice voting," she said.

Sounds like money well spent to me.

Couldn't time be better spent than all this useless, unproductive Stein/Sarandon/Sanders hate?

[Jim Lane]

141. Thanks for posting some facts about this.

This thread made me a bit curious. I hadn't previously paid much attention to the recount and I hadn't heard the charge that Stein "pocketed $10 million for herself" from the effort. I appreciate your taking the trouble to let us know what actually happened.

[maddiemom]

134. I didn't contribute, but I gave it some thought.

It was the one time I had some good feelings toward her, but in the end felt it would be a wasted effort, and wasn't sure I trusted her. Usually I contribute my time, rather than money, since I've retired, am divorced, and money is tight.

[iluvtennis]

39. And I was one of the ones she took, I donated to recount effort multiple times. nt

[wryter2000]

101. I almost gave money to that

Glad I didn't

[BainsBane]

121. I can understand why people did

But I was suspicious about how huge her ask was. It didn't make sense to me that she would need to pay a fortune to lawyers when so many often volunteer their services to the Dem party for election matters. Then she kept increasing the request. Those were red flags for me.

[orangecrush]

129. I was had

For like $10.

At the moment, I saw it as taking a shot at exposing Trump fraud.

Instead, it was adding insult to injury, giving money to one of Putins stooges.

At least I didn't vote for her.

Common sense prevailed, and I pulled the lever for Hillary.

And this was before her Putin ties were widely known.

[Warpy]

8. Well, we knew she was up to no good even before the election

when a picture showing her sitting at a table with Putin surfaced.

I'm willing to let the investigation proceed. If she gets roped into it somehow, oh well. Just remember that her voters were never Clinton voters. Had Stein not run, they'd have voted for another splinter party candidate or stayed home, so people do need to stop blaming her for stealing votes. That's just silly.

The Greens finished themselves in NM by running an antichoice freak for governor. They have never recovered.

If Stein is proven to be part of the conspiracy to hack the US election, they will likely be finished nationwide. Another splinter party will take their place.

[BainsBane]

47. They may never have been Clinton voters

but some of them pretend to be Democrats, and they insist any criticism of Stein amounts to a "circular firing squad." They may be aligned with Stein in getting Trump reelected, but I sure as hell am not. Nor is the Democratic Party.

[DownriverDem]

97. There is still more of us

You really think 51,000 voters in Michigan who voted 3rd party weren't tricked? I think many of them were just naïve fools. The 2010 election showed just how voting to hurt the Dem Party works.

[karynnj]

119. Though I can't prove it, I wonder if many who voted third party did so because they were sure HRC

would win .. but disliked both Trump and Clinton.

One thing said in the wake of the election was that a large percent of people who did not have a favorable view of either ended up with Trump. Trump also did better among those who decided at the last moment. If you look back at polls in the three contested states, Clinton actually did get close to the percent she polled -- however, Trump exceeded the percent he polled. Those exit polls might explain those numbers.

[Jim Lane]

124. That's a good point, one I hadn't heard before.

It's kind of like what some people (maybe Noam Chomsky? I'm not sure) said in 2016: If you're in a swing state, vote for Clinton because it's important to help stop Trump; but if you're not in a swing state, then vote for Stein or some other candidate to Clinton's left. What you're pointing out is that some people, wherever they lived, may have thought they weren't in a swing country, so they might as well express their disapproval of both major-party candidates.

There were similar comments after the Brexit vote. Some people who didn't want Brexit were sure that it would fail anyway, so they voted for it to register their general dissatisfaction with the elites. If they had known the vote would be close, they would have voted differently.

So here our countries are, stuck with Trump in office and Britain leaving the EU.

[questionseverything]

132. since no humans actually count or oversee the counting of our votes

we don't really know if they actually voted trump or not

in mich the recount couldn't happen in 150 precincts because there were more votes than voters...and mich law says in that case the original machine print out stands

but I digress from the original reason I wanted to reply to you

ty for the detailed analysis on the dnc lawsuit

I found this especially interesting...

A new case could be brought but would probably still have a problem with reliance.

A new case in a Florida or DC court would not have the problem of the restrictive rules of federal subject matter jurisdiction. For the fraud claims, however, there would still be the issue of reliance. Even a court of general jurisdiction might grant a motion to dismiss if the allegations from this first case are just repeated.

To get around this problem, the plaintiffs might have to find additional representative plaintiffs who can allege reliance. That means finding at least one donor who was sufficiently well informed to know that the DNC promised neutrality, but who was at the same time so ignorant as not to know that the DNC Chair had been a national campaign co-chair for Hillary Clinton’s 2008 campaign and that she was clearly favoring Clinton this time. There may well be no such donor. It’s a somewhat unlikely parlay of knowledge and ignorance.


///////////////////////

sad day when a major political party can commit fraud as long as they are so blatant that anyone can see it

[BainsBane]

146. That was incredibly poor judgement on their part

I did encounter one person who was thinking that way when I door knocked. He said he was planning to vote for Stein and thought Hillary would win. I talked about my own stupidity voting for Nader in 2000 and how I hoped he wouldn't make the same mistake I had.

I also saw some third party voters celebrating Trump's victory. I told one to go fuck himself.

[karynnj]

155. Of course, it was terrible judgment

In any election that is the case and the consequences are huge.

This is so even if the Republican is not the despicable Trump. Back in, I think 2007, Bush vetoed an expansion to children's health insurance, SCHIP. This was at the beginning of those heated primaries. Someone supporting one candidate spoke of knowing she could never vote for one of candidates. My immediate internal response was EVERY Democrat running would have proudly signed that bill immediately in a public session. Few or no Republicans would sign it into law.

On many important issues, there is no overlap between the parties. This is not the 1960s or 1970s, where you could find liberal, environmentalists in the Republican party.

In the general election, anyone not voting, voting third party, voting a writein, who identifies with liberal views, is helping elect someone who is against almost everything they believe in. Protest votes should be limited to the primaries.

[BainsBane]

159. I agree

I learned my lesson. I hope others learn theirs, even if they don't acknowledge it openly.

[BainsBane]

140. Yes, I think they were targeted by the Kremlin

Through propaganda. It's also possible Stein was knowingly complicit.

The fact is Stein's vote totals in key states were larger than Trump's margins.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/guess-who-came-dinner-flynn-putin-n742696

Do you mean 2000?

[Me.]

9. Good Find

Essentially confirms what we think of her. If anyone deserves the chant 'lock her up' she does and hopefully, the evidence is there to do so.

[sheshe2]

10. This is Jill Stein.

Jill Stein in Moscow criticized US human rights, said nothing about Russian human rights
8/6/16 5:31pm by John Aravosis



Green party Jill Stein, who has expressed skepticism about the safety of vaccinations and wifi, has found another thing in the world that she finds dangerous: America.

And Stein decided to go to Moscow last winter to share her concerns.

And, what do you know, she’s happy to report she found an audience that agrees with her!

Stein’s report from Moscow is in the video below. She went to attend a conference hosted by the Russian state propaganda organ. In a sign of the importance Moscow put on the conference, Putin himself joined Stein and other attendees for dinner.

http://americablog.com/2016/08/jill-stein-moscow-criticized-us-human-rights-said-nothing-russian-human-rights.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Americablog+%28AMERICAblog+News+%29

She is a Putin troll just like 45 and she is into this right up to her fur color.

Frankly I am appalled that anyone would defend her here. I am glad I missed that on Democratic Underground.

[Primer]

42. Even the Greens in Russia

hate her.

