ADVERTISEMENT

So, Donald, Jr. set up a meeting

Yes...all these meetings. Kremlin connected Michael Flynn and his son. The secret, secure Russian communication line for Jared Kushner to the Kremlin. Deeply Russian connected Paul Manafort who for some reason worked as Trump's campaign for FREE, Roger Stone contacting Russian Hackers that targeted the DNC, that other bald goof who transacts all kinds of business in Russia. The fact thatTrump can never, ever, utter something negative about Russia...even after they actively influenced our elections. The fact that the first thing on Trump's agenda after being elected was to attempt to drop all Russian sanctions. The fact that Trump is acting in concert with Russia to break up NATO and the EU. The meeting between Michael Cohen, Trump's personal lawyer...also with deep ties to Russia...where he personally delivered a "peace plan" from a Russian oligarch to the White House that involved the lifting of sanctions on Russia.

You know what this is called? COINCIDENCE! Duh!!! Just wild eyed speculation!!!!

:rolleyes: So dumb.
Yep, it's always the Russians.
 
How did they subvert our election?
Be specific.

Identify one piece of campaign material - a flyer, a commercial, a speech, a talking point, a debate statement - used by the Trump campaign that was "stolen" by Russians and provided to/used by Trump.

Just one.

Did they inform Trump of the millions in Russian donations to the Clinton Foundation? Or was that already known?
Did they inform Trump of the FACT of the hack of the Clinton bathroom server?
Did they blackmail Hillary to lie about the servers, the hacks, the intent, etc?
Did they put poison in wine at a fundraiser?

Or .... maybe they were "colluding" with BOTH campaigns, and THAT is why the Clinton and DNC servers are off-limits?
Or ... worse ... maybe they were "faking" help to Trump while actually trying to help Clinton (I think that is called a "double cross" in spy meetings).

You so smart - put up or shut up.

What.
Did.
They.
Do.


Other than a smart-ass non-sequitur insult, and hypocrisy, you have never brought ANYTHING to this discussion.

As for accommodating what I formerly regarded as anathema, your use of big words is a self-impressing nothing-burger.

The only discussions I have EVER had (on this board or elsewhere) about "election meddling" involved my personal knowledge of vote-buying in Spencer County, Indiana in the 1970's, and unions in Jefferson County, Kentucky aiding and abetting voter fraud by driving groups around in vans and having them vote in multiple precincts. (The money for the scheme allegedly came from a campaign fund for the Governor. Two days after SCOTUS upheld the indictments (a delay of over 7 years after the events), the governor pardoned them.) Thus, you have no factual basis for claiming I have been for or against whatever you were not really discussing.

Since I am sure you would not knowingly make false statements in support of your posts, I'll assume you were just mistakenly blinded by your partisanship.
 
He REALLY cared about a lie about a blowjob. This stuff? Nothingburger.

It's absolutely a crime for a foreign govt to provide support directly to a campaign. You now don't care about federal crimes? There are plenty of things beyond "hacking voting machines" that matter, criminally.
 
Here's a better idea - go find ONE post where I said Obama was not a citizen or supported the Birther issue.

One of the best things that could happen if we REALLY want to learn about how the Russians hacked Hillary and the DNC would be for Hillary and the DNC to turn over their servers and allow them to be forensically examined. How would that little piece of Justice strike you? You backing that effort? Or are you afraid of a REAL examination of the hack issue, and are more concerned about the impact on the Dems? Show me your posts about THAT. Party or country? That seems to be the meme of the week here. You REALLY want a hack investigation, or just a limited one that targets those who aren't wearing your uniform at the marches?

Want to know what Obama knew about the Russian hack, when did he know it, and what did he do with it, and why? Or a far more more limited look at the Russian problem? What if Mueller expands PAST the Russian/Trump contacts? You good with that? Can he tell us what happened, or just part of it?

And please show me your posts defending righties who complained about Obama removing the missile defense from Eastern Europe. I don't recall your support. I do recall being called a racist because, well, Obama. Are you now a racist for wanting to move divisions into Ukraine? Why not? You oppose an Obama policy.

You claim you don't want foreign "influence" "determining" our elections. I say "define influence." Draw those lines.

My line is at the voting machine. If Russia changed votes, declare war if you want. I'm in.

But that is not what happened, is it? What happened was info exchange. Propoganda. Enhanced opposition research assistance, if you will.

Maybe you prefer some countries not be permitted to speak their preference in our elections? Should the Queen keep her damn mouth shut? Should Merkel opine? Was Mandela's support of Obama criminal? Should their newspapers be allowed to comment? What persuasion is OK and what persuasion is not?

