-
@Crucial said in US Politics:
@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?Anti Trump hit job? Explain the logic and the process in that.
As for the DoJ and the visa. There's a valid explanation for that and it was for an earlier time. As yet no one has worked out how the lawyer was in the country during the Trump meeting but it was well after the visa the DoJ approved.
Given that during the second time she was doing lobbying on behalf of her govt she most probably didn't require a visa and was travelling on diplomatic or official status claiming visa exemption.If this lawyer was such a danger that meeting with her was treason.... why was it ok to get the personal approval of Lynch for a visa? And all her meetings with Democrats? All just honky donky or treason as well?
-
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@Crucial said in US Politics:
@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?Anti Trump hit job? Explain the logic and the process in that.
As for the DoJ and the visa. There's a valid explanation for that and it was for an earlier time. As yet no one has worked out how the lawyer was in the country during the Trump meeting but it was well after the visa the DoJ approved.
Given that during the second time she was doing lobbying on behalf of her govt she most probably didn't require a visa and was travelling on diplomatic or official status claiming visa exemption.If this lawyer was such a danger that meeting with her was treason.... why was it ok to get the personal approval of Lynch for a visa? And all her meetings with Democrats? All just honky fonky or treason as well?
You realise what the visa was for? The one that was short term.
We don't know what her entry clearance was when she met Jnr.She met Democrats because they were the govt and she was a lobbyist.
-
@Frank said in US Politics:
@Crucial
It is suspicious that Fusion and this lawyer are linked though. Not damning evidence of anything, but it needs to be properly investigated."A British businessman says he will next week testify on Capitol Hill that researchers who helped produce the infamous Steele dossier, previously worked at the direction of the Russian lawyer who met Donald Trump Jr, and failed to declare they were doing so."
While they are at it, that sneaky little shit Christopher Steele needs to be subpoenaed.
And now, since he is refusing to voluntarily testify, Fusion GPS founder Glenn Simpson, need to be subpoenaed as well.
http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/341978-co-founder-of-firm-behind-trump-russia-dossier-wont-testify-before-senateGrassley won't be stopped until he has answers
@Frank you still don't seem to grasp that the Russians aren't necessarily partisan. They just enjoy causing disruption and watching countries create their own internal fights.
There is good reason why the law prohibits getting involved with them during campaigns. They will just play you. -
@Frank I'm sure they are being looked into. Both appear to have been used as instruments by the Russians.
I still don't get your theory of the Trump Jnr meeting being 'anti-Trump' set up. It just doesn't compute. Even though it has turned out disruptive in a way probably not envisaged and Putin will be chuckling away. If anything it was a meeting to see how responsive the campaign would be to getting direct info.The reason it is newsworthy is that Jnr WAS responsive.
-
@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.
-
@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? -
@Crucial said in US Politics:
@Frank I'm sure they are being looked into. Both appear to have been used as instruments by the Russians.
I still don't get your theory of the Trump Jnr meeting being 'anti-Trump' set up. It just doesn't compute. Even though it has turned out disruptive in a way probably not envisaged and Putin will be chuckling away. If anything it was a meeting to see how responsive the campaign would be to getting direct info.The reason it is newsworthy is that Jnr WAS responsive.
Or instruments of the Democrat political machine....
-
so to save everybody some time, the trump supporters responses to all this are:
anyone would have done the same thing;
it's all a set-up by the dems;
nothing was actually said in the meeting so it is all fine;
if clinton had done this, it would be reported as being fine.christ on a fucking bike, talk about clutching at straws.
no, anyone would not have been delighted with the idea of a foreign government supporting an election campaign. it's illegal. most people involved in election campaigns would know that, and even if they were morally dubious enough to ignore that, they would not be stupid/naive enough to put themselves in this position. so that is just not true.
no, it is not a set-up by the democrats. the timeline shows this. at this time, the dems were laughing amongst themselves that the republicans had nominated trump, not planning his demise via some circuitous email scheme involving russians and trump jr. that is just ludicrous infowars style conspiracy bollocks.
we don't know what was said in the meeting, can't trust those who were there. regardless of content what trump jr did in organising a meeting to gain information provided by a supportive foreign government was wrong.
