Can someone tell me why we should be outraged if Donald Trump Jr actually had gotten dirt from the Russians?

It wouldn't have been treason. People irrationally hate it if a US official collaborates with Russia, they are stuck in the old days of thinking that we are at war with Russia and thinking that Russia is the enemy when they obviously are not a current enemy.

Because it's a slippery slope. Once you start colluding, you don't stop.

They dangled it out there, and he bit. Or at least started to bite.

Bottomline: Junior has no chance in 2024 to be become #46.

If anybody has information about my top elected official, which we ought to know, please let us know.

Thank you,

The Public

Some context is pretty important here.

It is quite clear that Russia worked hard to help Trump get elected. I have no idea what the actual effect of those efforts was, but the effort is firmly established and is the basis for the investigation. I think it's obvious why Russian influence on the election process is a cause of concern.

By itself, that doesn't make Trump guilty of anything, though it would probably lead to a constitutional crisis if it were determined that the Russian interference was enough to actually swing the election in his favor (I doubt anyone could ever prove that unless there was tampering with actual votes, which seems unlikely).

But now it turns out that the Trump campaign was at least trying to collude with that same foreign government? It's a big damn problem.

just might be rojo wrote:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it turns out there was no dirt.

You know this how? Because the guy who got caught and changed his story 3 times said so? Doesn't seem like the most trustworthy fella, does he?

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.

I know libs are reaching but this is the very reason this is not the "democratic" party. The election happened, the democrats lost and they can't accept it. It's called an election and their candidate lost. Deal with it. My Facebook page is full of ex-runner has-beens in their 50s who bitch because someone woman isn't their leader now. (How's that for being a "man"?) I'm 22 and hope I never become the p*ssy I see what these old guys have become.

Btw, I was a liberal and did hope Hillary won but this media coverage and bias has opened my eyes.

Your right on target, the whole "Russia" angle the media taking is bizarre at best.

Hypothetical - what if a Canadian government employee had caught the Donald being vulgar towards women on video, would it have been treasonous if a member member of the Clinton campaign meet with them to get a hold of it and release to the media?

Also it's not like foreign politicians stay neutral all the time anyways, Hillary was more than happy to advertise her endorsements from Western European politicians. It's not like it was Trumps fault those endorsing him also had dirt on Hillary. If you don't do dirty things you don't have to worry about anything being revealed.

Whether someone should be outraged at this particular point in time is more a matter of individual moral standards, since insufficient evidence has been presented thus far to the American public to support the notion that a crime has been committed by Trump Jr. or others in choosing to meet with the Russian attorney.

As one example, the New York Times acknowledges that the law that would most likely apply in this situation based on what we know so far is Section 30121 of Title 52, which essentially prohibits a foreigner from donating money or anything else "of value" in connection with an election, or for someone to solicit this of a foreigner. This is the crux of the issue: is dirt on Hillary considered something of value under this law? The experts are divided on this, and there appears to be no real legal precedent that would answer this.

Furthermore, the charge of conspiracy - the likely most appropriate charge in this matter, if indeed one applies - requires that two or more people conspired to actually commit a particular crime (regardless of whether they carried out said crime). Therefore, if it is ultimately determined that the Russians' dirt on Hillary is not considered something "of value", then it would seem difficult for a charge of conspiracy to stick unless another law besides Section 30121 of Title 52 has been broken... and the events published by the media so far do not suggest this.

What a coincidence that the Fusion GPS founder is "suddenly" not going to testify before SJC.

You aren't answering the mu question. Even if it's illegal, he's asking why should we care? It seems like it would be a good thing to know that the dirt existed as HRC could be blackmailed.

Also, didn't the Russian govt create a fake dossier on TRUMP that the FBI used? How is that any different?

STFU you witless fraud; Hillary was quite unlikable (except to certain women who themselves have experienced excessive sexism) but no

"liberal"

who would identify as such supported her and they certainly don't post in THIS cesspool.

If you'd said "Bernie" you might have been at least marginally believable...

a$$wipe.

just might be rojo wrote:

You aren't answering the mu question. Even if it's illegal, he's asking why should we care? It seems like it would be a good thing to know that the dirt existed as HRC could be blackmailed.

Your logic can be summed up as follows: It's OK for Trump to do a naughty thing if it's the only way to uncover Hillary's naughty thing.

This is impossible to know at best, and flies in the face of justice at worst. We have no idea yet whether actual dirt on Hillary exists, and if it does, how bad it is. But if indeed the Russians had this dirt, why would they offer it to Trump Jr.? What good does it do for the Russians to give away their blackmail leverage by advising the OTHER campaign that they have it? If anything, one would expect the Russians to help Hillary win so that they could actually make use of the blackmail. And in the other scenario, if the Russians just wanted to burn Hillary for the fun of it with actual dirt on her, they wouldn't need Trump Jr. or anybody else to do it. They could simply leave a breadcrumb trail for the media & intelligence agencies to find and Hillary would be nailed quickly enough.

