-
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@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....
I've asked quite few times for subscribers to this theory to explain how they think that is logical.
For Fusion, yes I can totally see how the Dems could be behind that but can come up with a better theory on Fusion being played by Russia.
for Trump Jnr, I have already pointed out in the thread how illogical that theory is.
The link between the two that @Frank posted about is tenuous at best. The better connection is that they both moved in the same circles and had similar contacts. That again leads to Russian meddling not Dem skulduggery. -
@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.
-
@Crucial said in US Politics:
@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.
Blah blah blah... what laws were broken?
This is crucial to the whole issue. .. so expected more than vague smear. -
@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?
-
@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. -
@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 :
“During 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.‘This could be a good issue to expose how the DNC is accepting bad money,’ Akhmetshin recalled her saying.”
"Mr Akhmetshin said he does not know if Ms Veselnitskaya’s 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!
US Politics