[sheshe2]

44. Can't say I blame them.

Welcome to DU.

[Jim Lane]

11. Your attacks on Stein are unsupported by the article you link.

Let me try to head off the pack of baying alerters by stating that I voted for Clinton, not Stein. As best I can remember I have never voted for a Green Party candidate for anything.

As a Democrat, I'm also a member of the reality-based community. That means I reject the Bush/Fox News standard of asserting the facts to be whatever will fit your biases. Instead, I look at evidence.

You write:

Why was Stein in communication with Don. Jr? And in refusing to comply with the Senate request, is she covering up for herself or the baby elephant killer?

1) Nothing in the linked article says that Stein was communicating with Don, Jr. In fact, it quotes Stein herself as denying it, and it refers to no witness or documentary evidence that would call her statement into doubt.

All that happened was that some attorneys, framing a document demand, cast a very wide net to see what might be out there. I've done this myself. It's not at all surprising if you ask for documents in 15 different categories and get the response that there are no documents responsive to 12 of them. You can spend an extra few minutes drafting requests that will probably be fruitless, or you can risk missing something juicy. The second danger is obviously greater.

2) Not only is Stein not "refusing to comply", it would not even be possible for her to comply, and therefore not possible for her to refuse to comply. The request was not addressed to her. Your linked article includes a tweet from Kyle Griffin, who per his Twitter profile is a producer at MSNBC and therefore not some random nutjob. He states, "The Senate Judiciary Committee has requested documents from Don Jr. and Manafort ...." (emphasis added) That understanding is supported by the text of your linked article:

But investigators seem to be casting a wider net by asking Trump Jr. for “all communication to, from or copied to you relating to” a long list of individuals that include Stein.

There's no indication, at least in this article, that the Senate committee has asked Stein for anything, let alone that she has refused to comply with any lawful request.

You write: "And why on God's earth would anyone who opposes Trump defend her?" It gets back to that bit about the reality-based community. I defend people I don't like when the attacks on them are unjustified. I believe that the odious Ted Cruz, despite all his other horrible features, is constitutionally eligible to be President, so I've defended him against left-wing birtherism even while abhorring his policies. I believe that Jill Stein should not have run for President as a Green, but I'll defend her against McCarthyite smear jobs.

[BainsBane]

17. If they are asking her for nothing?

Why is she claiming it's a witch hunt?
There is indeed indication they asked for documents. It's in the OP and the article:
"The letter asks for the documents by Aug. 2."

You're so reality-based you defend the same DNC law suit touted on Infowars.
https://jackpineradicals.com/boards/topic/tedious-legal-analysis-of-the-decision-in-the-fraud-suit-against-the-dnc/

[Eliot Rosewater]

22. Stein is a Russian agent, KGB but now they call it GRU I think.

She isnt alone, either.

[calimary]

32. I hope they throw EVERYTHING they can possibly find at her.

Fucking Russian agent. Sleeping with the enemy. And needs to pay for that.

[tomp]

92. when you have ACTUAL EVIDENCE of your accusation....

...you will not be liable to a charge of libel.

[sheshe2]

24. Aaah.

JPR.

[BainsBane]

25. "the reality based community"

[sheshe2]

30. Even Skinner said they were....

murielm99 (18,944 posts)

Why are links to this site still allowed:
jackpineradicals.

This site is vicious and anti-Democratic in every way possible. Many of the posters there have been banned from DU.

I have alerted on posts linked to this site to no avail. So have other DU members. Jackpineradicals is contrary to everything DU is supposed to stand for. I come here to get away from anti-Democratic rhetoric and bigotry.

Response to murielm99 (Original post)
Thu Aug 24, 2017, 03:40 PM
Skinner (63,221 posts)
1. For the lulz

[R B Garr]

34. Thanks for posting that!

LOL

[sheshe2]

36. Skinners response cracked me up.

Lutz~

[R B Garr]

76. Me too!

That was very funny, and deserved.

[R B Garr]

33. LOL JPR

There isn't a single thing reality based there.

[Jim Lane]

46. Total reading comprehension fail

The Senate Committee requested documents from Don, Jr. and Manafort. I even boldfaced it for you. What more can I do? Yet you write:

There is indeed indication they asked for documents. It's in the OP and the article: 
"The letter asks for the documents by Aug. 2." 

Yes, the letter asks for documents from Don, Jr. and from Manafort, as your own article states. You see “The letter asks for documents...” and you decide to read it as “The letter asks for documents from Stein” (which the article doesn’t say) and extrapolate from that to “There actually are such documents from Stein” (which wouldn’t follow even if there had been a request to her, which there wasn’t, but you find it polemically convenient to smear her as corresponding with Don, Jr.), and then you even go on to “Stein is refusing to comply” (refusing to comply with a nonexistent request, but, hey, Joe McCarthy never let facts get in the way of a good smear job, so why should we).

You also write: “Why is she claiming it's a witch hunt?” Gee, maybe it’s because she loves to get publicity and she sees posing as a victim as a good way to get herself talked about? That’s just my guess. I’m not privy to Jill Stein’s decision-making.

But then comes the coup de grâce when you write: “You're so reality-based you defend the same DNC law suit touted on Infowars.”

Let me quote one passage from the post of mine that you linked:

The judge made no finding, one way or the other, about the DNC’s conduct.

Misunderstanding about the procedure has given rise to a couple of other errors. Some comments have said that Judge Zloch found as a fact that the DNC violated its neutrality rules.  No, he merely assumed it, as the applicable federal rules required him to do.

Alternatively, because he dismissed the case, other comments have said that he must have found as a fact that the DNC did not violate its neutrality rules. That’s also wrong. He (correctly) made no finding of fact at all on that point, either way.

 
So, yeah, reality-based. The handful of Sanders supporters who are still refighting the primary and want to make the DNC look bad read the decision as confirming their attacks on the DNC. The Bernie-and-all-his-supporters-are-evil camp who don’t want the DNC’s conduct questioned in any way read the decision as refuting the attacks on the DNC. The reality is that both those views are wrong, and I said so. If it means that I make enemies here and on JPR for telling the truth, well, it won’t be the first time.

If you think that something in my post about the case was inaccurate, please identify which point in an excruciatingly long post you’re disputing, and explain your reason for disagreeing. If, on the other hand, you think that merely linking to JPR, plus tossing in a totally tangential reference to Infowars, proves that everything I say is false, then we have nothing more to discuss. Your mode of “reasoning”, if such it can be called, is just too far apart from mine.

[BainsBane]

52. Yeah, I was in a hurry to go somewhere and didn't read most of your post

So you're right on one point. Her name somehow appears in requests for documents related to Manafort and Don Jr. I find that strange. How I wonder is that even possible? I also wonder how she got money to run all the ads she did during the election? I hope Mueller is wondering about some of those same questions.

I do find it interested you site her word as supposed evidence. It is not. Then you turn around and dismiss her tweets crying persecution as playing to publicity. You're very selective in determining which of her comments are relevant.

Yes, Stein is an attention monger. She's also a gritter. Already a multi-millionaire, she conned people distraught about the election into giving her a fucking fortune and pocketed $10 million of it. She's yet another rich person that "progressives" insist must never be criticized, as we saw in the thread showing her sitting at the table with Flynn and Putin.

She's also a proven imbecile and compulsive liar. As her recitation of the most idiotic Kremlin propaganda demonstrates: https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/06/jill-stein-is-starting-to-sound-a-lot-like-donald-trump
Then there was the time she tweeted a comment blaming Democrats for passing something not a single Democrat voted for.

