itsbaddude wrote:
So he went to a meeting with a bunch of people. Is he suppose to know everyone at that meeting? How do you know some guy at some party you attended is not a Russian spy?
Donny Junior is a lying piece of garbage, that's what this shows.
Because if Hillary was president and going through the same thing you would still say nothing to see here.
pop_pop!_v2.2.1 wrote:
Kung Pow wrote:requires that two or more people conspired to actually commit a particular crime (regardless of whether they carried out said crime).
So, three of the most senior people in the campaign meeting about Russian intel is not conspiracy?
That is correct. Plainly spoken, conspiracy in a legal context means that two or more people have worked together to plan to break a law. If you reread my previous post from which you lifted this quote, you will note that the law which potentially most applies here and may have been broken concerns foreigners providing something of value in concert with an election. However, there is no current legal consensus on whether dirt on Hillary constitutes something of value.
For sure, I am sympathetic to the essence of your question. But strictly speaking, it's currently unclear whether the law is.
exthrower wrote:
just might be rojo wrote:Let me start by saying, I didn't vote for Trump. Despite what people say, I'm not some conservative whacko.
That being said, I can't turn on a politics show without hearing about Trump and Russians . It's been going on for 8 months.
The thing I don't get is why I'm supposed to care. Let's take this most recent scandal. People are outraged that Donald Trump Jr met with a person who said they had dirt on Hilary Clinton - dirt that came from high up in Russia.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it turns out there was no dirt.
But can an objective person tell me why if there was dirt it would have been bad if he had actually gotten the dirty from a person who had gotten it from the Russians?
I've heard Tim Kaine - who ran for VP - say it was "potentially treasonous". Why? It seems to me to be the opposite of treason. If the Russians had dirt on Clinton, wouldn't it be good if we found out about it before the election because if she got elected they could easily blackmail her?
What am I missing? I don't think anything.
I just think this country is in such a state that the partisans on both sides often don't think logically.
You nailed it bub....
your point is that aiding a hostile nation as it subverts democracy, breaks up alliances and spreads fake news...is...is....fine?
Tell me this...are you opposed to the law against foreign contributions to campaigns? And are you opposed to the Constitution where it bans emoluments - receiving gifts from foreign nations?
Learning wrote:
Why does this reasoning make sense. Trump was already set for life, as was his family. Hillary was a whore who sold herself out and Bill got big bucks to give speeches in Russia for big dollars. They were the compromised!
Hillary sold 20% of uranium supplies to Putin. Now libs will tell you that has been debunked but even the uber liberal NY Times stands behind that story.
.
As I'm not American it's just fun for me to read the remarkably stupid things Trump supporters write. Not only did Hillary not personally sell any uranium to Russia, but, can't any part of you see the massive logical problem you have if that is upsetting to you? Is Russia bad or not? How can you be ok with the Trump campaign colluding with Russia and Russia clearly wanting Trump to be your president, yet you have a problem with Russia purchasing Canadian uranium mines which was given the ok by the US (not just Hillary, many US politicians signed off on it).
I know you are an idiot, I get that, but just pick a position and stick with it. If you believe Russia is bad, and on that basis you want to make Hillary bad because she was one of many American politicians who signed off on a deal that allowed Russia to buy a Canadian Uranium mine, then stick with Russia being bad. How can having Russia, who is bad, wanting and helping Trump to become your president be a good thing to you?
Anyway, I know thinking isn't something you do, so I've just wasted my time, but, one day you ought to give it a try.
remarakable stupidity wrote:
Learning wrote:Why does this reasoning make sense. Trump was already set for life, as was his family. Hillary was a whore who sold herself out and Bill got big bucks to give speeches in Russia for big dollars. They were the compromised!
Hillary sold 20% of uranium supplies to Putin. Now libs will tell you that has been debunked but even the uber liberal NY Times stands behind that story.
.
