-
@Catogrande
Russian tried to influence the election. (as they have tried to /influence/meddle in every election, as will have China and as will have the US to any country they can)Okay, case closed. Sanctions whatever.
No, no , no let's spread innuendo with NO EVIDENCE that Trump and/or his team were in cahoots with them.
The concern that Russia intervened is fake. It is being used to tar the Trump Presidency with (did I mention) no evidence [edit:they had anything to do with it. ]Which is the real purpose of the liberal MSM focus.
-
@Frank said in US Politics:
@Catogrande
Russian tried to influence the election. (as they have tried to /influence/meddle in every election, as will have China and as will have the US to any country they can)Okay, case closed. Sanctions whatever.
No, no , no let's spread innuendo with NO EVIDENCE that Trump and/or his team were in cahoots with them.
The concern that Russia intervened is fake. It is being used to tar the Trump Presidency with (did I mention) no evidence. Which is the real purpose of the liberal MSM focus.
Yep, that particular point has been stated time and time and time and time and time again. Yet instead of actually responding to these particular points, we again get the question of whether there should be an investigation.
As far as I know, not a single person here has said there should be no investigation. That is and has never been the matter of contention.
-
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@reprobate said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback so you think it is fine for a US political campaign to take information from the russian government?
Of course. What is the crime or immorality in receiving information under these circumstances???
If it turned out the information was illegal or classified, then he should report it and not use it. IN this case there was no information, it was a hoax on behalf of people out to get Trump.How do you know there was no information? If there was no information, why did Trump Jr lie for months and only come clean now?
What's changed? -
@phoenetia said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@reprobate said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback so you think it is fine for a US political campaign to take information from the russian government?
Of course. What is the crime or immorality in receiving information under these circumstances???
If it turned out the information was illegal or classified, then he should report it and not use it. IN this case there was no information, it was a hoax on behalf of people out to get Trump.How do you know there was no information? If there was no information, why did Trump Jr lie for months and only come clean now?
What's changed?It isnt up to me to prove a negative. There is no information until there is proof otherwise. All parties at the meeting have said nothing of importance was discussed... and def nothing about Clinton.
And the lawyer was not representing the Russian govt. -
The meeting was set-up by Fusion to attempt to get FISA authorization to surveil the Trump team.
-
The Russian lawyer somehow got into the US after her visa had expired.
Chuck Grassley today -
Notably, Veselnitskaya’s declaration stated that her parole was set to expire on January 7, 2016, and that she had requested an extension but was denied on January 4, 2016. 10 Indeed, she noted: “Prior to [January 7, 2016], I will have to leave the United States.”11 However, according to news reports, many months later Ms. Veselnitskaya allegedly met with Donald Trump Jr., Jared Kushner, and Paul Manafort at Trump Tower in New York City on June 9, 2016. It is unclear how she was still in the country for that meeting despite being denied a visa beforehand and her parole purportedly expiring on January 7, 2016. This raises serious questions about whether the Obama administration authorized her to remain in the country, and if so, why?
-
This is her pictured behind the Obama Ambassador to Russia – 8 Days after Trump Jr. Mtg.
-
The email sent to Don Jr. was worded in such a way so that the language would trigger the authorization of a FISA warrant. It was too specific -
“government support”, “The Russian government attorney”, “ultra sensitive” “very high level and sensitive information”, “The Russian government attorney”. -
The meeting occurred in June of 2016. In June of 2016, the Obama govt, made a request to the FISA court to surveil Trump
-
Trump hating John McCain is all over this today. Claiming it will be the first of many more shoes to drop. Guess who ultimately the Fusion piss dossier to the FBI ? It was John McCain.
-
Here is the lawyer taking apicture in McCain's office
-
This lawyer is also very anti-Trump.Here is her Facebook archive.
-
Mueller might have something to investigate after all......
Let me repeat myself -
The meeting was a setup. The original intent was to entrap the Trump campaign. It failed. Nevertheless, the Obama administration used it as a pretext to try to use the American intelligence apparatus to spy on the Trump campaign, while pretending to be looking into Russian interference. Thus, the "Obama wiretapping" actually happened.(beginning in October as the June FISA application was denied) This is confirmed, and probably illegal, but whatever. So the media is now literally reporting that a failed election-time Democrat plot IS PROOF of a Russian conspiracy. They're doing this and basically praying nobody does a background check on the people who actually set the meeting up (because they're directly tied to the Clintons, the Obama administration, and Fusion GPS), or connects the dots between the facts:- The "Russian lawyer" didn't work for the Russian government.
- She was denied a visa.
- She still magically appeared in the USA just long enough to meet Don Jr (after cold-calling him).
