-
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in US Politics:
@phoenetia said in US Politics:
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in US Politics:
@reprobate said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@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. ..no doubt you would be just as willing to go on trust if if this were clinton eh?
If this was Clinton nobody would give a shit. If anything the angle from the honourable fourth estate would be the potential dirt the Ruskies had on Trump.
No staff member of any candidate in the history of US presidential elections would not at least want to hear what this person had to say.
Sweeping generalization aside, there's a big difference from "wanting" something to actively going out with the intention of obtaining it knowing that it is ethically questionable and possibly illegal.
The fact remains only the Trump administration has ever had evidence surface implicating them of doing exactly this.The Gore campaign had something similar happen back in 2000 when Gores debate sparring partner Downey was sent a tape of Bush practising for debate. Downey watched it long enough to confirm what it was, told the campaign chair (whilst being careful not to divulge any info he may have obtained), they got the FBI involved, handed the tape over and then agreed Downey shouldnt participate in anything to do with the debates so that the perception of an unfair advantage couldn't be lobbed at them. Boy have times changed.
Yeah not really the same thing. Gore had no idea where it came from and it would have killed his campaign if it had been found out he used the video. In Silver Spoon in Mouth III's case he was willing to listen to info about illegal and corrupt shit allegedly Clinton did.
I agree it was farking stupid of him to take the meeting when it was stated that there were Russian govt connections. But, as mentioned, no campaign will ignore the offer of free dirt, particularly with hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars at stake. All this talk of treason is nuts. IMHO all these leaks are the very definition of treason.
You're right, they're not the same, Trump Jrs situation is much worse. Don Jr intended to take Russian intel from someone who he believed to be a Russian Government official. He "loved" the idea of it.
You're claiming that every other campaign would do the same when there is no evidence of anyone having ever done this. There is only evidence of Trumps campaign doing this.
-
I think a more viable question would be to ask a 67 year old who clearly looks after themselves whether they are comfortable having someone authentically complimenting them. I get it would be creepy if it was inauthentic or if she was much younger. But at 67 surely that isnt a bad thing to mention from someone of a similar age.
-
@phoenetia said in US Politics:
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in US Politics:
@phoenetia said in US Politics:
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in US Politics:
@reprobate said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@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. ..no doubt you would be just as willing to go on trust if if this were clinton eh?
If this was Clinton nobody would give a shit. If anything the angle from the honourable fourth estate would be the potential dirt the Ruskies had on Trump.
No staff member of any candidate in the history of US presidential elections would not at least want to hear what this person had to say.
Sweeping generalization aside, there's a big difference from "wanting" something to actively going out with the intention of obtaining it knowing that it is ethically questionable and possibly illegal.
The fact remains only the Trump administration has ever had evidence surface implicating them of doing exactly this.The Gore campaign had something similar happen back in 2000 when Gores debate sparring partner Downey was sent a tape of Bush practising for debate. Downey watched it long enough to confirm what it was, told the campaign chair (whilst being careful not to divulge any info he may have obtained), they got the FBI involved, handed the tape over and then agreed Downey shouldnt participate in anything to do with the debates so that the perception of an unfair advantage couldn't be lobbed at them. Boy have times changed.
Yeah not really the same thing. Gore had no idea where it came from and it would have killed his campaign if it had been found out he used the video. In Silver Spoon in Mouth III's case he was willing to listen to info about illegal and corrupt shit allegedly Clinton did.
I agree it was farking stupid of him to take the meeting when it was stated that there were Russian govt connections. But, as mentioned, no campaign will ignore the offer of free dirt, particularly with hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars at stake. All this talk of treason is nuts. IMHO all these leaks are the very definition of treason.
You're right, they're not the same, Trump Jrs situation is much worse. Don Jr intended to take Russian intel from someone who he believed to be a Russian Government official. He "loved" the idea of it.
You're claiming that every other campaign would do the same when there is no evidence of anyone having ever done this. There is only evidence of Trumps campaign doing this.
Well that obviously means they never would do the same. Of course they'd report it to the Feds. Bullshit.
Experienced political operatives would be far more careful than Don Jr but there is no fucking way that they wouldn't at least hear what the Intel was.
No evidence of anyone ever having done this? Really?
-
@Rembrandt said in US Politics:
I think a more viable question would be to ask a 67 year old who clearly looks after themselves whether they are comfortable having someone authentically complimenting them. I get it would be creepy if it was inauthentic or if she was much younger. But at 67 surely that isnt a bad thing to mention from someone of a similar age.