if anyone had done this it would have been reported as wrong - in different outlets it would be reported differently - as per the fox news softball interview. -
@reprobate said in US Politics:
so to save everybody some time, the trump supporters responses to all this are:
anyone would have done the same thing;
it's all a set-up by the dems;
nothing was actually said in the meeting so it is all fine;
if clinton had done this, it would be reported as being fine.christ on a fucking bike, talk about clutching at straws.
no, anyone would not have been delighted with the idea of a foreign government supporting an election campaign. it's illegal. most people involved in election campaigns would know that, and even if they were morally dubious enough to ignore that, they would not be stupid/naive enough to put themselves in this position. so that is just not true.
no, it is not a set-up by the democrats. the timeline shows this. at this time, the dems were laughing amongst themselves that the republicans had nominated trump, not planning his demise via some circuitous email scheme involving russians and trump jr. that is just ludicrous infowars style conspiracy bollocks.
we don't know what was said in the meeting, can't trust those who were there. regardless of content what trump jr did in organising a meeting to gain information provided by a supportive foreign government was wrong.
if anyone had done this it would have been reported as wrong - in different outlets it would be reported differently - as per the fox news softball interview.Sorry what exactly happened that was illegal?
And claiming it is illegal for a foreign govt to support an election campaign is bullshit and illustrative of the hysteria from the trump haters. -
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@reprobate said in US Politics:
so to save everybody some time, the trump supporters responses to all this are:
anyone would have done the same thing;
it's all a set-up by the dems;
nothing was actually said in the meeting so it is all fine;
if clinton had done this, it would be reported as being fine.christ on a fucking bike, talk about clutching at straws.
no, anyone would not have been delighted with the idea of a foreign government supporting an election campaign. it's illegal. most people involved in election campaigns would know that, and even if they were morally dubious enough to ignore that, they would not be stupid/naive enough to put themselves in this position. so that is just not true.
no, it is not a set-up by the democrats. the timeline shows this. at this time, the dems were laughing amongst themselves that the republicans had nominated trump, not planning his demise via some circuitous email scheme involving russians and trump jr. that is just ludicrous infowars style conspiracy bollocks.
we don't know what was said in the meeting, can't trust those who were there. regardless of content what trump jr did in organising a meeting to gain information provided by a supportive foreign government was wrong.
if anyone had done this it would have been reported as wrong - in different outlets it would be reported differently - as per the fox news softball interview.Sorry what exactly happened that was illegal?
And claiming it is illegal for a foreign govt to support an election campaign is bullshit and illustrative of the hysteria from the trump haters.as posted earlier by someone else, it is illegal for a foreign national or government to provide material assistance. 'as part of the russian government's support for your campaign' or whatever the wording was should have set off major alarm bells.
-
@reprobate said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@reprobate said in US Politics:
so to save everybody some time, the trump supporters responses to all this are:
anyone would have done the same thing;
it's all a set-up by the dems;
nothing was actually said in the meeting so it is all fine;
if clinton had done this, it would be reported as being fine.christ on a fucking bike, talk about clutching at straws.
no, anyone would not have been delighted with the idea of a foreign government supporting an election campaign. it's illegal. most people involved in election campaigns would know that, and even if they were morally dubious enough to ignore that, they would not be stupid/naive enough to put themselves in this position. so that is just not true.
no, it is not a set-up by the democrats. the timeline shows this. at this time, the dems were laughing amongst themselves that the republicans had nominated trump, not planning his demise via some circuitous email scheme involving russians and trump jr. that is just ludicrous infowars style conspiracy bollocks.
we don't know what was said in the meeting, can't trust those who were there. regardless of content what trump jr did in organising a meeting to gain information provided by a supportive foreign government was wrong.
if anyone had done this it would have been reported as wrong - in different outlets it would be reported differently - as per the fox news softball interview.Sorry what exactly happened that was illegal?
And claiming it is illegal for a foreign govt to support an election campaign is bullshit and illustrative of the hysteria from the trump haters.as posted earlier by someone else, it is illegal for a foreign national or government to provide material assistance. 'as part of the russian government's support for your campaign' or whatever the wording was should have set off major alarm bells.
Can you just answer what happened that was illegal?