As I'm not American it's just fun for me to read the remarkably stupid things Trump supporters write. Not only did Hillary not personally sell any uranium to Russia, but, can't any part of you see the massive logical problem you have if that is upsetting to you? Is Russia bad or not? How can you be ok with the Trump campaign colluding with Russia and Russia clearly wanting Trump to be your president, yet you have a problem with Russia purchasing Canadian uranium mines which was given the ok by the US (not just Hillary, many US politicians signed off on it).
I know you are an idiot, I get that, but just pick a position and stick with it. If you believe Russia is bad, and on that basis you want to make Hillary bad because she was one of many American politicians who signed off on a deal that allowed Russia to buy a Canadian Uranium mine, then stick with Russia being bad. How can having Russia, who is bad, wanting and helping Trump to become your president be a good thing to you?
Anyway, I know thinking isn't something you do, so I've just wasted my time, but, one day you ought to give it a try.
Sadly we letsrun Americans are among this country's brightest and most educated.
I receive an email telling me an agent from Russia wants to meet with me secretly and give me highly sensitive information about my dad's opponent because this country wants my dad to win. This country has a long history of nefarious intelligence dealings. I get the campaign director for my dad and my brother-in-law, who is highly placed in the campaign, and none of us think to ask who will be at the meeting?Does the sound likely to you?
itsbaddude wrote:
So he went to a meeting with a bunch of people. Is he suppose to know everyone at that meeting? How do you know some guy at some party you attended is not a Russian spy?
dffffff wrote:Turns out Donny Junior lied again. There was an ex-Soviet intelligence guy at the meeting:
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/russian-lawyer-brought-ex-soviet-counter-intelligence-officer-trump-team-n782851?cid=sm_npd_nn_tw_ma
Why didn't Jr. mention that Akhmetshin was at the meeting. (He didn't feel it was important?)
itsbaddude wrote:
Wait, are you saying the democrats never met with Russians? What nonsense are you talking about? Why would the state department issue a visa to "one of the countries enemies"?
you probably are rojo wrote:Let me start by saying, I don't believe that you didn't vote for Trump.
Ok. Now that's out of the way, your main question is why are you supposed to care?
Really? You can't put your partisan politics aside for just a moment and ask yourself if you think its a good idea to meet with one of the countries enemies about something with potential ramifications towards our presidential election? Really?
You don't think maybe... just maybe... the go to move here is to go to the FBI and say... hey look... my pops would like to win this election and all but it's probably not my place to check this out... I mean they are either trying to meddle with our election or there is some really bad news out there about my pop's opponent? Why don't you guys figure it out?
Does that help you at all or are you just too wrapped up in wanting to believe that this is all fake news and your side could do no wrong to just not see it???
...between you and I... if HC were president and her people did this, I would think that is problem too. I wouldn't be asking why should I be outraged.
Oh, and, yes, it should be "country's"... a mistake.
exthrower wrote:
just might be rojo wrote:Let me start by saying, I didn't vote for Trump. Despite what people say, I'm not some conservative whacko.
That being said, I can't turn on a politics show without hearing about Trump and Russians . It's been going on for 8 months.
The thing I don't get is why I'm supposed to care. Let's take this most recent scandal. People are outraged that Donald Trump Jr met with a person who said they had dirt on Hilary Clinton - dirt that came from high up in Russia.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it turns out there was no dirt.
But can an objective person tell me why if there was dirt it would have been bad if he had actually gotten the dirty from a person who had gotten it from the Russians?
I've heard Tim Kaine - who ran for VP - say it was "potentially treasonous". Why? It seems to me to be the opposite of treason. If the Russians had dirt on Clinton, wouldn't it be good if we found out about it before the election because if she got elected they could easily blackmail her?
What am I missing? I don't think anything.
I just think this country is in such a state that the partisans on both sides often don't think logically.
You nailed it bub....
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Tweedledumb & Tweedledumber
Because it's illegal
nicole tenpenny wrote:
exthrower wrote:You nailed it bub....
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Tweedledumb & Tweedledumber
Idiots like you will keep Trump in office in 2020.