Exactly. People complaining about that are totally fucked in the head.
-
@phoenetia said in US Politics:
@Crucial said in US Politics:
@Rembrandt said in US Politics:
Is that creepy now? If you watch the video without reading the guardians editorial it doesn't seem so bad to me. She is in good shape for her age, seems like an innocuous compliment he truly means.
Ask your missus if she would appreciate that comment from someone she was just meeting for the first time, especially if he then turned to you and said the same thing as if she was an object.
I can't believe anyone finds that acceptable.
Saying it to someone you know well would even be fraught with danger.
Amongst friends, paying compliments is fine...
That being said, Trump has a verifiable history of saying some pretty horrible stuff about women so his comments are understandably viewed through a very different lense.@phoenetia said in US Politics:
@Crucial said in US Politics:
@Rembrandt said in US Politics:
Is that creepy now? If you watch the video without reading the guardians editorial it doesn't seem so bad to me.
Amongst friends, paying compliments is fine...
That being said, Trump has a verifiable history of saying some pretty horrible stuff about women so his comments are understandably viewed through a very different lense.Only by his haters. Which relegated this down to yet more partisan outrage.
-
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@phoenetia said in US Politics:
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in US Politics:
@reprobate said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@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. ..no doubt you would be just as willing to go on trust if if this were clinton eh?
If this was Clinton nobody would give a shit. If anything the angle from the honourable fourth estate would be the potential dirt the Ruskies had on Trump.
No staff member of any candidate in the history of US presidential elections would not at least want to hear what this person had to say.
Sweeping generalization aside, there's a big difference from "wanting" something to actively going out with the intention of obtaining it knowing that it is ethically questionable and possibly illegal.
The fact remains only the Trump administration has ever had evidence surface implicating them of doing exactly this.The Gore campaign had something similar happen back in 2000 when Gores debate sparring partner Downey was sent a tape of Bush practising for debate. Downey watched it long enough to confirm what it was, told the campaign chair (whilst being careful not to divulge any info he may have obtained), they got the FBI involved, handed the tape over and then agreed Downey shouldnt participate in anything to do with the debates so that the perception of an unfair advantage couldn't be lobbed at them. Boy have times changed.
Not as big as a difference between something being discussed and it not being discussed.
The more of this that comes out, the more it stinks as an anti Trump hit job.
Now it turns our Loretta Lynch personally ok'd this lawyers visa request, and the lawyer had had LOADS of interaction with Democrats.
And anything is possibly illegal. Kinda a pointless bar to set.
Lets get specific, which law do you think was broken?"anything is possibly illegal" - Anything equivalent though?
I've never claimed a law was broken. The problem is the Trump administration has repeatedly misstated their engagements with Russians, they've been caught planning and intending to take official documents from whom they thought to be a Russian representative which has compromised the integrity of Kushner and will also have implications for Trump Sr. As I see it, Kushner needs to step down.
-
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in US Politics:
@phoenetia said in US Politics:
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in US Politics:
@phoenetia said in US Politics:
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in US Politics:
@reprobate said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@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. ..no doubt you would be just as willing to go on trust if if this were clinton eh?
If this was Clinton nobody would give a shit. If anything the angle from the honourable fourth estate would be the potential dirt the Ruskies had on Trump.
No staff member of any candidate in the history of US presidential elections would not at least want to hear what this person had to say.
Sweeping generalization aside, there's a big difference from "wanting" something to actively going out with the intention of obtaining it knowing that it is ethically questionable and possibly illegal.
The fact remains only the Trump administration has ever had evidence surface implicating them of doing exactly this.The Gore campaign had something similar happen back in 2000 when Gores debate sparring partner Downey was sent a tape of Bush practising for debate. Downey watched it long enough to confirm what it was, told the campaign chair (whilst being careful not to divulge any info he may have obtained), they got the FBI involved, handed the tape over and then agreed Downey shouldnt participate in anything to do with the debates so that the perception of an unfair advantage couldn't be lobbed at them. Boy have times changed.
Yeah not really the same thing. Gore had no idea where it came from and it would have killed his campaign if it had been found out he used the video. In Silver Spoon in Mouth III's case he was willing to listen to info about illegal and corrupt shit allegedly Clinton did.