Is hidden persuasion really your problem? Did you make hundreds of posts against the potential that the Russians might have a photo of whores pissing on Trump? Cut and paste your posts about THAT potential influence. Or is your displeasure with Russian info limited to anti-Hillary data? Are you just mad that Hillary lost and you want to whine that the Russians had better propaganda and opposition research than she did? Isn't the real issue that anything aimed at anybody not uniformed in your march is OK, but when it's aimed at a Dem it's bad? (unless the Dem is Bernie. Hidden persuasion against him was OK.)

You seem offended that Hillary and the DNC got hacked and the Russians may have given INFORMATION to Trump. What if it was a New York Times reporter publishing hacked info. What if the Russians leaked an e-mail from Hillary where she called Obama names, but leaked it to a reporter, who published it? Would you celebrate that little moment of First Amendment wonder?

Is publishing The Pentagaon Papers OK but giving a candidate the same data NOT OK?

Want to bitch about something meaningful? Join me in complaining that Gary Johnson was not allowed in the debate. Join me in suggesting that Donna Brazille impacted the election as much or more than a Russian sharing e-mails. But take your hypocrisy and shove it.


^^^Didn't vote for Trump^^^ ;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zizkov
I've tried to avoid expressing opinions on the viability of criminal prosecutions. Maybe it wasn't illegal for Trump Jr., Kushner, and Manafort to seek incriminating information from someone they'd been told was a Russian operative involved in a Russian intelligence operation to undermine our election. But it sure seems bad and wrong and crazy. Until recently, I'd have thought everyone would agree with that.
Until recently it wouldn't have cost anyone anything to agree. Now it costs something...and we learn they don't really agree after all. By the way...if it were shown that Trump literally committed treason...they wouldn't care about that either.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rockfish1
I agree with this whole-heartedly. If this were Clinton, the Republicans would not be pressing this "But it's not illegal!" narrative. They'd be demanding heads on spikes. Just like they did with the email server. "Hillary broke the law, or maybe she didn't technically break the law, but it was irresponsible, and means she's unfit for office."

Whether or not anything Trump and his people did involving Russia ends up being illegal, it certainly all makes him unfit to be President, and no one would have disagreed with this sentiment before Trump wrapped himself in the GOP flag.
I'm not following the story closely enough, but endless discussions of the definition of 'a thing of value' aren't much for explaining the gravity of the situation. I'd settle for (a) the Trumps are thick as thieves with corrupt Russians and (b) the Trumps have no understanding of the legal no-no's for anything they do. That just further drives home the point that Trump is wholly unqualified and unsuited to be President and is playing for the wrong team. That's the unimpeachable reality and shouldn't get lost in arcane legal discussions.
 
I agree with this whole-heartedly. If this were Clinton, the Republicans would not be pressing this "But it's not illegal!" narrative. They'd be demanding heads on spikes. Just like they did with the email server. "Hillary broke the law, or maybe she didn't technically break the law, but it was irresponsible, and means she's unfit for office."

Whether or not anything Trump and his people did involving Russia ends up being illegal, it certainly all makes him unfit to be President, and no one would have disagreed with this sentiment before Trump wrapped himself in the GOP flag.

Find me something illegal and I'll rail against it. You bash Republicans for saying 'but it's not illegal' yet in the very next paragraph you admit that nothing has been found that is illegal. Which is it Goat? So, you want me to call something illegal that's not illegal? What are you really trying to say here?
 
Find me something illegal and I'll rail against it. You bash Republicans for saying 'but it's not illegal' yet in the very next paragraph you admit that nothing has been found that is illegal. Which is it Goat? So, you want me to call something illegal that's not illegal? What are you really trying to say here?
LOL. I rest my case.

I've been doing a lot of that today.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zizkov
with a Russian attorney linked to Putin because she told him she had incriminating evidence about Hillary that would damage her campaign. Jr. took Manafort and Kushner with him to the meeting.

Hmm...I wonder if this is a nothingburger?

My biggest question is why did Donald, Jr. release a statement confirming the meeting AND the reason why the meeting was set? Obviously, someone had evidence about the meeting. No way would Jr. acknowledge this without knowing the information was already known.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/09/...n-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0
 
According to Bill Kristol, Junior's false statement on Saturday was written by the WH and seen by Trump.
 
Looks like they are willing to throw Junior under the bus and say the president was not involved.
Trump Senior's thinking must be: "I can always have another son, I can't have another life."

Ivanka on the other hand....
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: cosmickid


What this all done, I wonder which movie will be more successful:

1) The Greatest Witch Hunt on Earth (produced by Don Trump Jnr.)
2) The Manhattan Candidate (starring Alex Balwin and Melissa McCarthy)
 


'Sources say' even if he son publishes it on twitter is fake? Colour me confused.

His own son per persona non grata or he doesnt exist?

That's got to hurt.
 