She's a blight on the human race. We have people posting on this site insisting any criticism of her amounts to a "circular firing squad." That after calling for Feinstein's head and trying to replace Pelosi with an anti-choice, low corporate tax "progressive. Whereas you are certain that my asking those two questions amount to a "McCarthyite smear." Funny how I don't see you rise to the defense of Stein, Pelosi, Clinton, or any Democrats attacked on this site.

Gothmog has already explained to you how you were wrong about the lawsuit. He's an attorney with an interest in election law. I am not. I don't need to read legal decisions. Normal human beings do not. I will sometimes read SCOTUS rulings but there is no reason for me to spend my time reading rulings in a dismissed, frivolous lawsuit. There are thousands of books I've read that I'm sure you haven't. I don't assume non-specialists read literature in my field, yet you somehow insist average citizens are expected to read legal opinions to have an opinion. I believe that's what Sanders calls liberal elitism.

Spare me your persecution complex:

"The Bernie-and-all-his-supporters-are-evil camp who don’t want the DNC’s conduct questioned in any way read the decision as refuting the attacks on the DNC."

You are the only one associating that lawsuit with "Bernie and all of his supporters." I live in a community that overwhelmingly went for Sanders in the primary. The vast majority of them moved on and voted for Clinton. They didn't wage a lawsuit out of contempt for the democratic rights of their fellow citizens. They didn't appear on Infowars to complain about the evil Democratic party. Nor do they claim the DNC or Hillary Clinton killed Seth Rich. That is something fascist shit stains do. Not Bernie, not his 2016 primary supporters, but racist, misogynist pond scum.

I have no interest in reading your post over there. The fact you left it at JPR tells me everything there is to know about you.

[Me.]

71. Boy That Is Some POst

[Jim Lane]

82. My response

You write:

I do find it interested you site her word as supposed evidence. It is not. Then you turn around and dismiss her tweets crying persecution as playing to publicity. You're very selective in determining which of her comments are relevant.

If by “evidence” you mean “would be admissible in court in a trial”, then Stein’s tweet is not evidence because it’s not under oath – but, of course, nothing in the article you linked to would be evidence, either. Because this isn’t a court, I was skipping over the “oath” part. If there were a trial and Stein testified under oath to what was in her tweet, then, yes, it would be evidence. That doesn’t mean her assertion proves the point beyond any doubt, or even makes its truth more likely than not. It just means that it’s one thing the jury can consider.

Both her comments are relevant. Her statement that she didn’t correspond with Don, Jr. is relevant to that issue. Her charge that the inquiry is a “witch hunt” is relevant to assessing her motives.

You write:

Whereas you are certain that my asking those two questions amount to a "McCarthyite smear." Funny how I don't see you rise to the defense of Stein, Pelosi, Clinton, or any Democrats attacked on this site. 

It was McCarthyite because it was based on a misstatement of fact (which you’ve now corrected, thank you) and also based on the underlying assumption that, if a Congressional committee starts an investigation of someone, then that someone must have done something wrong. As to defending people on this site, you’re right that I don’t post in response to everything I read here that’s wrong. I don’t even read everything here, let alone try to correct it. Just reading and responding to all the vitriol directed at Bernie Sanders and anyone who supported him would be a full-time job.

You write:

Gothmog has already explained to you how you were wrong about the lawsuit. He's an attorney with an interest in election law. ... I don't assume non-specialists read literature in my field, yet you somehow insist average citizens are expected to read legal opinions to have an opinion.

No, Gothmog has not explained one damn thing to me. His “explanations” consisted of saying that I amused him, making personal attacks on the plaintiffs and their counsel, and endlessly reiterating his opinion that the DC Code provision cited in the complaint doesn’t cover political donations. In vain did I point out to him that Judge Zloch had not addressed the scope of the DC Code provision in the decision. In vain did I point out to him that I, like Judge Zloch, had not expressed a conclusion, one way or the other, about the scope of the DC Code provision. In vain did I ask for a verbatim quotation from one of my posts of what I said that was supposedly erroneous.

And, while I’m on the subject of things I never said, no, I do not insist that average citizens read legal opinions to have an opinion. As with so many of the straw-man arguments that these threads have generated, I have no idea where you got that. Go argue with the people who actually insisted on it.

You write:

Spare me your persecution complex: 

"The Bernie-and-all-his-supporters-are-evil camp who don’t want the DNC’s conduct questioned in any way read the decision as refuting the attacks on the DNC."

You are the only one associating that lawsuit with "Bernie and all of his supporters."

 

This is more reading comprehension fail. I’m a Bernie supporter who, like Bernie himself, voted for Clinton in November. It’s obvious from the numbers (Bernie 13 million votes, Stein 1 million votes) that the vast majority of us did likewise. My point was that some people are still refighting the primary and are keen to believe that Bernie and all his supporters are evil. If you look at the whole paragraph that I wrote, you’ll see that I was characterizing a point of view that I go on to say is wrong. I don't know of anyone who has associated that lawsuit with Bernie and all of his supporters, although it wouldn't surprise me if someone said that.

You write:

I have no interest in reading your post over there. The fact you left it at JPR tells me everything there is to know about you.

I wasn't asking you to read my post over there. It was first mentioned in this thread in post #17, which I didn't write.

If it makes you feel any better, I posted at JPR that I thought we should vote for Clinton. For that I was called a Hillbot by one person.

The obvious fact is that there are areas of disagreement among Trump’s opponents. One reaction to the division is to call anyone who voted for Clinton a Hillbot. Another reaction to it is to say that the mere act of posting at JPR is enough to dismiss someone (and, BTW, guilt by association is another example of McCarthyism). As long as people on both sides maintain such attitudes, no one will benefit except Trump.

[R B Garr]

58. Why are you changing your stance about the DNC

lawsuit? You were clearly posting your analysis that the judge who threw the suit out was really some kind of Whisperer giving clues to Bernie supporters about refilling the suit. Now you are saying that others think it refuted the attacks on the DNC when that is not true. What was said is that the suit was a farce. It was never seen as legitimate, and the judge agreed it didn't belong in court.

And JPR is about as far from reality based as you can get.

[Jim Lane]

62. I haven't changed.

You were always responding to what you thought I said, despite my constant efforts to point out what I had actually said.

For example, I never said that the judge "was really some kind of Whisperer giving clues to Bernie supporters about refilling the suit." What he actually did, in dismissing it, was to explain his reasons. That's fairly standard practice and is considered a good thing for judges to do.

Now, one consequence, if he explains the flaws in this complaint, is that he necessarily gives the plaintiffs' lawyers some information that might be helpful to them if they decide to start another case. But that's a side effect of his decision, not its purpose.

Similarly, he dismissed the case without prejudice. That means that his decision wouldn't bar a new case. Again, though, that's not because he was covertly trying to help the plaintiffs. It's because the basis of his decision was subject matter jurisdiction, rather than the merits. A dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is generally without prejudice.

You write, "Now you are saying that others think it refuted the attacks on the DNC when that is not true." I saw such comments. I decline, however, to take the time to go hunt them up and link them. Your posts, of which this one is a prime example, evince no willingness to pay attention to what I actually say, so frankly I'm not going to bother. You can just go right on thinking that I'm wrong.

[R B Garr]

66. What I said was that you are changing your wording

on the complaint dismissal to bestow more legitimacy on it than is warranted. No one I can recall here ever thought it was even coherent or legitimate, but you make that claim now about people being upset over the claims about the DNC. The lawsuit was rightly ridiculed here and then tossed out by the judge. I saw no one worried about the lawsuit. The only ones invested in it were at JPR.