I agree it was farking stupid of him to take the meeting when it was stated that there were Russian govt connections. But, as mentioned, no campaign will ignore the offer of free dirt, particularly with hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars at stake. All this talk of treason is nuts. IMHO all these leaks are the very definition of treason.
You're right, they're not the same, Trump Jrs situation is much worse. Don Jr intended to take Russian intel from someone who he believed to be a Russian Government official. He "loved" the idea of it.
You're claiming that every other campaign would do the same when there is no evidence of anyone having ever done this. There is only evidence of Trumps campaign doing this.
Well that obviously means they never would do the same. Of course they'd report it to the Feds. Bullshit.
Experienced political operatives would be far more careful than Don Jr but there is no fucking way that they wouldn't at least hear what the Intel was.
No evidence of anyone ever having done this? Really?
What it means is the Trump administration has been caught red handed doing exactly this. As far as I know, theres no proven ongoing pattern that all other campaigns have intended to take intel from foreign adversaries in order to influence elections. Further to that, even if there were isolated cases, it still wouldnt excuse the Trump administration.
-
Overnight NBC is reporting that a there was a second Russian at this meeting, a lobbyist who previously served for two years in a Russian counter-intelligence unit (although he claims he was never trained as a spy). Thats another Russian interaction that Kushner and Trump Jr have failed to disclose... and its a doozy. He's ex military ffs.
The AP reported his name as Rinat Akhmetshin who in 2015 was a key subject of a corporate espionage lawsuit involving Russian hackers. Its alleged that he boasted of co-ordinating the hacking attack. The lawsuit was eventually withdrawn.
The AP have also reported :
âDuring the meeting, Akhmetshin said Veselnitskaya brought with her a plastic folder with printed-out documents that detailed what she believed was the flow of illicit funds to the Democratic National Committee (DNC). Veselnitskaya presented the contents of the documents to the Trump associates and suggested that making the information public could help the Trump campaign, he said.âThis could be a good issue to expose how the DNC is accepting bad money,â Akhmetshin recalled her saying.â
"Mr Akhmetshin said he does not know if Ms Veselnitskayaâs documents were provided by the Russian government. He said he thinks she left the materials with the Trump associates. It was unclear if she handed the documents to anyone in the room, or simply left them behind, he said."
So now we have the Trump campaign attending a meeting with who they thought was a Russian representative and a Russian who it turns out is ex-military, the Trump campaign intended to take what they thought was official documents that would help the Trump campaign, the DNC was discussed and its alleged documents were presented and left with them.
What a crazy story! And its still developing too!
-
@phoenetia said in US Politics:
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in US Politics:
@phoenetia said in US Politics:
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in US Politics:
@phoenetia said in US Politics:
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in US Politics:
@reprobate said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@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. ..no doubt you would be just as willing to go on trust if if this were clinton eh?
If this was Clinton nobody would give a shit. If anything the angle from the honourable fourth estate would be the potential dirt the Ruskies had on Trump.
No staff member of any candidate in the history of US presidential elections would not at least want to hear what this person had to say.
Sweeping generalization aside, there's a big difference from "wanting" something to actively going out with the intention of obtaining it knowing that it is ethically questionable and possibly illegal.
The fact remains only the Trump administration has ever had evidence surface implicating them of doing exactly this.The Gore campaign had something similar happen back in 2000 when Gores debate sparring partner Downey was sent a tape of Bush practising for debate. Downey watched it long enough to confirm what it was, told the campaign chair (whilst being careful not to divulge any info he may have obtained), they got the FBI involved, handed the tape over and then agreed Downey shouldnt participate in anything to do with the debates so that the perception of an unfair advantage couldn't be lobbed at them. Boy have times changed.
Yeah not really the same thing. Gore had no idea where it came from and it would have killed his campaign if it had been found out he used the video. In Silver Spoon in Mouth III's case he was willing to listen to info about illegal and corrupt shit allegedly Clinton did.
I agree it was farking stupid of him to take the meeting when it was stated that there were Russian govt connections. But, as mentioned, no campaign will ignore the offer of free dirt, particularly with hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars at stake. All this talk of treason is nuts. IMHO all these leaks are the very definition of treason.
You're right, they're not the same, Trump Jrs situation is much worse. Don Jr intended to take Russian intel from someone who he believed to be a Russian Government official. He "loved" the idea of it.
You're claiming that every other campaign would do the same when there is no evidence of anyone having ever done this. There is only evidence of Trumps campaign doing this.
