-
@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. -
@Catogrande said in US Politics:
@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.
Again, I don't think anyone has said that there should not be a thorough investigation. The caveat for that obviously is that there are clear terms of reference for the investigation, not carte blanche to check the underwear draws of everyone who might have been in the same room as Donald Trump since he was born.
IMHO Trump and his team have every right to be outraged about this and express that outrage, particularly towards discredited news outlets. These accusations are tarnishing his entire presidency and questioning his legitimacy. Even his most ardent critics know this Russian thing is bullshit yet they'll ride it for all it's worth because they're still butt hurt about the election result.
At the end of the day he won the election fair and square. People just have to get the fuck over it and move on with their lives. That's how democracy works.
-
@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:
@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.
What are you talking about? Trump Jr set up the meeting thinking he was getting
Russian Sourced Documentspublicly available oppo research and it just turned out to be some lady wanting to talk about Adoption policy. Trump Jr has repeatedly lied about the meeting and has only come clean because the NYT was going to out him. Theres NOTHING conspiratorial about that, no matter how you want to paint it.
It amazes me that you would continue to wilfully believe what ever you are told from these characters despite the lies that have been exposed in order to hide the truth from us. Seriously. -
This post is deleted!
-
The fact that US politicians are now calling for Trump jnr to be killed for this meeting is illustrative of the stupidity. Treason lol
-
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@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.You're making stuff up. I haven't shared my beliefs, what I have done is ask questions and challenge your assertion that there is no information.
-
@Frank said in US Politics:
@phoenetia
How do you think the NY Times got the emails?Obama? Clinton? FBI? CIA? Dunno mate but thats not the story here.
The story is the Trump administration repeatedly denied any meetings with Russia and now we know they have not only lied, they have also sought to engage who they thought were Russian representatives in order to use Russian sourced intel that could have been used to influence the election.If Trump Jr were a career politician, I'd expect he would step down. He still might, but who can tell with this administration.
US Politics