- Don Jr. walked knowing she was bullshit.
- The "Russian lawyer" then sat in on congressional meetings with Obama’s Ambassador to Russia, Michael McFaul
Assuming this gets probed, guess what is going to be investigated first? Who let her into the country?
Anyone want to take a $20 bet it was an Obama administration official?
Even if you ignore the glaringly obvious fact Veselnitskaya was a plant carefully (and perhaps illegally) imported for the sole purpose of wagging the dog and inventing an election-time narrative, the base argument is still
"DONALD TRUMP JR TRIED TO DO SOMETHING WE DEMOCRATS ACTUALLY DID WHEN WE MET WITH THE UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT TO TRY AND SWAY THE ELECTION BY SPREADING FAKE NEWS ABOUT MANAFORT!"
-
-
@Rancid-Schnitzel Thanks for a reply along the lines of what I was asking. You may be right about no-one saying there should not be an investigation and I certainly can't be bothered to trawl back through this particular to try and prove otherwise as it was not my point.
I get your first point also but the blokes on here that are not Trumpsters have not (to my knowledge) been saying that he or his team are guilty just that there should be an investigation and that it should be thorough. Moreover that such an investigation should not be compromised by his team shouting fake news or conspiracy.
-
@Baron-Silas-Greenback Agreed, that's reaching, but why put yourself in such a position. At least get some underling to do it.
-
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@Catogrande said in US Politics:
A question for all you Trumpsters on here in regard to the investigation about the possible Russian interference in the election. Simple question and hopefully simple answers.
Do you think that the allegations should have been investigated?
To what level? Your question is so vague as to be silly. And it is most definitely not simple.
For such a vague, silly question, you would have saved more time simply typing yes or no.
BTW I can't see how a yes or no answer to a question can really be vague?
-
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@phoenetia said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@reprobate said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback so you think it is fine for a US political campaign to take information from the russian government?
Of course. What is the crime or immorality in receiving information under these circumstances???
If it turned out the information was illegal or classified, then he should report it and not use it. IN this case there was no information, it was a hoax on behalf of people out to get Trump.How do you know there was no information? If there was no information, why did Trump Jr lie for months and only come clean now?
What's changed?It isnt up to me to prove a negative. There is no information until there is proof otherwise. All parties at the meeting have said nothing of importance was discussed... and def nothing about Clinton.
And the lawyer was not representing the Russian govt.Ok so heres what we have proof of so far :
- Goldstone wanted to exchange official documents and information that would incriminate Clinton and was "part of Russia and its government's support for Mr Trump"
- Don Jr was elated and suggested a call to discuss further
- A meeting was then organised where the information could be shared with Don Jr, Manafort and Kushner
- Details of the meeting are broken and Don Jr firstly claims the meeting was just about adoptions, then changes his story to "oh yeah and there was the matter of that Clinton intel that never eventuated and was the primary reason I agreed to the meeting in the first place"
All that being said, because we dont have evidence of the information, the information doesnt exist as far as you're concerned and you seem quite happy to take Don Jr at his word on this despite his lies and change of story. Sure, ok.
I find it astonishing that we've gone from:
"We definitely had no meetings setup with Russians during the campaign to discuss policy or the election"
to
"We forgot about some meetings with Russians but there was no colluding nor did we talk about policy or the election"
to
"We forgot about that one meeing where we talked about policy during the election"
to
"We tried to collude but the Russians couldnt deliver anything (btw the lawyer didnt represent the Russian government despite us thinking otherwise!) and it wouldnt have been illegal anyway and we did talk about some policy despite not being interested in it so everythings sweet mmmm kay?"Whats next?
"We did collude, we talked about policy, we used the intel but theres no proof that it actually made a difference to the election result"? -
@Frank For your conspiracy theory to be right either Rob Goldstone or the Russian connection need to be working for Obama as they brokered the meeting. Which one is it - the Russophile publicist and family friend or the Russian Order of Honour holding oligarch?
-
I will grant phoenetia and Calf that my theory is a bit wild and I have probably pulled in too much. But I strongly believe there has been serious fuckery with Trump and his campaign by his opponents.
I will make a criticism of Trump and his team.
When you realize you have been surveilled and there are a million and one leakers, get all your info' on any Russian meeting all at once. This is dumb by them to not declare everything in one go and allow this drip feeding. And D. Trump Jr. should have been fully transparent from the start. If there have been any other meetings. State them now !!!How did the NY Times get Donald Trump Jr's emails? Apparently they were going to release them?
Has that been answered?
-
@Frank said in US Politics:
I will make a criticism of Trump and his team.