Last edited:
#NOTHINGBURGER

IMG_8500.png
 
He REALLY cared about a lie about a blowjob. This stuff? Nothingburger.
He's became self-parody at this point. Some of his posts during the last few months on here have been completely off the rails.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DrHoops
So is it NOT a big deal that the WH helped Jr with his first statement, which was a lie, and that Trump also saw it? I guess that if Trump was still saying he didn't know anything about the meeting, it still doesn't prove anything. But at that point, it's hard to believe he didn't know.
 
So is it NOT a big deal that the WH helped Jr with his first statement, which was a lie, and that Trump also saw it? I guess that if Trump was still saying he didn't know anything about the meeting, it still doesn't prove anything. But at that point, it's hard to believe he didn't know.
My bet is that he knew AND that the excising of the Ukranian language in the Repub party platform was a kind of quid pro quo from Trump to the Russians to demonstrate good faith and get them to go full force to elect Trump. Trump was publically colluding with the Russians after the Republican convention. Recall that the changing of the Republican platform in July followed the meeting between DTJr, Kushner and Manafort and the Russians in June. But it was only after the Republican convention and three days before the Democratic convention that the Russians began the full scale leak of the DNC emails. http://www.motherjones.com/politics...ia-leaks-hacks-tweets-2016-election-timeline/
 
  • Like
Reactions: DrHoops
Jeff Sesions has to update his foreign contacts by today or tomorrow due a court approved request.

May or may not be interesting.
 
Jeff Sesions has to update his foreign contacts by today or tomorrow due a court approved request.

May or may not be interesting.
 
Just unbelievable...every one of them is mixed up in it.

Jeff Sesions has to update his foreign contacts by today or tomorrow due a court approved request.

May or may not be interesting.
 
How do we know this? Isn't it fairly impossible to trust what anyone is saying about this meeting at this point? I certainly don't trust Junior nor the Russian attorney.
Actually, I think we definitely know why Junior Trump accepted the meeting. -- the emails show he thought he was meeting a Russian government attorney of some kind to get some dirt on Hillary that had been obtained by the Russian govt. He can't get a gold star for honesty and respect after admitting this was what he was trying to do. The fact that the Russian lawyer may not have proven to be what he thought does not change what he admits he was trying to do.
 
Actually, I think we definitely know why Junior Trump accepted the meeting. -- the emails show he thought he was meeting a Russian government attorney of some kind to get some dirt on Hillary that had been obtained by the Russian govt. He can't get a gold star for honesty and respect after admitting this was what he was trying to do. The fact that the Russian lawyer may not have proven to be what he thought does not change what he admits he was trying to do.

They (the Trump family) believe a big enough portion of America is that stupid. I believe they are right.
 
  • Like
Reactions: IUPaterade724
Like the other secret lied-about meetings with Russian operatives, this meeting was entirely innocent:

Screenshot_50.png
Because Junior thought the meeting was going to be to get dirt from a Russian-govt-affiliated attorney about Hillary. Junior doesn't deny this was the purpose.

Instead, Junior said the meeting was a waste of time because the attorney didn't have the information he was expecting to get.

It's like a hypothetical guy who tries to rob a bank, walks into the bank with a weapon and demands money but doesn't get any. Would you believe a guy like that if he said he didn't try to rob the bank?
 
  • Like
Reactions: DrHoops
Jared listed it in his new, revised, latest report of foreign contacts.

It does seem like Jr. is no better about thinking before shooting off his mouth than Daddy is.
So, is Jared throwing Junior under the bus?
 
Get a grip.

Opposition research is not treason.
Colluding with Panama to get nudie photos is not treason.
Yawn f'n yawn.


Either show me voting machine hacking or move on.
Do you care about dishonesty in the White House or just whether the White House was involved in or knew about hacking/vote tampering?
 
Do you care about dishonesty in the White House or just whether the White House was involved in or knew about hacking/vote tampering?
No, he doesn't. At least so long as the party he definitely isn't a member of and definitely didn't vote for just happens to be in power. Quite the coincidence, really.
 
Here's my (non-expert) understanding of this particular part of campaign law:

DTJ says that she actually had nothing to share, and it was a pretext for trying to talk about other issues. If that's true, then he did not receive anything of value, which is the easier part of that crime to prove. He could in theory have still broken the law if he solicited information, but since the email doesn't actually show solicitation, prosecutors would need testimony from someone in the room to determine whether or not there is a crime to prosecute.

Obviously, common sense says there is too much shady stuff going on for there not to be chargeable federal offenses down there somewhere, but if DTJ doesn't face charges for violating campaign law, that will be why.
But he received a meeting. Doesn't that count as having value even if you accept the rest of it?
 
Do you care about dishonesty in the White House or just whether the White House was involved in or knew about hacking/vote tampering?

I'd prefer honesty, but I'm no longer naive enough to expect it.

I'd prefer we create jobs and kill ISIS, but the Partisans won't let that happen. Politics is more important right now.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT