Well Trump says that they are so they probably aren't.

---

How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?

If unclassified info is passed then likely not illegal. However, I cannot imagine a single job at the White House where you would not be required to sign a Non-Disclosure Agreement. I'm sure even the grounds keepers have to sing something holding them liable if they talk.

---

--------------------------
The secret of a long life is you try not to shorten it.
-Nobody

There's no simple answer to that. It depends on context. But largely, the answer is "yes." The information is government property. The public release of that information is regulated by law and policy. Willfully violating the law/policy is illegal.

I think that's a little overly simplistic. First of all, in the context of the Trump campaign, information about a campaign working with Russia during an election cycle would not be governmental information. Campaigns are not part of the government. Second, even if you were talking about a legitimately governmental environment, just because you discuss something in that environment doesn't make the information government property that you couldn't disclose. If the information is not classified in nature, then the legality of its release would largely be based on what agreements the employee had signed regarding disclosure of work related information.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

For one, impeachment doesn't require illegality. So if it's something really bad, nothing that the Justice Department can attach a significant charge too, then impeachment would still be a possibility There are at least a dozen or so Republican Congressmen who've expressed public admiration for Mueller, and support for the investigation. So if the Mueller report is bad, things could get close, and the GOP could rally around the Pence option (Pence, so far, seems pristine on the Russia issue). Though the two-thirds vote in the Senate is a high hurdle.

Second, if history is an example the charges may not attack the original crime. The charges are generally related to lying to or obstructing investigators. Lying to the public is fine. Lying to the FBI can be a problem. The people being investigated have to decide to tell the truth about maybe-legal-but-politically-embarrassing things and take the political hit when the report is released to public record. Or lie and possibly get charged with a felony. Those with very smart lawyers tell lies that are hard to pin a charge to. (e.g. "that woman."). But Trump, and possibly some of those around him, appear to act in ways you'd think that decent lawyers would advise them against.

I don't disagree - my answer is largely in the context of what I think this thread is attacking currently, which is the leak to the Washington Post where "current and former U.S. officials" told WaPo about intercepted communications from Russian diplomats seemingly contradicting Sessions' public statements and testimony before Congress.

There's almost no that the information given to the WaPo article given to them legally. And reading it, it seems there's a more than reasonable chance that some of the information was classified as well (if the story is true).

There's almost no that the information given to the WaPo article given to them legally. And reading it, it seems there's a more than reasonable chance that some of the information was classified as well (if the story is true).

What would happen if all this collusion talk has nothing to do with the election but has more to do with things that would happen after Trump came to office. For example, the Russians are looking to the Americans to get rid of the Magnitsky Act, or they want the U.S military to stop helping the rebels or for them to support Assad staying in power? In return, the Trump team gets different forms of compensation. Maybe it's the forgiveness of Mannafort's debts, or Russians buying space in the Trump towers, or agreements that would help Trump businesses now or in the future.

The investigation started with trying to see if the Russians interfered in the election and they did but they might have been doing the same for years. If Mueller does what he says and will expand the investigation, and then they find good old fashion corruption which involves the Trump administration using government resources to satisfy their obligation (ie. change in policy in Syria, reducing sanctions in Ukraine etc.) and people in the administration benefited, how would Congress react?

I am getting more and more convinced that this whole thing wasn't about getting Trump elected, as much as what Russia can do, and what Trump can get, after he won.

Well that's what collusion is - a deal. The Russians presumably had some clear end-game in mind. They didn't try to to interfere in the election just for the fun of it.

The only question is how successul the Russians were in the transaction. They may have been largely rebuffed. They may have made some minor inroads with some individuals. or there may be been broader participation. I would have leaned towards for former a month ago. But my slider bar is sliding towards the latter. And it seems a given at this point that there's been a lot of lying. Which is bad.

And the sheer number of regularity of own-goals is mind-boggling. Take your Magnitsky Act reference. Trump Jr. referencing discussion of "adoption" sure sounds like it'd almost have to involve at least an indirect discussion of the Magnitsky Act. Why on earth would you tweet that publicly? Pure insanity. His lawyer (now possibly team of lawyers) had to have all been banging their heads against the wall.