When you realize you have been surveilled and there are a million and one leakers, get all your info' on any Russian meeting all at once. This is dumb by them to not declare everything in one go and allow this drip feeding. And D. Trump Jr. should have been fully transparent from the start. If there have been any other meetings. State them now !!!This is the whole point about why an investigation is needed in the first place.
In simple terms it is known that there was Russian cyber interference. It is also known that Trump associates 'forgot' to declare Russian contact even in security vetting. That doesn't prove anything but it sure raises questions that need answers especially given the timings of the 'forgotten' meetings.
Once you have an investigation then the questions get wider and the digging gets deeper.
It wouldn't be a witch hunt if these things were remembered and explained in the first place. They would still have been checked out away from the public eye but it wouldn't be such a story. -
@Catogrande said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@Catogrande said in US Politics:
A question for all you Trumpsters on here in regard to the investigation about the possible Russian interference in the election. Simple question and hopefully simple answers.
Do you think that the allegations should have been investigated?
To what level? Your question is so vague as to be silly. And it is most definitely not simple.
For such a vague, silly question, you would have saved more time simply typing yes or no.
BTW I can't see how a yes or no answer to a question can really be vague?
Because it wasn't a yes no question. Do you think if you commit a crime you should go to jail? Yes or no?
-
@phoenetia said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@phoenetia said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@reprobate said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback so you think it is fine for a US political campaign to take information from the russian government?
Of course. What is the crime or immorality in receiving information under these circumstances???
If it turned out the information was illegal or classified, then he should report it and not use it. IN this case there was no information, it was a hoax on behalf of people out to get Trump.How do you know there was no information? If there was no information, why did Trump Jr lie for months and only come clean now?
What's changed?It isnt up to me to prove a negative. There is no information until there is proof otherwise. All parties at the meeting have said nothing of importance was discussed... and def nothing about Clinton.
And the lawyer was not representing the Russian govt.Ok so heres what we have proof of so far :
- Goldstone wanted to exchange official documents and information that would incriminate Clinton and was "part of Russia and its government's support for Mr Trump"
- Don Jr was elated and suggested a call to discuss further
- A meeting was then organised where the information could be shared with Don Jr, Manafort and Kushner
- Details of the meeting are broken and Don Jr firstly claims the meeting was just about adoptions, then changes his story to "oh yeah and there was the matter of that Clinton intel that never eventuated and was the primary reason I agreed to the meeting in the first place"
All that being said, because we dont have evidence of the information, the information doesnt exist as far as you're concerned and you seem quite happy to take Don Jr at his word on this despite his lies and change of story. Sure, ok.
I find it astonishing that we've gone from:
"We definitely had no meetings setup with Russians during the campaign to discuss policy or the election"
to
"We forgot about some meetings with Russians but there was no colluding nor did we talk about policy or the election"
to
"We forgot about that one meeing where we talked about policy during the election"
to
"We tried to collude but the Russians couldnt deliver anything (btw the lawyer didnt represent the Russian government despite us thinking otherwise!) and it wouldnt have been illegal anyway and we did talk about some policy despite not being interested in it so everythings sweet mmmm kay?"Whats next?
"We did collude, we talked about policy, we used the intel but theres no proof that it actually made a difference to the election result"?No. Because the lawyer has said no information was exchanged. So your argument falls apart at the first hurdle.
-
@phoenetia said in US Politics:
@Frank Thats quite an assortment of loose threads. Crazy story though.
So was Goldstone in on this or was he misled by Emin? Or was Emin misled by his Dad? Or was it the Russian Crown Prosecutor?Lol.... now you are sceptical of an assortment of loose threads....
-
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@phoenetia said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@phoenetia said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@reprobate said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback so you think it is fine for a US political campaign to take information from the russian government?
Of course. What is the crime or immorality in receiving information under these circumstances???
If it turned out the information was illegal or classified, then he should report it and not use it. IN this case there was no information, it was a hoax on behalf of people out to get Trump.How do you know there was no information? If there was no information, why did Trump Jr lie for months and only come clean now?
What's changed?It isnt up to me to prove a negative. There is no information until there is proof otherwise. All parties at the meeting have said nothing of importance was discussed... and def nothing about Clinton.
And the lawyer was not representing the Russian govt.Ok so heres what we have proof of so far :
- Goldstone wanted to exchange official documents and information that would incriminate Clinton and was "part of Russia and its government's support for Mr Trump"
- Don Jr was elated and suggested a call to discuss further
- A meeting was then organised where the information could be shared with Don Jr, Manafort and Kushner
- Details of the meeting are broken and Don Jr firstly claims the meeting was just about adoptions, then changes his story to "oh yeah and there was the matter of that Clinton intel that never eventuated and was the primary reason I agreed to the meeting in the first place"
All that being said, because we dont have evidence of the information, the information doesnt exist as far as you're concerned and you seem quite happy to take Don Jr at his word on this despite his lies and change of story. Sure, ok.