Well that obviously means they never would do the same. Of course they'd report it to the Feds. Bullshit.
Experienced political operatives would be far more careful than Don Jr but there is no fucking way that they wouldn't at least hear what the Intel was.
No evidence of anyone ever having done this? Really?
What it means is the Trump administration has been caught red handed doing exactly this. As far as I know, theres no proven ongoing pattern that all other campaigns have intended to take intel from foreign adversaries in order to influence elections. Further to that, even if there were isolated cases, it still wouldnt excuse the Trump administration.
Never said it excused the Trump administration. I said Trump Jr was stupid. There is no proven pattern because most campaigns will be smart enough to set up firewalls and cover their tracks. It's laughable to claim this has never happened before.
-
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@Crucial said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@Catogrande said in US Politics:
@Frank said in US Politics:
@Crucial ha ha - You know I was being sarcastic.
I'd also like to know how the emails of Don Jr and Goldstone ended up in the hands of the NY Times.
That's an interesting point. Who leaked them and why, although the who will probably tell you the why. However the leakings themselves do not absolve Don Jnr's behaviour. The two issues are different but connected. You couldn't have had the leaks if he hadn't have acted like a clown.
A clown??
Because he wanted to find out what dirt this lawyer has on Clinton?No, because the lawyer stated the information was part of Russian Govt support and he still wanted it.
Well that is completely and utterly wrong. Where do you get your information from?
The emails he published.
-
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in US Politics:
@phoenetia said in US Politics:
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in US Politics:
@phoenetia said in US Politics:
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in US Politics:
@phoenetia said in US Politics:
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in US Politics:
@reprobate said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@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. ..no doubt you would be just as willing to go on trust if if this were clinton eh?
If this was Clinton nobody would give a shit. If anything the angle from the honourable fourth estate would be the potential dirt the Ruskies had on Trump.
No staff member of any candidate in the history of US presidential elections would not at least want to hear what this person had to say.
Sweeping generalization aside, there's a big difference from "wanting" something to actively going out with the intention of obtaining it knowing that it is ethically questionable and possibly illegal.
The fact remains only the Trump administration has ever had evidence surface implicating them of doing exactly this.The Gore campaign had something similar happen back in 2000 when Gores debate sparring partner Downey was sent a tape of Bush practising for debate. Downey watched it long enough to confirm what it was, told the campaign chair (whilst being careful not to divulge any info he may have obtained), they got the FBI involved, handed the tape over and then agreed Downey shouldnt participate in anything to do with the debates so that the perception of an unfair advantage couldn't be lobbed at them. Boy have times changed.
Yeah not really the same thing. Gore had no idea where it came from and it would have killed his campaign if it had been found out he used the video. In Silver Spoon in Mouth III's case he was willing to listen to info about illegal and corrupt shit allegedly Clinton did.
I agree it was farking stupid of him to take the meeting when it was stated that there were Russian govt connections. But, as mentioned, no campaign will ignore the offer of free dirt, particularly with hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars at stake. All this talk of treason is nuts. IMHO all these leaks are the very definition of treason.
You're right, they're not the same, Trump Jrs situation is much worse. Don Jr intended to take Russian intel from someone who he believed to be a Russian Government official. He "loved" the idea of it.
You're claiming that every other campaign would do the same when there is no evidence of anyone having ever done this. There is only evidence of Trumps campaign doing this.
Well that obviously means they never would do the same. Of course they'd report it to the Feds. Bullshit.
Experienced political operatives would be far more careful than Don Jr but there is no fucking way that they wouldn't at least hear what the Intel was.
No evidence of anyone ever having done this? Really?
What it means is the Trump administration has been caught red handed doing exactly this. As far as I know, theres no proven ongoing pattern that all other campaigns have intended to take intel from foreign adversaries in order to influence elections. Further to that, even if there were isolated cases, it still wouldnt excuse the Trump administration.
Never said it excused the Trump administration. I said Trump Jr was stupid. There is no proven pattern because most campaigns will be smart enough to set up firewalls and cover their tracks. It's laughable to claim this has never happened before.
Well I agree with you there, Trump Jr is indeed stupid.
I don't buy your "most campaigns will be smart enough to set up firewalls and cover their tracks" - the head of the Clinton campaigns email was compromised after a successful phishing attack after all. Its been my experience that most people are not savvy with digital security at all and I've not seen anything to suggest that those involved in a campaign are any different.