[Jim Lane]

68. Link or slink.

I'm "changing my wording" in the obvious sense that there's usually more than one way to express a thought. If you think there's a substantive change between what I said before and what I'm saying now, please provide the links to the two allegedly inconsistent comments. Maybe I corrected an error that I've now forgotten about.

One point where I reconsidered, as I do remember, was that my initial judgment of the plaintiffs' lawyers concerning the drafting of the complaint was too harsh. I thought it was sloppy that they hadn't made the necessary allegations to survive the motion. On thinking about it more, I decided that the only way to change the allegations would have been to suborn perjury, and the plaintiffs' lawyers rightly rejected that course. You're probably not talking about that change on my part, though, because I explained it in a post on JPR and your post has nothing to do with it.

[R B Garr]

72. You have copies of your posts. You were applauded

and encouraged to continue your "analysis" of the judges ruling. All of your analysis served to cast legitimacy on the dismissed case.

[LiberalLovinLug]

125. Admirable job Jim

Don't worry, many readers understand you completely. And appreciate you exposing those that want to alter, cherry pic and painfully twist stories to reflect their bias.

And really what is to be gained by hating on Stein anyways? If her and her 1% of voters in the country are such a threat then get out and usurp the Greens positions. Greens stand for much of what Dems do. I've never understood the propensity to look at the Green party as dire enemies, on the same level as Trump it seems by some, instead of simply a bit of competition from the left. They push the conversation left, which ultimately helps Democrats IMHO. So stop these wasteful OPs and work for positive change that we CAN do, not spent hating on those ultimately allied with most of our own goals.

[R B Garr]

131. Don't worry, I saw his posts on JPR where this was further promoted to

the audience there, and they all encouraged and applauded him, too. That is how his bias was exposed, along with the obvious cherry picking and painfully twisting the judge's dismissal of the DNC case into some kind of secret message for the plaintiff's to resubmit the "case."

In the meantime, the judge ruled that the DNC case didn't belong in court and was dismissed. Quoting the judge certainly isn't a bias or conspiracy. It is a factual entry in the case.

edit: I thought we weren't supposed to promote 3rd parties here such as Stein/Greens.

[snot]

88. Jim Lane, thanks for giving voice to fact-based reason . . .

i.e., "reality," or as close as we can get to it.

[sheshe2]

23. You are a lawyer?

Then I can understand your having to defend the indefensible in a court of law. It is your job.

However defending the GOP and/or Greens on DU, a DEMOCRATIC board is indefensible here. They are our enemy and are doing their level best to destroy our country and it's citizens. I am not all right with that.

I believe that the odious Ted Cruz, despite all his other horrible features, is constitutionally eligible to be President, so I've defended him against left-wing birtherism even while abhorring his policies. I believe that Jill Stein should not have run for President as a Green, but I'll defend her against McCarthyite smear jobs.

[Jim Lane]

51. Yes, I am a lawyer, but no one has hired me to argue online about the DNC case.

In this instance, I'm not obligated to any client. I'm calling them as I see them.

You write, "However defending the GOP and/or Greens on DU, a DEMOCRATIC board is indefensible here. They are our enemy...." I agree that they are our enemy. I do not agree with the implication of your first sentence. Using outright lies to attack our enemies is both morally wrong and, in almost all cases, tactically ill-advised.

During the Ted Cruz birtherism debates, I made more than one post defending him -- to be more precise, defending him against the charge of ineligibility. That's because I thought the charge was wrong. If you think exposing falsehood is a violation of the ToS, you go right ahead and alert. The admins have the right to set the rules for their site. If I get the word from them that DU is now a free-fire zone for half-truths, distortions, and outright lies about anyone who's an opponent of the Democratic Party, then I'll let such smears go by unchallenged. That would be too bad, and would again be tactically ill-advised (IMO), but it's up to them.

[ismnotwasm]

123. I'm more curious about the direction you use your talents for

I wouldn't have guessed a lawyer. Why defend Stein in any capacity? You are clearly articulate enough to turn your attention elsewhere, yet, it's mostly on these type of threads I see you on DU. Ultimately, Stein will fade away, a footnote of history, while very real assaults on human rights are happening. I keep seeing the term "constitutional crisis"--very scary stuff.

[R B Garr]

133. Good points. The only time I see those walls of words is to undermine or minimize

legitimate points from Democrats while promoting some abstract ideas of justice. He does use the same screen name on JPR, and they have unrealistic ideas and beliefs, so it does make me wonder why we have to defend a third party type like Stein who clearly has targeted the Democrats with lies.

Not to mention, she has ripped off good Democrats to the tune of millions, but I haven't seen him outraged about that injustice. I haven't read through all his posts, though. Surely that would outrage even him.

[Jim Lane]

149. "Why defend Stein in any capacity?"

Because I believe that there are some objective truths, and that we should try as much as possible to hold correct beliefs on those subjects.

The opposing point of view, exemplified by Fox News but also on display in this thread, subordinates truth to political utility. If we dislike Stein, because of valid criticisms, then our goal is not to know the truth about Stein, but rather to attack her; to that end, we will advance, or at least tolerate, criticisms of her that are not valid. Obviously, I disagree.

To say that I "defend Stein" is to miss the point, and it has been missed with appalling frequency in this thread. To my statement that there is no evidence of Stein's having refused to comply with a Senate request for documents, the answer is, in effect, that she had dinner with Putin and mounted a candidacy that hurt Clinton. Both those statements are true but they are irrelevant to anything I've posted.

As to what you see me posting on DU, there's not much system to it. I happen to read some threads and not others. Of those I read, sometimes I'm moved to comment, sometimes not. If there's an overall pattern, it results from the tilt of the discussion here. On DU, I see much more bullshit about people like Jill Stein and Nina Turner. On JPR, where Stein and Turner have many fans, there are bullshit posts about Hillary Clinton. Some people there are upset that I "defend {Clinton} in any capacity." The truth is that, on both sites, I'm calling out error when I think I see it. There are very few posts on DU that are unfairly hostile to Hillary Clinton.

As for Trump, the phrase "constitutional crisis" has in other administrations been overused to hype problems, but could now be stark literal truth. I agree with you that this is very scary. Most people on DU know that, however, without needing me to repeat it.

[RandomAccess]

61. The truth should be defended against

distortions, lies, mischaracterizations and outright lies everywhere, always.

I would have thought Democrats would agree.

[sheshe2]

65. No.

We support Democrats here.

We do not support RepubliCONS or Greens that collude with Russia.

Please reread the TOS you signed when you became a member of this site.

[RandomAccess]

67. Are you suggesting that being a "good Democrat"

not to mention a good DUer, necessitates allowing, nay promoting, outright lies and mistruths -- just as long as those lies aren't about Democrats??

Or that "supporting Democrats" includes, as a matter of course, keeping silent in the face of lies and mistruths about the opposition?

Really? Is that your position?

[Me.]

74. Nice Try At Distraction

[RandomAccess]

107. Not distraction at all

sheshe -- and you, apparently -- are confusing standing up for the truth about people we don't like with 'defending" and "supporting" them. It's ridiculous.

That kind of thinking gets you Fox News. That kind of thinking makes it okay for all Republicans to keep quiet and never object in the face of such lies as birtherism, voter fraud by the millions, and on and on and on.

The simple fact is, we can't have a viable democracy in an environment where truth is -- well, whatever you can get away with asserting.

I'm shocked and dismayed that some Democrats, and some DUers, think that's all perfectly okay.