So frankly, it doesn't pass the smell test to suggest that history will show that Trump Jr. did us a favor by somehow bringing supposed dirt on Hillary via the Russians to light, while possibly conspiring to break election laws in the process himself. The scenarios just don't add up.

It should be increasingly clear that the Russians are laughing at us to our face. We are chasing our political tail thanks to them.

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???

Потому что мы будем использовать нашу пропагандистскую машину, чтобы захватить вашу страну. Лучше быстро изучить язык

Yes its clear that you did vote for Trump and its likely you are Rojo (I agree with previous poster)Now let me answer your question with some questions for you to answer:Would you be concerned if you knew that a meeting was set up with an agent from adversarial country which had a very coordinated and illegal intelligence operation that included publishing stolen emails and disseminating false information with the purpose of having their preferred candidate elected? Would you be concerned if this secret meeting included the candidates son, son-in-law (Kushner), and the Campaign director and that each one lied and falsified information indicating that this secret meeting didn't take place?Would you be concerned if no one would tell you what was discussed at the meeting but only to hear nothing was discussed or that it was "nonsensical"?Would you be concerned if you knew it was an illegal meeting?Would you be concerned if you knew a former Russian intelligence agent was also at the meeting?

Democratic members of the House Judiciary Committee sent a letter to Attorney General Jeff Sessions on Wednesday asking why the Department of Justice settled a major money-laundering case involving a real-estate company owned by the son of a powerful Russian government official whose lawyer met with Donald Trump Jr. last year.

Trump Jr., the president's eldest son, on Tuesday tweeted an email chain from June 2016 in which he entertained accepting damaging information from a "Russian government attorney" about Hillary Clinton as part of the Kremlin's support for his father's campaign.

That attorney, Natalia Veselnitskaya, represents the family of Pyotr Katsyv, the former vice governor of the Moscow region, whose son, Denis, owns the real-estate company Prevezon. The DOJ had been investigating whether Prevezon laundered millions of dollars through New York City real estate when the case was unexpectedly settled two days before going to trial in May.

"Last summer, Donald Trump Jr. met with a Kremlin-connected attorney in an attempt to obtain information 'that would incriminate Hillary,'" the Democrats wrote, citing the emails he published. "Earlier this year, on May 12, 2017, the Department of Justice made an abrupt decision to settle a money laundering case being handled by that same attorney in the Southern District of New York.

"We write with some concern that the two events may be connected — and that the Department may have settled the case at a loss for the United States in order to obscure the underlying facts."

The Prevezon case garnered high-profile attention, given its ties to a $230 million Russian tax-fraud scheme and the Russian lawyer Sergei Magnitsky, whose suspicious death aroused international media attention and spurred the passage of the Magnitsky Act in 2012. Denis Katsyv and Veselnitskaya have become the face of Moscow's lobbying efforts against the Magnitsky Act in recent years.

Democrats now want to know whether Veselnitskaya was "involved at any point in the settlement negotiations," and they have asked Sessions to provide the committee "with the prosecution files and any other explanatory materials related to the settlement."

They also want to know whether there was "any contact between President Trump, White House personnel, the Trump family, or the Trump campaign with the Department of Justice" regarding Prevezon, and whether Sessions discussed the case "with anyone associated with the transition team," or with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak, while he was being considered for attorney general.

Both the US government and Prevezon claimed victory in the wake of the settlement.

A spokesman for the US attorney's office told Business Insider at the time that the settlement saved taxpayers the expense of a trial, and he reiterated that the settlement was for "many multiples more" than the amount in fraud proceeds the government alleged were laundered through the New York real-estate purchases. He characterized it as a "very good outcome" for the government.

But Prevezon described the settlement as proof that the company had done nothing wrong. It said it considered the offer from prosecutors "too good to refuse."

"It was a surprise," John Dillard, a spokesman for Prevezon's attorneys, told Business Insider at the time. "We were getting ready for opening statements and fully expected to try the case. In fact, we were looking forward to it.

"We reluctantly agreed to accept the government's offer when it became clear that the fine proposed was no more than we would have spent fully litigating the case, and that no admission of guilt, forfeiture, or continued seizure of any assets was required," Dillard added. "Essentially, the offer was too good to refuse

Your friend comes up to you and says "Hey man, your girlfriend is cheating on you." You vociferously deny. She would never! Then the New York Times publishes here Tinder account, which consists of five scantily clad pictures of her and her girlfriends and a profile section that reads something like "Heyyyyyyy guys! I'm here looking for a great time :) xoxoxox."

Now, is this proof she is cheating on you? No, it's not.

Are the chances good that she is? Yes, they are.

Are you a complete fool who continues to deny it? Almost certainly.

In Trump's own word - 'America First' - not my campaign.

It makes us like weak and petty in the public eye. It also now give Russian leverage against the Trump administration. Its not complicated.

And as what others have posted there is about 0% chance you did NOT vote for the orange buffoon.