On what grounds do you believe most campaigns are smart enough to cover their tracks? -
@phoenetia said in US Politics:
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in US Politics:
@phoenetia said in US Politics:
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in US Politics:
@phoenetia said in US Politics:
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in US Politics:
@phoenetia said in US Politics:
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in US Politics:
@reprobate said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@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. ..no doubt you would be just as willing to go on trust if if this were clinton eh?
If this was Clinton nobody would give a shit. If anything the angle from the honourable fourth estate would be the potential dirt the Ruskies had on Trump.
No staff member of any candidate in the history of US presidential elections would not at least want to hear what this person had to say.
Sweeping generalization aside, there's a big difference from "wanting" something to actively going out with the intention of obtaining it knowing that it is ethically questionable and possibly illegal.
The fact remains only the Trump administration has ever had evidence surface implicating them of doing exactly this.The Gore campaign had something similar happen back in 2000 when Gores debate sparring partner Downey was sent a tape of Bush practising for debate. Downey watched it long enough to confirm what it was, told the campaign chair (whilst being careful not to divulge any info he may have obtained), they got the FBI involved, handed the tape over and then agreed Downey shouldnt participate in anything to do with the debates so that the perception of an unfair advantage couldn't be lobbed at them. Boy have times changed.
Yeah not really the same thing. Gore had no idea where it came from and it would have killed his campaign if it had been found out he used the video. In Silver Spoon in Mouth III's case he was willing to listen to info about illegal and corrupt shit allegedly Clinton did.
I agree it was farking stupid of him to take the meeting when it was stated that there were Russian govt connections. But, as mentioned, no campaign will ignore the offer of free dirt, particularly with hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars at stake. All this talk of treason is nuts. IMHO all these leaks are the very definition of treason.
You're right, they're not the same, Trump Jrs situation is much worse. Don Jr intended to take Russian intel from someone who he believed to be a Russian Government official. He "loved" the idea of it.
You're claiming that every other campaign would do the same when there is no evidence of anyone having ever done this. There is only evidence of Trumps campaign doing this.
Well that obviously means they never would do the same. Of course they'd report it to the Feds. Bullshit.
Experienced political operatives would be far more careful than Don Jr but there is no fucking way that they wouldn't at least hear what the Intel was.
No evidence of anyone ever having done this? Really?
What it means is the Trump administration has been caught red handed doing exactly this. As far as I know, theres no proven ongoing pattern that all other campaigns have intended to take intel from foreign adversaries in order to influence elections. Further to that, even if there were isolated cases, it still wouldnt excuse the Trump administration.
Never said it excused the Trump administration. I said Trump Jr was stupid. There is no proven pattern because most campaigns will be smart enough to set up firewalls and cover their tracks. It's laughable to claim this has never happened before.
Well I agree with you there, Trump Jr is indeed stupid.
I don't buy your "most campaigns will be smart enough to set up firewalls and cover their tracks" - the head of the Clinton campaigns email was compromised after a successful phishing attack after all. Its been my experience that most people are not savvy with digital security at all and I've not seen anything to suggest that those involved in a campaign are any different.
On what grounds do you believe most campaigns are smart enough to cover their tracks?Right, so if Chelsea Clinton gets a similar inquiry, she immediately rings the Feds? Bullshit Phonetia?
On the grounds they rarely or ever get caught. Or are you so naive that you believe US election campaigns are totally ethical and above-board?
-
@Crucial said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@Crucial said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@Catogrande said in US Politics:
@Frank said in US Politics:
@Crucial ha ha - You know I was being sarcastic.
I'd also like to know how the emails of Don Jr and Goldstone ended up in the hands of the NY Times.
That's an interesting point. Who leaked them and why, although the who will probably tell you the why. However the leakings themselves do not absolve Don Jnr's behaviour. The two issues are different but connected. You couldn't have had the leaks if he hadn't have acted like a clown.
A clown??
Because he wanted to find out what dirt this lawyer has on Clinton?No, because the lawyer stated the information was part of Russian Govt support and he still wanted it.
Well that is completely and utterly wrong. Where do you get your information from?
The emails he published.
You think the emails were between Trump jnr and the lawyer? You are wrong. Please anywhere at all where the lawyer said anything about govt support. I am starting to doubt you know much about this topic.