I find it astonishing that we've gone from:
"We definitely had no meetings setup with Russians during the campaign to discuss policy or the election"
to
"We forgot about some meetings with Russians but there was no colluding nor did we talk about policy or the election"
to
"We forgot about that one meeing where we talked about policy during the election"
to
"We tried to collude but the Russians couldnt deliver anything (btw the lawyer didnt represent the Russian government despite us thinking otherwise!) and it wouldnt have been illegal anyway and we did talk about some policy despite not being interested in it so everythings sweet mmmm kay?"Whats next?
"We did collude, we talked about policy, we used the intel but theres no proof that it actually made a difference to the election result"?No. Because the lawyer has said no information was exchanged. So your argument falls apart at the first hurdle.
Ah right, because the Russian
GovermentLawyer said so. Got it.
Gee what dumb luck for Don Jr huh? He thought he was colluding with the Russians but turned out just to be a discussion about Adoption policy. Seems like you're backing a winner there mate. -
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@phoenetia said in US Politics:
@Frank Thats quite an assortment of loose threads. Crazy story though.
So was Goldstone in on this or was he misled by Emin? Or was Emin misled by his Dad? Or was it the Russian Crown Prosecutor?Lol.... now you are sceptical of an assortment of loose threads....
Lol... Theres a big difference between being sceptical of Franks conspiracy theory and being sceptical of a proven liar. You get that right?
-
@phoenetia said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@phoenetia said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@phoenetia said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@reprobate said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback so you think it is fine for a US political campaign to take information from the russian government?
Of course. What is the crime or immorality in receiving information under these circumstances???
If it turned out the information was illegal or classified, then he should report it and not use it. IN this case there was no information, it was a hoax on behalf of people out to get Trump.How do you know there was no information? If there was no information, why did Trump Jr lie for months and only come clean now?
What's changed?It isnt up to me to prove a negative. There is no information until there is proof otherwise. All parties at the meeting have said nothing of importance was discussed... and def nothing about Clinton.
And the lawyer was not representing the Russian govt.Ok so heres what we have proof of so far :
- Goldstone wanted to exchange official documents and information that would incriminate Clinton and was "part of Russia and its government's support for Mr Trump"
- Don Jr was elated and suggested a call to discuss further
- A meeting was then organised where the information could be shared with Don Jr, Manafort and Kushner
- Details of the meeting are broken and Don Jr firstly claims the meeting was just about adoptions, then changes his story to "oh yeah and there was the matter of that Clinton intel that never eventuated and was the primary reason I agreed to the meeting in the first place"
All that being said, because we dont have evidence of the information, the information doesnt exist as far as you're concerned and you seem quite happy to take Don Jr at his word on this despite his lies and change of story. Sure, ok.
I find it astonishing that we've gone from:
"We definitely had no meetings setup with Russians during the campaign to discuss policy or the election"
to
"We forgot about some meetings with Russians but there was no colluding nor did we talk about policy or the election"
to
"We forgot about that one meeing where we talked about policy during the election"
to
"We tried to collude but the Russians couldnt deliver anything (btw the lawyer didnt represent the Russian government despite us thinking otherwise!) and it wouldnt have been illegal anyway and we did talk about some policy despite not being interested in it so everythings sweet mmmm kay?"Whats next?
"We did collude, we talked about policy, we used the intel but theres no proof that it actually made a difference to the election result"?No. Because the lawyer has said no information was exchanged. So your argument falls apart at the first hurdle.
Ah right, because the Russian
GovermentLawyer said so. Got it.
Gee what dumb luck for Don Jr huh? He thought he was colluding with the Russians but turned out just to be a discussion about Adoption policy. Seems like you're backing a winner there mate.What are you talking about? Nobody has claimed that there anything about Hilary was actually discussed, except the people after Trump. Everyone at the meeting has denied anything was discussed about Hilary. You can chase the conpiracy theory if you want though.
-
@phoenetia said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@phoenetia said in US Politics:
@Frank Thats quite an assortment of loose threads. Crazy story though.
So was Goldstone in on this or was he misled by Emin? Or was Emin misled by his Dad? Or was it the Russian Crown Prosecutor?Lol.... now you are sceptical of an assortment of loose threads....
Lol... Theres a big difference between being sceptical of Franks conspiracy theory and being sceptical of a proven liar. You get that right?
The main players in Franks theory are also proven liars though...
It is amusing though that you are so keen to dismiss some assorted loose threads as nothing, and instantly believe others assorted loose threads.
US Politics