-
@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.
-
@phoenetia said in US Politics:
@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.
That is the story to many people. Who decides what the story is?
-
@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:
@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.
No it is a fact. There was no I information shared. Based on what EVERYONE at the meeting has said. I know conspiracy theories are running amok from people who want Trump gone. But they are all just noise.
Happy for you to show actual evidence from anyone who attended that they discussed Clinton. But you cannot and will not. -
@phoenetia said in US Politics:
@Frank said in US Politics:
@phoenetia
How do you think the NY Times got the emails?Obama? Clinton? FBI? CIA? Dunno mate but that's not the story here.
I agree Don Jr, should have been fully transparent and the campaign should have been too. They are paying for that now.
The issue of whether Obama/ FBI/CIA were legally surveilling Trump, who is leaking information, and whether the surveillance had a real evidentiary basis beyond the fake piss dossier are real stories areand rather fascinating questions that all of MSM bar Fox are ignoring. If they were being investigated properly, I wouldn't bring them up.
-
@Frank
I stand corrected. The Hill is now looking at one aspect of the story.
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/341788-exclusive-doj-let-russian-lawyer-into-us-before-she-met-with-trumpRecords seem to be missing
"There are no other records in the court file indicating what happened with that request or how Veselnitskaya appeared in the country later that spring." -
@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:
@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.
No it is a fact. There was no I information shared. Based on what EVERYONE at the meeting has said. I know conspiracy theories are running amok from people who want Trump gone. But they are all just noise.
Happy for you to show actual evidence from anyone who attended that they discussed Clinton. But you cannot and will not.Groan. When I said "You're making stuff up" I meant in response to your statement "you are so keen to dismiss some assorted loose threads as nothing, and instantly believe others assorted loose threads" which is why I then said " I haven't shared my beliefs, what I have done is ask questions and challenge your assertion that there is no information.".
-
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@phoenetia said in US Politics:
@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.
That is the story to many people. Who decides what the story is?
I'm sure anytime the Trump administration is caught doing something they shouldnt be doing, Trump fans will want to go after who ever spilled the beans. It must be frustrating to be constantly having ones dirty laundry hung out for all to see.
-
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@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?
Of course it is a yes or no question. You can then easily add your thoughts about rationale of innocence, conspiracy or what have you. Your comparison is completely invalid unless you tell me the crime, who committed it, under what circumstances etc and then if it something more than knocking on doors and running way, I would say "Yes, this crime needs to be investigated and if there is enough evidence them the person or persons should be charged".
But then you really know all this.
-
@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:
@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.
No it is a fact. There was no I information shared. Based on what EVERYONE at the meeting has said. I know conspiracy theories are running amok from people who want Trump gone. But they are all just noise.
Happy for you to show actual evidence from anyone who attended that they discussed Clinton. But you cannot and will not.so a guy lies multiple times around any russian communications existing at all - then around the meeting occurring, then the proposed content, communications around it etc.
then we are supposed to just take his word on the meeting content. riiight. he could of course be telling the truth (now), but fuck me - to just believe him you have to be so wilfully gullible that it beggars belief.as for his... sorry i forgot about it! was a bit busy at the time and slipped my mind! yeah fucken right.
the media shitstorm around russia, which he has commented on multiple times, calling it all bullshit - and never once did he think 'hey actually what about that time a russian contacted me saying the russian government was supporting dad's campaign and they had secret highly sensitive information to help him out'.
my fucking arse. -
Trump Jr may not have done anything wrong, just like Trump Snr. However, there has been a consistent pattern of people involved with the campaign 'forgetting' about their contacts with Russian government representatives until they are outed.
At the very least that raises questions that require answers.The issue here is not whether the Trump campaign set out to collude with Russia in a nefarious manner it is whether Russia have used the opportunity provided by a very 'green' political group (the Trump campaign) to assert influence for their own benefit i.e. did Putin play Trump
The Russian way is not sledgehammer stuff. A description I read recently is 'they will tickle you to death with a feather over a very long time'.
The only way to find out just how they are influencing the US is by finding out how they are doing it. Trump Jnr is a very easy target. Give him some ideas to call his own, let him push the ideas with daddy.
-
@reprobate 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:
@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.
No it is a fact. There was no I information shared. Based on what EVERYONE at the meeting has said. I know conspiracy theories are running amok from people who want Trump gone. But they are all just noise.
Happy for you to show actual evidence from anyone who attended that they discussed Clinton. But you cannot and will not.so a guy lies multiple times around any russian communications existing at all - then around the meeting occurring, then the proposed content, communications around it etc.
then we are supposed to just take his word on the meeting content. riiight. he could of course be telling the truth (now), but fuck me - to just believe him you have to be so wilfully gullible that it beggars belief.as for his... sorry i forgot about it! was a bit busy at the time and slipped my mind! yeah fucken right.
the media shitstorm around russia, which he has commented on multiple times, calling it all bullshit - and never once did he think 'hey actually what about that time a russian contacted me saying the russian government was supporting dad's campaign and they had secret highly sensitive information to help him out'.
my fucking arse.If only he wasn't the only one at the meeting.....
Oh wait. .. -
@Frank said in US Politics:
@Frank
I stand corrected. The Hill is now looking at one aspect of the story.
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/341788-exclusive-doj-let-russian-lawyer-into-us-before-she-met-with-trumpRecords seem to be missing
"There are no other records in the court file indicating what happened with that request or how Veselnitskaya appeared in the country later that spring."I think there is a fair bit of grasping in that article, or at least the way it is written leads readers to jump to conclusions that aren't there.
From the article itself the initial entry was to act as a legal representative in a case. Although this type of waiver is not used regularly there is nothing improper about it. She couldn't get a normal visa so made application via another avenue which was granted. Anything else read into that is theory.
The bit you quote is out of context. The judge in the case wanted to take longer than expected originally so made a request for her visa to be extended while he did so. Nothing weird there and I would also think the outcome of the request isn't pertinent to the case or spoken about in court itself so wouldn't be in the court records.
As for the 'how did she get in in spring', that is unrelated to the court case entry. She could well have left the country and re-entered under another avenue such as an application from a Russian govt department on a diplomatic passport. If she was lobbying then that is a normal entry procedure.
To theorise that the Obama administration interfered with border control to allow her into the country to set up a meeting with Trump Jnr which would then be leaked well after an unexpected Trump victory to cast doubt on his legitimacy is pure tinfoil hat stuff.
US Politics