-
@phoenetia
Accusations from MSM are now -
Trump directly colluded w/ Putin to hack the Election"
to
Don Jr. once met w/ a lobbyist(s) for 20 minutes and didn't disclose it.Don Jr., who probably meets with tens to maybe a hundred people a week [important people do that], had a completely useless 20 minute meeting 13 months ago [pre-Russia frenzy] and is expected to remember all the attendees, much less someone he had never met.. Clearly evidence of a cover-up.
This individual (Rinat Akhmetshin) was also working alongside Fusion GPS in the lobbying effort against the Magnitsky Act.
Chuck Grassley of the Senate Intelligence Committee
Grassley also alleged that Fusion GPS was working with Rinat Akhmetshin, âa Russian immigrant to the U.S. who has admitted having been a âSoviet counterintelligence officer.'â Grassley wrote the Justice Department: âFusion GPS is the company behind the creation of the unsubstantiated dossier alleging a conspiracy between President Trump and Russia. It is highly troubling that Fusion GPS appears to have been working with someone with ties to Russian intelligence âlet alone someone alleged to have conducted political disinformation campaignsâ as part of a pro-Russia lobbying effort while also simultaneously overseeing the creation of the Trump/Russia dossier.âAt this point though as the article says - so far.............
"No evidence has been produced, though, connecting Akhmetshin to the dossier or Fusion GPS to the Trump Jr. meeting."
-
@Frank said in US Politics:
@Crucial
Fuckin sexism !!!Brigitte Macronâs Jaw-Dropping Legs Prove That, in France, Age Is Just a Number
Clutch pearls. Faux outrage. Sexual assault.
-
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in US Politics:
@phoenetia said in US Politics:
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in US Politics:
@phoenetia said in US Politics:
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in US Politics:
@phoenetia said in US Politics:
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in US Politics:
@phoenetia said in US Politics:
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in US Politics:
@reprobate said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@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. ..no doubt you would be just as willing to go on trust if if this were clinton eh?
If this was Clinton nobody would give a shit. If anything the angle from the honourable fourth estate would be the potential dirt the Ruskies had on Trump.
No staff member of any candidate in the history of US presidential elections would not at least want to hear what this person had to say.
Sweeping generalization aside, there's a big difference from "wanting" something to actively going out with the intention of obtaining it knowing that it is ethically questionable and possibly illegal.
The fact remains only the Trump administration has ever had evidence surface implicating them of doing exactly this.The Gore campaign had something similar happen back in 2000 when Gores debate sparring partner Downey was sent a tape of Bush practising for debate. Downey watched it long enough to confirm what it was, told the campaign chair (whilst being careful not to divulge any info he may have obtained), they got the FBI involved, handed the tape over and then agreed Downey shouldnt participate in anything to do with the debates so that the perception of an unfair advantage couldn't be lobbed at them. Boy have times changed.
Yeah not really the same thing. Gore had no idea where it came from and it would have killed his campaign if it had been found out he used the video. In Silver Spoon in Mouth III's case he was willing to listen to info about illegal and corrupt shit allegedly Clinton did.
I agree it was farking stupid of him to take the meeting when it was stated that there were Russian govt connections. But, as mentioned, no campaign will ignore the offer of free dirt, particularly with hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars at stake. All this talk of treason is nuts. IMHO all these leaks are the very definition of treason.
You're right, they're not the same, Trump Jrs situation is much worse. Don Jr intended to take Russian intel from someone who he believed to be a Russian Government official. He "loved" the idea of it.
You're claiming that every other campaign would do the same when there is no evidence of anyone having ever done this. There is only evidence of Trumps campaign doing this.
Well that obviously means they never would do the same. Of course they'd report it to the Feds. Bullshit.
Experienced political operatives would be far more careful than Don Jr but there is no fucking way that they wouldn't at least hear what the Intel was.
No evidence of anyone ever having done this? Really?
What it means is the Trump administration has been caught red handed doing exactly this. As far as I know, theres no proven ongoing pattern that all other campaigns have intended to take intel from foreign adversaries in order to influence elections. Further to that, even if there were isolated cases, it still wouldnt excuse the Trump administration.
Never said it excused the Trump administration. I said Trump Jr was stupid. There is no proven pattern because most campaigns will be smart enough to set up firewalls and cover their tracks. It's laughable to claim this has never happened before.
Well I agree with you there, Trump Jr is indeed stupid.