Trump should really consider hiring goddamn Bill and Hillary. Because they know how to play it. You don't get a goddman thing out of them that doesn't sounds like it's been pored over by a crack team of lawyers.

It's going to be really interesting to see if Trump signs the recently passed legislation increasing sanctions on Russia, and limiting Trump's ability to adjust them. Dipping into conspiracy land, if the Russians indeed have some card to play, it seems they might want to play it over that bill.

Just read an article suggesting that the debate among his lawyers has been whether they should use the Clinton playbook and attack Mueller like the Clintons went after Ken Starr. At least one of the lawyers who quit was opposed to that idea because he didn't want to increase sympathy for Mueller and felt that an innocent man benefits by staying out of the mud and being able to claim later that he was cleared by an investigator who is beyond reproach. Trump apparently rejected that advice.

Wonder why?

I've read that too. There are a few problems with that in my mind. First, Starr was assigned to investigate a real estate deal. So his branching off into BJ-gate was, indeed, an expansion into something totally unrelated to his original mandate. Mueller was assigned to investigate Russian interference in the election.

Second, Starr was (is) a not very sympathetic figure. Mueller has pretty broad support. There are around 20 GOP Congressman who've made public statements support him.

And lastly, it's one thing to lie about sex. I think the public had some tolerance for that. It's another thing to lie about secretly (outside the normal secrecy of the U.S. security apparatus) working with a brutal dictator of a country that's probably the biggest geopolitical opponent of the U.S.

I agree on all points. I think attacking Mueller is beyond stupid and stinks of being guilty.

---

_____
TEAM HD
Each day is what you make of it so make it the best day possible.

Things that make you say "WTF"?

http://www.cnn.com/...ald-trump/index.html

---

===============
Proud member of the MSF (Maple Syrup Mafia)

This is my favorite quote of the morning, from Trump lawyer Sekulow,
I'm going to try that on my wife, "We have not, and I continue to not shop for yet another new bike."

Also, of course, funny because he just threw his client under the bus - Trump's "all agree" apparently not including his own legal team. "Yeah, the Twitter thing is all him. I'm out."

Mr. Scaramucci was in fine form this morning as well. He sounds like an adult trying to sound like a teenager. He also claimed that Pres. Trump is one of the greatest communicators ever born in history.

He seems like a reasonably intelligent guy, and he said some things I agree with, but it's all covered in used car salesman smarminess and unsupported hyperbole.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

Seems to be a lot of WTF moments in DC.

http://dailycaller.com/...t-aides-home/[/font]

I enjoyed when he used Trump as an anonymous source then one minute later outed Trump as his anonymous source.

It's quite the circus you guys have going on down there.

---

How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?

You should start a thread on that.

Though I cannot for the life of me think how this ties into Donald Trump. Or are you trying to imply that the Democrats were helping them?

---

I'm beginning to think that we are much more fucked than I thought.

How about this one? So much smoke out there.

http://www.foxnews.com/...ad-fifth.html[/font]

Just having fun with all the rabid anti-Trumpers. It is so easy to get fools riled these days.

Oh, Debbie W, the DNC, destroyed evidence, Dems in Congress, several at the front of the anti-Trump movement, It all ties together. I've said it before and I'll say it again. Trump is a buffoon who could have actually done something solid if he would stop tweeting and shut up. However, Trump will finish his term at which time I doubt he runs again, or he will get run against in the Republican primary by someone like Sasse who will defeat Trump.

The real story is going to be the absolute destruction of the Democratic Party. They haven't learned, their fundraising efforts are falling WAY short and now the powers are attempting to promote Kamilla Harris as their savior/front runner for 2020. A women who literally slept her way into power. The entire shit show that is the Democratic Party is getting more fun to watch.

Both of your links failed. Good work.

---

How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?

Hard to see he screen with Trump's balls so deeply imbedded in his gullet

---

===============
Proud member of the MSF (Maple Syrup Mafia)

Except that is not at all what that story is about. You should read it.

---

I'm beginning to think that we are much more fucked than I thought.

Except that is not at all what that story is about.

For Trump and his most diehard and loyal supporters like jwbeuk, EVERYTHING is about Clinton. Any story in any media source anywhere in the world, can be directly related to her e-mails or the fact that she lost an election 8 months ago.

You must be new around here.