And let's stick to facts, not your conspiracy theory. -
@Catogrande I think the only way it could have been collected in the first place is under FISA.
Then it was leaked, strategically, just like all the other ones, to keep the drip, drip Russia narrative alive. And Don Jr. fucked up by not immediately telling the whole truth.
Interestingly, it came out very soon after the story on Comey possibly improperly handling the classified memos.
This is a fascinating article related to Comey and his leaking ways.
-
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@reprobate said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@reprobate said in US Politics:
so to save everybody some time, the trump supporters responses to all this are:
anyone would have done the same thing;
it's all a set-up by the dems;
nothing was actually said in the meeting so it is all fine;
if clinton had done this, it would be reported as being fine.christ on a fucking bike, talk about clutching at straws.
no, anyone would not have been delighted with the idea of a foreign government supporting an election campaign. it's illegal. most people involved in election campaigns would know that, and even if they were morally dubious enough to ignore that, they would not be stupid/naive enough to put themselves in this position. so that is just not true.
no, it is not a set-up by the democrats. the timeline shows this. at this time, the dems were laughing amongst themselves that the republicans had nominated trump, not planning his demise via some circuitous email scheme involving russians and trump jr. that is just ludicrous infowars style conspiracy bollocks.
we don't know what was said in the meeting, can't trust those who were there. regardless of content what trump jr did in organising a meeting to gain information provided by a supportive foreign government was wrong.
if anyone had done this it would have been reported as wrong - in different outlets it would be reported differently - as per the fox news softball interview.Sorry what exactly happened that was illegal?
And claiming it is illegal for a foreign govt to support an election campaign is bullshit and illustrative of the hysteria from the trump haters.as posted earlier by someone else, it is illegal for a foreign national or government to provide material assistance. 'as part of the russian government's support for your campaign' or whatever the wording was should have set off major alarm bells.
Can you just answer what happened that was illegal?
And let's stick to facts, not your conspiracy theory.my conspiracy theory, Mr 'instruments of the democrat political machine'?
we don't know what happened, that's why there is an ongoing investigation. what we do know is that trump jr was delighted to have the expressed support of the russian government, and organised a meeting which in his eyes was specifically to take information provided by them to assist in his father's election campaign. then lied about it.
if this was clinton you would be all over it like a rash, proclaiming it as direct evidence of corruption. how about putting your partisan bias aside for one second, and just admitting that what he did was wrong and stupid? the world would be a better place if people judged actions rather than just defending 'my guys' no matter what. -
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@reprobate said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@reprobate said in US Politics:
so to save everybody some time, the trump supporters responses to all this are:
anyone would have done the same thing;
it's all a set-up by the dems;
nothing was actually said in the meeting so it is all fine;
if clinton had done this, it would be reported as being fine.christ on a fucking bike, talk about clutching at straws.
no, anyone would not have been delighted with the idea of a foreign government supporting an election campaign. it's illegal. most people involved in election campaigns would know that, and even if they were morally dubious enough to ignore that, they would not be stupid/naive enough to put themselves in this position. so that is just not true.
no, it is not a set-up by the democrats. the timeline shows this. at this time, the dems were laughing amongst themselves that the republicans had nominated trump, not planning his demise via some circuitous email scheme involving russians and trump jr. that is just ludicrous infowars style conspiracy bollocks.
we don't know what was said in the meeting, can't trust those who were there. regardless of content what trump jr did in organising a meeting to gain information provided by a supportive foreign government was wrong.
if anyone had done this it would have been reported as wrong - in different outlets it would be reported differently - as per the fox news softball interview.Sorry what exactly happened that was illegal?
And claiming it is illegal for a foreign govt to support an election campaign is bullshit and illustrative of the hysteria from the trump haters.as posted earlier by someone else, it is illegal for a foreign national or government to provide material assistance. 'as part of the russian government's support for your campaign' or whatever the wording was should have set off major alarm bells.
Can you just answer what happened that was illegal?
And let's stick to facts, not your conspiracy theory.That was an answer to the question (unless something has been deleted). As with any legal argument things can be debated and various 'experts' have various views. Quite a few subscribe to the view that Trump Jnrs actions could be illegal.
Even if not illegal there are reasonable questions to ask on why the story kept changing until there was no escape.
US Politics