I don't buy your "most campaigns will be smart enough to set up firewalls and cover their tracks" - the head of the Clinton campaigns email was compromised after a successful phishing attack after all. Its been my experience that most people are not savvy with digital security at all and I've not seen anything to suggest that those involved in a campaign are any different.
On what grounds do you believe most campaigns are smart enough to cover their tracks?Right, so if Chelsea Clinton gets a similar inquiry, she immediately rings the Feds? Bullshit Phonetia?
On the grounds they rarely or ever get caught. Or are you so naive that you believe US election campaigns are totally ethical and above-board?
I suspect Chelsea Clinton has more integrity than Don Jr and only she could answer that question for you but I assume you wouldnt believe her anyway so its a pointless question to ask.
The problem with your reasoning is in the past election alone, the two major campaigns showed themselves to be anything but smart enough to cover their tracks. The absence of a pattern is not evidence that they must be covering their tracks in much the same way that it also isnt evidence that they are ethical and above board. The only evidence we have of tracks being covered is Don Jrs ongoing lies and Kushners repeat misreportings.
I suspect all campaigns play loose and fast with the rules to varying degrees however I thought it very unlikely that a campaign would wilfully engage a rival world power / foreign adversary in order to improve their chances of winning an election. It just seemed too far fetched to be true and it still does - yet here we are.
-
@Frank said in US Politics:
@phoenetia
Accusations from MSM are now -
Trump directly colluded w/ Putin to hack the Election"
to
Don Jr. once met w/ a lobbyist(s) for 20 minutes and didn't disclose it.Don Jr., who probably meets with tens to maybe a hundred people a week [important people do that], had a completely useless 20 minute meeting 13 months ago [pre-Russia frenzy] and is expected to remember all the attendees, much less someone he had never met.. Clearly evidence of a cover-up.
This individual (Rinat Akhmetshin) was also working alongside Fusion GPS in the lobbying effort against the Magnitsky Act.
Chuck Grassley of the Senate Intelligence Committee
Grassley also alleged that Fusion GPS was working with Rinat Akhmetshin, âa Russian immigrant to the U.S. who has admitted having been a âSoviet counterintelligence officer.'â Grassley wrote the Justice Department: âFusion GPS is the company behind the creation of the unsubstantiated dossier alleging a conspiracy between President Trump and Russia. It is highly troubling that Fusion GPS appears to have been working with someone with ties to Russian intelligence âlet alone someone alleged to have conducted political disinformation campaignsâ as part of a pro-Russia lobbying effort while also simultaneously overseeing the creation of the Trump/Russia dossier.âAt this point though as the article says - so far.............
"No evidence has been produced, though, connecting Akhmetshin to the dossier or Fusion GPS to the Trump Jr. meeting."
It seems you have a gripe with the MSM, I'm not here to defend them.
Whilst I think its dubious to believe that Don Jr / Kushner would forget a meeting with a suspected Russian representative to get dirt on Clinton, the fact is his memory was refreshed when the story broke and he continuously presented an incomplete and at times false account of what happened.
-
As of July 7, his operative story â as told to the New York Times back in March â was, âDid I meet with people that were Russian? Iâm sure, Iâm sure I did. But none that were set up. None that I can think of at the moment. And certainly none that I was representing the campaign in any way, shape or form.â
-
Then on July 8, when the Veselnitskaya meeting first came to light, he explained it was âprimarilyâ about âa program about the adoption of Russian children,â which âwas not a campaign issue at that time.â
-
Then on July 9, when more information about the meeting was revealed in the press, Trump Jr. conceded that it was in fact a meeting with âan individual who I was told might have information helpful to the campaign,â but he indicated that he hadn't known who she was and he didnât mention anything about the Russian government.
-
Then on July 10, when he realized the New York Times was about to publish an email exchange setting up the meeting, he got out ahead of the story and published it himself â including the previously omitted fact that the stated purpose of the meeting was for Veselnitskaya to serve as a conduit for information provided by the Russian government.
Your observation "Don Jr. once met w/ a lobbyist(s) for 20 minutes and didn't disclose it." is more meaningfully stated as "Don Jr once met with who he thought to be a Russian Government Lawyer and Russian Lobbyist (who turned out to be ex military) in order to obtain official documents containing damaging details on Clinton and repeatedly failed to disclose it whilst continuously shifting his story".
Its akin to saying "Bill Clinton once shared a cigar with an intern".
-
US Politics