This Russia nonsense is just a way for the Democrats and corrupt establishment Republicans to obstruct the administration and try and turn the people against the president. CNN and other very fake news sites have jumped at many so called "news stories" too early before having to quietly retract them due to factual inaccuracies. There has been no evidence of the president colluding with the Russian government, and the only collusion that went on during the election season was crooked Hilary colliding with CNN to rig the debates.
Typical liberal wrote:
There has been no evidence of the president colluding with the Russian government
Oh now the test is "the president," I see. Campaign or administration surely don't count. He has to do the act himself.
That's cool. We'll probably get there.
asdfsafsadfsdf wrote:
Typical liberal wrote:There has been no evidence of the president colluding with the Russian government
Oh now the test is "the president," I see. Campaign or administration surely don't count. He has to do the act himself.
That's cool. We'll probably get there.
If the president knew of others colluding in his administration they would be gone. There is no evidence of anyone in the campaign colluding with the Russian government. This investigation has been ongoing for months and the best evidence of collusion is Trump Jr. meeting with a Russian lawyer. Trump Jr. released all of his emails about it and there was no act of "treason" committed. Campaign members meet with many different people trying to promote their ideas to the candidate and this meeting was no different. At least Trump Jr. was honest enough to release his emails unlike crooked Hillary who deleted 30,000 of her emails!
The problem is that the "dirt" would be from the Russian government who got exclusive access to the info from an illegal hacking campaign. Trump was told what the source of the information was. He happily took the meeting. We don't know what happened in the meeting. But are you really going to say there was no dirt because Donald Trump jr said there was no dirt? We know that the Russian government successfully hacked the DNC at about that point in time. Days later Trump said he was going to give a "major speech" about what he knew about Hillary Clinton. Russia made clear that they wanted something in exchange for the information. Knowing that, the Trump campaign took the meeting anyway. You would think somebody in the Trump campaign would have come to their senses and walked away. Plausibly that happened in the meeting. But the fact that the meeting took place at all tells me nobody did come to their senses. The fact that Trump and Fox news do not see any distinction between what the Hillary campaign did in Ukraine and what Trump is doing is further evidence that they broke the law. Its like they are smoking their own dope. Its the same thing that Nixon did. In his isolated world he started believing his own rationalizations that what he was doing wasn't illegal.
just might be rojo wrote:
Let me start by saying, I didn't vote for Trump. Despite what people say, I'm not some conservative whacko.
That being said, I can't turn on a politics show without hearing about Trump and Russians . It's been going on for 8 months.
The thing I don't get is why I'm supposed to care. Let's take this most recent scandal. People are outraged that Donald Trump Jr met with a person who said they had dirt on Hilary Clinton - dirt that came from high up in Russia.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it turns out there was no dirt.
But can an objective person tell me why if there was dirt it would have been bad if he had actually gotten the dirty from a person who had gotten it from the Russians?
I've heard Tim Kaine - who ran for VP - say it was "potentially treasonous". Why? It seems to me to be the opposite of treason. If the Russians had dirt on Clinton, wouldn't it be good if we found out about it before the election because if she got elected they could easily blackmail her?
What am I missing? I don't think anything.
I just think this country is in such a state that the partisans on both sides often don't think logically.
Typical liberal wrote:
At least Trump Jr. was honest enough to release his emails unlike crooked Hillary who deleted 30,000 of her emails!
Bush the Shrub deleted 22 MILLION emails.
Typical liberal wrote:
At least Trump Jr. was honest enough to release his emails unlike crooked Hillary who deleted 30,000 of her emails!
The Trump administration is very good at being transparent the moment they get caught.
eric a blair wrote:
#2 is the blackmail opps this whole thing opens. The Russians know what happned. They can let Jr or Sr know that 'if you do what we say, we'll send a letter to CNN with evidence of your collusion with us.'
we don't want that.
I'd say this is probably #1. Junior and the rest of the Trump admin. jumped headfirst into a situation where they could have been (let's be honest, ARE) subject to blackmail by a hostile government.
Typical liberal wrote:
If the president knew of others colluding in his administration they would be gone.
Suckers gonna suck.
This meeting is only getting attention now because it may have been a set up.