[Me.]

115. Like I Said

[shanny]

112. Right on target

What defines "being a good Democrat" needs to be seriously examined. Giving anyone a pass because he/she has a "D" after his/her name is the precise hypocrisy we rightfully complain about when Rs do it: who hasn't decried the IOKIYAR mentality?

[BainsBane]

73. Where are the concerns about lies against Democrats?

I see a lot of the same people who defend Stein repeat those lies, and it doesn't matter how many times they are showed evidence to the contrary. I admitted my mistake regarding the fact the documents were not from Stein directly but rather involved her. That's the lie you are so outraged by. Where is the outrage to the lies about the debates and the DNC emails? Where is the outrage to the iies claiming the working class voted for Trump? Where is the outrage toward Stein's many, many lies. Where is the outrage that some continue to peddle Kremlin propaganda?

The fact is she is involved in the investigation. No amount of outrage that Democrats don't rally around her and "unify" around her efforts to keep Trump in office changes that. What it shows are priorities, which somehow always seem to line up against the Democratic Party and Democratic voters. But anyone criticize a multi-millionaire, that's unacceptable. We saw it with Unger and Hartman too. How is it that people who claim to resent the one percent devote so much energy to defending them? And yet we never see that concern for anyone for the poor, immigrants, or anyone who isn't rich and self-entitled? The priorities are illuminating.

[R B Garr]

81. Yes! Perfect again. There is hyper vigilance to

guard against non-Democrats being sullied, but not the other way around. Very obvious.

[still_one]

26. When she made comments that trump is better than Hillary, she demonstrated without any ambiguity

that she is a disingenuous fraud.

It is the same ad nauseam argument that Nader used in 2000

"There is no differences between republicans and Democrats"

Really?

Just look at who Democrats have nominated to the SC verses republicans?

Just look at the positions of Democrats verses republicans on the environment, Civil Rights, women's rights, workers rights, healthcare, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc.

If the OP is unfairly accusing Stein of some association without adequate documentation, am I concerned that Stein might have been "maligned" unfairly?

Gee, what comes around, goes around

[Jim Lane]

54. "When they go low, we go high."

Last edited Sat Sep 2, 2017, 11:08 PM - Edit history (2)

I think that's a sound maxim. Your post suggests a different approach:

Stein said stupid and <strike>justifiable</strike> unjustifiable things about the Democrats.
Therefore, it’s OK for Democrats to say stupid and unjustifiable things about Stein.

Obviously, I do not accept this reasoning. My standards of intellectual integrity are higher than Jill Stein’s.

On edit: Correct typo (h/t George II).

[still_one]

70. Calling STEIN a liar and a fraud is NOT going low, it is STATING THE FACTS.

There is a difference between Democrats and republicans. Hillary is NOT worse than trump. Voting Democratic is NOT voting for the lesser of two evils.

[George II]

77. Stein said "justifiable" things about the Democrats? Really?

[Jim Lane]

78. Typo, thanks for catching it.

I was characterizing the argument made by still_one and obviously what I originally wrote is not a fair summary of what still_one was saying. Fixed now.

[DonaldsRump]

80. With the greatest of deference to Michelle Obama...

I disagree with that advice vehemently in the present context. It works with normal people. It does not work with bullies like Trump.

The better advice in dealing with bullies is as follow: "When they go low, we fu**ing beat the sh*t out of them at their bottom-dwelling level, and then we go high."

If HRC, John Kerry, and Al Gore had done that, this would be an entirely different world and country. They are all good folk, but were way too nice. Going high doesn't work with vicious "politicians" like Trump and W. It increasingly no longer works with most of the Republican party.

Also, the Senate Judiciary Committee's "request" to Junior re: Jill Stein is more than a mere "wide net". Did the SJC mention any other candidate from the 2016 Presidential Election besides Dr. Stein? None that I could find, so why exactly is she singled out from the myriad folks who ran in 2016 in the primaries and general election?

[Jim Lane]

83. How far would you carry that?

You write:

The better advice in dealing with bullies is as follow: "When they go low, we fu**ing beat the sh*t out of them at their bottom-dwelling level, and then we go high."

Does "their bottom-dwelling level" mean it's OK for us to go full-on Fox News and tell outright lies if we think the lies will help us beat the other side? I'm not OK with that, even in a good cause.

Suppose a jury convicts Paul Ryan of child molestation and he has to register as a sex offender. Wait a minute, that's not a particularly unusual name. If the Paul Ryan who was convicted was a blond-haired cab driver in Boston, should we spread the rumor that the Speaker of the House is a pedophile, if we think we can get away with it? I say No.

[DonaldsRump]

84. No one said anything about lies...Where exactly are you getting that?

it's just being tough and not leaving a single stone unturned and slugging away at every opportunity. I've been a lawyer for nearly three decades, and it's worked every time when dealing with bullies.

I never said a word about lies or distortions.

HRC came the closest of anyone in being tough, but it took an international conspiracy to defeat her. The more I hear about what was done to her, the more disgusted I get with the process. My only critique of her was the 50 state strategy at the end, and leaving the Rust Belt stones (particularly Wisconsin) to chance. That Kerry got swift-boated by folks supporting a deserter from the National Guard speaks volumes about what it takes when confronted with bullying tactics. Fighting fire with fire does not mean doing something illegal or unethical.

Also, I am still curious about your "wide net" Jill Stein theory. Where exactly do you get that?

[Jim Lane]

85. I'm getting it from the OP.

The OP included false statements about Jill Stein, as I pointed out in #11. That's the context in which this arose. In #26, still_one, responding to my #11, indicated a lack of concern about whether Stein might have been maligned unfairly. It was in response to still_one that I said "go high." I don't like Stein but I am concerned about maligning her unfairly.

I thought your reference to "their bottom-dwelling level" might mean that you agreed with still_one. I wasn't sure, though, so I asked. I'm very glad to hear that you agree with me that toughness with bullies doesn't call for telling lies about them. I agree with you that there's plenty of room for toughness within the bounds of law and ethics.

You write:

Also, I am still curious about your "wide net" Jill Stein theory. Where exactly do you get that?

I got it from my own experience. That's how I frame document demands. When I'm the lawyer receiving the document demands, that's usually how the other lawyer has framed them.

In this instance, if I were on the Senate committee's staff, I would say, "We've already seen all kinds of surprising things about Don, Jr. and other people connected with Trump. I wonder if he had any communications with Stein? I've seen nothing to indicate that he did, but he might have. Might as well take a few seconds to add her name to the list of people we're asking him about. Can't hurt."

Of course, they might have something more concrete. All I'm saying is that we can't infer that they have anything just because they made the request. Stein called it a witch hunt. I'd call it a fishing expedition. In civil litigation, the courts won't allow discovery demands to cast too wide a net, but a Congressional investigation isn't under the direct supervision of any court and can stray farther afield.

[R B Garr]

108. Like you said, this isn't civil litigation, it's a Congressional

investigation, and Jill Steins had contact with a hostile foreign government. So what if a civil court won't allow discovery demands to cast too wide a net.

[R B Garr]

104. Please! Comparing a collusion case with a hostile foreign

power that is being investigated by the top lawyers in this country and affects the highest offices in government to a simple mistaken identity mixup does not make your point. This is why it's so easy to detect your bias.

[uponit7771]

100. Going "high" doesn't mean ignore reality that Stein is too close to Vlad like Red Don & crew are

[Jim Lane]

102. In fact, it doesn't mean ignoring reality at all.

What it means, in my opinion, is not making bogus criticisms, even if the target of the criticism is subject to other, valid criticisms. For that reason, someone can point out that one particular criticism of Stein is without merit, and yet not be dismissing other criticisms of Stein.

[uponit7771]

103. Going "high" doesn't mean give Stein the undeserved benefit of the doubt on this subject either.

[MrsCoffee]

110. You have an odd definition of bogus.

So much wasted time defending a third party idiot who spoon fed Russian propaganda to Americans from a national stage in order to enrich herself.

I guess we aren't to believe our lying eyes or ears? She is batshit crazy and just as dangerous as the man she helped steal the election. We have absolutely no reason to give her any benefit of the doubt.

She supped with the devils and did their bidding.

[Jim Lane]

122. I explained the "bogus" nature in #11

What is bogus is the criticism that Stein has communicated with Don, Jr. and that she has refused to comply with the investigators' request for documents about the communication. As far as the public knows at this point, there is no support for either of those criticisms. No one in a position to know anything has even alleged that they are true, much less provided any evidence.

Your post refers to different criticisms of Stein.

It's pretty basic logic that, given a set of criticisms of Stein (or anyone else), it's possible for some to be true while others are false. For example, proving that Stein was at a dinner table with Putin does not establish that she communicated with Don, Jr.

You write, "We have absolutely no reason to give her any benefit of the doubt." That, in a nutshell, is the division in this thread. I have my standards of proof, which I attempt to apply impartially. That's part of my concept of intellectual integrity. You (and, to be fair to you, the majority of those posting in this thread) adhere to a double standard: The sufficiency of evidence is to be assessed according to whether you like or dislike the person involved.

[JI7]

148. Michelle Obama called out Trump bragging about Sexual Assault. Going high never meant ignoring

the truth and not calling it out.

[Jim Lane]

150. Going high means having respect for the truth.

It means not advancing lies just because they're politically convenient.

I don't speak for Michelle Obama but my guess is that she'd agree with that.

You appear to be answering the argument that no one should ever criticize Jill Stein, even when the criticisms are accurate. That is an argument that I have not made and, in fact, do not agree with. Going high does not preclude valid criticisms.

[JI7]

151. yeah, respect for the truth which the fucking putin troll jill stein has none of

[uponit7771]

99. +1

[Xipe Totec]

41. True, but then there's this:

It was a (red) star-studded affair, the December 2015 dinner celebrating the 10th birthday of Russian TV network RT. At a luxe Moscow hotel, President Vladimir Putin and a host of Russian luminaries toasted a state-backed news channel that U.S. intelligence calls a Kremlin mouthpiece.

And next to Putin at the head table, in the seat of honor, was an American. Retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, who would later become Donald Trump's national security adviser, was already advising Trump's presidential campaign when he was paid $45,000 to speak at the gala.

(snip)

Also at the head table were three western politicians. Willy Wimmer, a former member of the German Bundestag who is often critical of U.S. foreign policy; Cyril Svoboda, former deputy prime minister, minister of foreign affairs, and interior minister of the Czech Republic, and two-time U.S. Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein, the only American besides Flynn at the head table.


https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/guess-who-came-dinner-flynn-putin-n742696

[Ilsa]

45. Just curious: if it was determined that Ted Cruz's

Mother voted in a Canadian election as a citizen of Canada prior to Ted's birth, would that be an indicator to you that Ted was not a US citizen and therefore ineligible to be president?

I know, it's a lot of "ifs".

On Stein: yeah, it looks like a wide net. But I wouldn't be shocked if she was in on a conspiracy to elect trump.

[Jim Lane]

50. My response re Cruz

The most plausible reading of the natural-born citizen clause is that the person must have been a citizen immediately and automatically upon birth, regardless of subsequent changes in the law or naturalization proceedings. (As an aside, this is why it's incorrect to answer the Obama birtherism by saying that his mother was a citizen and therefore he would be a citizen even if he had been born in Kenya. Under the law as it stood on August 4, 1961, a child born on that date in Kenya to Ann Dunham would not have been a citizen, because of a residency requirement that's no longer in the statute.)

So, to answer your question about Cruz, I'd have to know what the relevant law was as of December 22, 1970, when he was born. Right now, I happen to have an expat friend who lives in the UK and is a dual citizen. She can vote in UK elections without losing her U.S. citizenship. Did the law in 1970 allow that? If so, Cruz's mother's voting record wouldn't affect his citizenship. But if she did vote in a Canadian election and was entitled to do so because she'd been naturalized in Canada, and if the Canadian naturalization procedure at that time required an express renunciation of all other citizenships (some more "ifs" back atcha), then I'd conclude that she was no longer a U.S. citizen when Cruz was born.

I think there's also a principle that a U.S. citizen can't lose that citizenship through someone else's action. If a Canadian census-taker or elections official mistakenly included Cruz's mother on a list of eligible voters, and if she would be eligible only if she'd renounced her U.S. citizenship, and if she actually hadn't, then the Canadian official's mistake wouldn't affect her citizenship.

Naturally, I hope that all of this analysis concerning Ted Cruz will turn out to be totally moot.

[Ilsa]

63. Thank you for your thoughtful explanation.

There are numerous ifs and buts to all of this, including the last one you mentioned (someone else's action), that I had not heard explained here before you did.

[yuiyoshida]

12. Good, go after her!

[oberliner]

13. She talked about Russia in a very similar manner to the way Trump talked about Russia

For example:

Jill Stein

Well, Russian aggression meaning what, exactly? (References Crimea and Ukraine.) These are highly questionable situations. Why are we — Russia used to own Ukraine. Ukraine was historically a part of Russia for quite some period of time, and we all know there was this conversation with Victoria Nuland about planning the coup and who was going to take over.

Not that the other guy was some model of democracy. But the one they put in — with the support of the US and the CIA in this coup in Ukraine — that has not been a solution. Regime change is something we need to be very careful about. And this is a highly inflammatory regime change with a nuclear armed power next door.

So I’m saying: Let’s just stop pretending there are good guys here and bad guys here. These are complicated situations. Yeah, Russia is doing lots of human rights abuse, but you know what? So are we.

https://www.vox.com/2016/9/14/12913174/jill-stein-green-party

[BainsBane]

14. Yeah, those comments are complete lies

It's exactly what the Kremlin trolls have been spreading.

[Kleveland]

15. Can I please say it again?

FUCK JILL STEIN!

[Eliot Rosewater]

20. She beat you to it, her and a few others nobody suspected, still dont, screwed us bad

[George II]

16. If Jill Stein, a presidential candidate herself, was communicating directly...

...with the trump campaign, wouldn't that constitute some sort of collusion?

[mcar]

18. Stein communicating with Jr?

No, there's nothing suspicious about that.

[Alice11111]

21. I knew it. About time!

[BigmanPigman]

28. Last night Todd Rundgren sang "Blow Me" and dedicated it to Stein voters

and to all those who didn't vote at all (as well as 45 voters). He also made a "fire and fury" crack. He is a smart liberal along the lines of Roger Waters.

[BainsBane]

43. I love it!

[Cary]

105. You saw Todd?

I'm jealous.

[BigmanPigman]

109. It was a good show. He played for over 11/2 hours (23 song setlist)

was very eclectic, very Todd. It was an "Unpredictable Evening with Todd" as promised.

[Turbineguy]

29. She was at the big dinner to give cover.

[Initech]

31. It's all a massive conspiracy to keep Hillary from being president.

Jill Stein certainly didn't help things.

[SunSeeker]

37. Jill Stein is a tool of the right wing. nt

[Willie Pep]

59. Pretty much

At first I dismissed her as a harmless crank but now I think that she and other ultra-left types might have cost Clinton the election. At the very least Stein made matters worse by constantly promoting ideas about Clinton being the most corrupt, evil person ever while pretty much ignoring Trump and his massive negatives.

[TEB]

38. She is just makes me mad

if the Green Party would try and run for actual local state or federal. Then maybe they could be taken seriously, she stein is just a clown.

[sharedvalues]

40. Of course. Stein received money from Putin

For the RT dinner where she was pictures with Flynn.

If she is a witting or unwitting agent of Russia, I will not be surprised.

[paleotn]

49. I'll go out on a limb here....

Stein was paid to skim votes from Clinton. I'm sure the Kremlin was well aware of the dynamics behind the 2000 US presidential election. Peel off a few votes here...a few votes there....and you have a twittler in the white house.

[BainsBane]

56. I think it's a distinct possibility

She did somehow manage to find money to run a lot of TV ads right before the election, and that is very expensive.

[paleotn]

64. I noticed that too....

Most Prez campaigns polling in the single digits barely have enough funding to keep the lights on at campaign HQ, yet Stein didn't seem to have those kinds of money issues. Interesting.

[sarcasmo]

53. Stein, Flynn and Vlad all sitting together at the table in Russia.

[NurseJackie]

55. Stein's fans and defenders who visit here won't like that news at all!

This is all very interesting.

[northoftheborder]

57. curiouser and curiouser

[guillaumeb]

60. Stein is a publicity seeker.

She obviously likes the attention that she receives when she surfaces every four years to claim that she is running for President.

[BainsBane]

69. attention and cash

She pocketed ten million off her recount scam.

[guillaumeb]

116. Giving her something in common with Trump.

All about the money and publicity.

[BainsBane]

120. Yes!

Both con artists.

[maddiemom]

98. Hopefully this will be the end of the Jill Stein thing.

I never understood it. Even if I agreed with many of her supposed positions, I never understood her qualifications to be POTUS, nor her support by all the otherwise reasonable Jill Stein fanatics. When I finally saw her interviewed, she struck me as SMUG. That was the first word that came to mind. She was also so very critical of the Democratic presidential candidates, but rarely said a thing that was anti Republican. I didn't agree with Nader saying that there was "no difference," but even Nader never bashed the Dems the way Stein did. Please, may we finally say, goodby to her for good?

[guillaumeb]

117. One hopes, but in running under the Green label,

Stein knows that the label is enough for her to attract a certain number of followers. The Green label is a good one, with much to recommend it, but no Party can truly say that they are an electoral party if there is no work done to grow the Party. A "once every four year" publicity stunt is obviously not enough to convince anyone but the hard core Green voters.

[oberliner]

75. She scammed Democrats out of millions of dollars

Including some DUers.

[BainsBane]

79. Yes

and pocketed ten million as a result.

[still_one]

86. I suspect they weren't just Democrats either Obe.

[oberliner]

93. Definitely

But it's the Democrats who gave her money that I feel bad for. On DU, I tried to talk them out of it at the time.

[still_one]

94. I remember that

[dalton99a]

154. +1

[snot]

87. Hold it.

Nowhere does the article state that Stein in fact had any communications with Trump Jr., or that she refused to comply with the Committee request, apart from calling the idea that she'd communicated with Trump, Jr. "laughable."

Beyond that, this article is from July 22, and the Committee asked for any communication documents to be delivered by Aug. 2. So one might think there would be something more concrete to talk about by now?

[BainsBane]

138. You're correct

The article says she is somehow involved in the correspondence between Don Jr and the Russian bankers. My mistake. Her cries of witch hunt gave me the impression that the request had been made to her, and that does not appear to be the case according to the article.

The document request was to the Senate Judiciary Committee. Congress is currently in recess. We will likely learn more when they begin to hold hearings again. If you find out something else in the meantime, I'd be interested to read what you come across, as long as it's not from a Kremlin propaganda site.

[L. Coyote]

89. This is old news from July.

[BainsBane]

90. Which people must be unaware of

That's the most charitable explanation for their continuing to defend Stein. Of course it's possible they know, and either don't care or want to see it covered up. The investigation is ongoing, and there still have not been hearings in Don Jrs meeting with the Russian bankers.
Will you be writing the networks to tell them not to cover it because it's old news? Perhaps you can tell Mueller not to investigate the election tampering or obstruction of justice because that is old news?

We are constantly how anything relation to the GE and Kremlin interference is old news. Meanwhile, those same people nurture resentments from a primary of nearly two years ago.

Right now 788,000 DACA youth are waiting to find out of their lives will be upended and they will be deported from the only country they've ever known. That is a consequence of the GE and the interference by the Kremlin. Those of us who care about democracy and vulnerable Americans like the DACA kids more than multimillionaires like Stein want to ensure the integrity of our electoral system, which means investigating who colluded with the Russians to deliver the country to fascism. Those whose loyalties lies with multimillionaire grifters like Stein din want to see I discussed. We all have our priorities.

[Mike Niendorff]

91. I would like to point out one thing -- and I think it is important

The Stein campaign demanded -- and got -- recounts started in 3 contested states.

That is a BIG DEAL.

Big enough that Trump sued and forced them to be stopped.

He didn't just bluff and bluster (as usual), his team actually *went to court* and got the recounts stopped.

**ALL** of them.

Now ask yourself : **WHY WAS IT THAT IMPORTANT TO TEAM TRUMP TO GET THESE RECOUNTS STOPPED** ?

I wasn't a Stein voter (never was, never will be), but who the f*** cares, they got this one right -- and right enough that the Trump legal team actually went to court to prevent further investigation of the voting data.

Jesus H Christ, people -- am I the only one here who sees the importance of this story? Call it whatever you will, but there is no way in hell the Stein campaign was in league with Trump. Not at all buying it, no way.


MDN

[Progressive dog]

95. Stein probably had

and still has help from the Russian propaganda arm working to make Russia great again.

[DownriverDem]

96. Played Naive Fools

In Michigan alone 51,000 folks voted 3rd party. We have a two party system. You pick the one that leans your way. Get the Dems elected then work for the changes you want. If left leaners don't learn the lesson of the November election, they never will. And yes they are part of the reason we have trump et al.

[Honeycombe8]

111. Who does this sound like?...

"These are highly questionable situations. Why are we — Russia used to own Ukraine. Ukraine was historically a part of Russia for quite some period of time, and we all know there was this conversation with Victoria Nuland about planning the coup and who was going to take over... Let’s just stop pretending there are good guys here and bad guys here. These are complicated situations. Yeah, Russia is doing lots of human rights abuse, but you know what? So are we."

Who does that sound like? No, not Trump. Jill Stein.

When asked by Politico if she thought that Putin was an "incipient despot", Stein answered, "To some extent, yes, but there could be a whole lot worse... when we needlessly provoke him and endanger him and surround him with war games--you know, this is sort of the Cuban Missile Crisis on steroids, what we are doing to Russia right now, and I don't think this is a good idea."

---Jill Stein

She met with President Vladimir Putin in Moscow in December 2015 at a banquet celebrating the 10th anniversary of the Russian state television network RT. While in Russia, Stein criticized U.S. foreign policy (saying that the U.S. had a "policy of domination" instead of "international law, human rights and diplomacy&quot and human rights in the U.S, but did not criticize Russian foreign policy or human rights abuses, a decision that prompted criticism from commentator John Aravosis.

---Jill Stein statements

She sounds eerily like Trump. Except she uses grownup words. This is very odd. ???

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jill_Stein

[Wounded Bear]

113. It's been a long time since I trusted the motivations of 3rd Party candidates...

I know in my personal experience (admittedly on line for the most part) self-styled "Independents" tend to vote conservative or Republican almost exclusively. Not many Indies seem to have a truly liberal/progressive outlook.

I'll stick with Democrats.

[Susan Calvin]

114. Well, I always thought she was an idiot,

and wondered how such an idiot got to her position.

It looks like the explanation may be that she was a useful idiot.

[mdillen]

128. Susan Sarandon

Any words of wisdom you care to express?

[FairWinds]

135. Why the relentless attacks on Ms. Stein?

I'm no particular fan of hers, but . .

This is no way to build progressive unity.

Below is the entire list - why single out Stein?

Donald J. Trump, Christopher Steele, Sir Andrew Wood, David J. Kramer, Senator John McCain, the Halifax International Security Forum, Aleksej Gubarev, Webzilla B.V., XBT Holdings, S.A., Alfa Group, Dmitry Peskov, Vladimir Putin, the Ritz Carlton Moscow Hotel, Paul Manafort, Carter Page, Sergei Ivanov, Igor Divyekin, Sergei Millian, Dmitry Medvedev, Michael Flynn, Jill Stein, Michael Cohen, Konstantin Kosachev, Viktor Yanukovych, Corey Lewandowski, Sergei Kislyak, Yuri Ushakov, Anton Vaino, Mikhail Kalugin, Andrei Bondarev, Mikhail Fridman, Petr Aven, German Khan, Oleg Govorun, Aras Agalarov, Emin Agalarov, Sergey Lavrov, Igor Sechin, Rosneft, Sergei Kiriyenko, Oleg Solodukhin.

[BainsBane]

137. Unity for what?

The re-election of Trump? The deportation of 788,000 DACA youth? Stripping millions of Ameircans of health care? White Nationalism? How the FUCK do you think there is any unity between Stein and Democrats? In what fucking universe do you think any Democrat shares a thing in common with Stein?
What do you imagine we would be unified around?

This is an article about the Stein being drawn into the investigation regarding Russian collusion is the SUBVERSION of democracy and the democratic rights of American citizens. She is somehow involved in the emails between Don Jr and the Russian lawyers. As much as you may want to hold certain multi-millionaires above the law that is not my position or that of most people who value equality and justice.

Stein worked for the election of Donald Trump. She gives cover to the GOP by lying about Democrats, for example tweeting claims that Democrats are to blame for passing bills that not a single Democrat voted for. She is a multi-millioniaire who conned vulnerable Americans out of enormous sums of money and pocketed $10 million for herself from her recount scam. She takes money from RT, and miraculously managed to run enormously expensive campaign ads right before the election, something prohibitively expensive for third party candidates.

She's also an imbecile who repeats every piece of Kremlin propaganda and nut job conspiracy theory she comes across. Case in point:
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/06/jill-stein-is-starting-to-sound-a-lot-like-donald-trump
Not content with her efforts to kill generations of American children through ensuring epidemics of deadly diseases through her anti-vax putsch, she turned to undermining democracy itself.

To unify with Stein IS to unify with Donald Trump.

You seem to think people unify around labels. Labels mean NOTHING. What matters is actions, what people do to improve the lives of the poor and the vulnerable. Unity means joining together to ACT toward common goals. Stein acts in ways that worsens the lives of those populations. Those who voted for her and don't regret it, intend to continue voting Green, and continue working to ensure Democrats stay out of office likewise act in ways that do demonstrable harm to the subaltern. Their singular focus is their own egos, their own sense of entitlement. That makes them at least as bad as any banker or corporate CEO.

You can throw around the word progressive all day long. It doesn't mean anything unless it's accompanied by efforts to move the country in forward in ways the benefit the poor and the oppressed--not the rich, the upper-middle class, but the poor and marginalized. It certainly doesn't involved the continual defenses of extremely wealthy con artists and corporate media profiteers that seems to constitute the singular focus of those whose political discourse begins and ends with labels. That is when they aren't busy working on voter disenfranchisement (like Nokimi Konst's effort to replace primaries with caucuses) and undermining the Democratic Party's support for civil rights and reproductive rights.

788,000 DACA youth are awaiting their fate this weekend, to see if they've been expelled from the only country they've ever known, but you decide what must be defended is a multi-millionaire con artist. Why? Because she claims to be progressive? Because she uses your favorite label?

And as for the Stein voters who don't regret their role in delivering the country to fascism, they can go fuck themselves with their Tiki Torches and swastikas. Their hoods have dropped, and we see exactly what they are.

No, I won't be unifying with around White Nationalism and the re-election of Trump.

[R B Garr]

139. How is someone who promotes Russian oligarchs deserving of "progressive unity"

whatever that may be. She certainly isn't interested in any of the checklist items currently spouted by the Occupy crowd if she hands over our government to the Russian mafia and global oligarchs. Goldman Sachs billionaires control the White House, which is apparently okay after all.

[BainsBane]

142. The comment is utterly bizarre

In another thread he called criticism of Stein a "circular firing squad." What circle is he talking about?

[R B Garr]

143. It is truly bizarre. But now I remember that circular firing squad post, but

didn't make his connection. Right, Stein isn't in the circle to fire anything, apparently by her own design, so she can be divisive. I'm so glad her name is being connected to the collusion cases because her agenda is quite obvious.

[R B Garr]

161. This is just a lowbrow and unnecessary attack. If you look at the

dynamics, there are explain trolls who don't seem to understand anything written, so it's re-written in various forms just to make a simple point.

[JI7]

144. Stein's Goal is to help Republicans win . Republicans like Trump. she is a fucking Troll. there is n

no unity with Stein .

Stein is united in defeating democrats so someone like Trump could win. and she could get paid by putin. fuck jill stein and anyone defending the putin troll.

[Adrahil]

158. She's not a progressive.

A progressive would never allow themselves to be used in this manner.

And folks defending her have fucked up priorities, IMO. She sure wasn't interested in unity during the election.

Fuck her.

[Jim Lane]

163. I don't think Stein personally will change her mind BUT...

We can and should be thinking about how to win back some of the people who voted Green.

I'm sure some DUers would immediately dismiss this as hopeless. I invite them to consider Ralph Nader. In 2000, as in 2016, there had been a Democrat in the White House for eight years. People had gotten complacent. They forgot how bad Republicans can be. In each case, the Green Party candidate exploited that and did much better than s/he had four years earlier.

Four years of Bush proved very instructive. When Nader ran again in 2004, his vote dropped by about three-fourths. Even his 2000 running mate, Winona LaDuke, abandoned him and the Green Party and endorsed John Kerry. We can realistically hope for a similar effect in 2020. When it comes to driving voters away from the Green Party, Trump is likely to outdo even Bush.

We should capitalize on that. You say we should build progressive unity, and I interpret that as meaning that we should try to win (or win back) some of the voters who went Green this time.

As a tactical matter, I don't see personal attacks on Jill Stein as the most effective way to do that. Discrediting one individual won't make the Green Party go away. Someone else will eagerly step forward to be the nominee in 2020. We should instead point out the enormous human cost of Republican electoral success. Stein went from 0.36% of the vote in 2012 to 1.07% in 2016, so most of her voters were not hard-core Greens. Many of them, like the Nader voters of 2000, may be induced to back a Democrat.

[Gothmog]

153. K&r