Trump Jr./Russian lawyer meeting: Jr. knew info was part of Russian Gov effort

[EnglishPete]

Trump's son, son-in-law, and campaign manager specifically went to a meeting where they believed they could obtain damaging information on Clinton sourced from the Russian government.  

And?

Contrary to all the foaming at the mouth hysterics talking about this that isn't illegal, much less 'treason' as lots of unhinged lefties are claiming.

[EnglishPete]

Why do I have the feeling more bombshells are coming down the pike?

McCain, yesterday: "There'll be many more shoes that drop."  http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-jr-email-russia-john-mccain-says-more-bombshells-on-trump-and-russia-are-coming-2017-7

Schiff, yesterday: "There's an awful lot more [intelligence] than that's even in the public domain."  http://thehill.com/homenews/house/341417-top-intel-dem-warns-trump-jr-we-have-much-more-intel-than-what-public-knows

John Schindler (IC expert), many times, most recently today: "More and worse is coming, as I've said many times." https://twitter.com/20committee/status/885119452697812993

Etc.

That could be why.

Are those 'shoes' going to be anything to do with the Trump Tower/Alfa Bank server links? Because it  looks like that's fake news as well

https://weaponizedautism.wordpress.com/2017/04/09/trump-dns-logs-fabricated/

[EnglishPete]

Kushner's influence has diminished after the Comey firing. Bannon took on Kushner against everyone's advice and won. Bannon's back in favor, and expect his role to grow. Bannon is a classic "son of a b****" that you want in your corner when the temperature rises and everyone else runs for cover.

I will add regarding legality that it probably depends on what was actually exchanged, which we do not know. As far as we know, there may have been nothing exchanged and the collusion attempt failed. Talking is not something of value.

I don't think it matters, the email shows intent.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

"Information" is a rather vague word. I think the idea that speech is a "thing of value" is quite a stretch. The emails do open the door to the possibility that something of tangible value was exchanged, though. Certainly, if services such as information gathering were offered to and accepted by the campaign, that would be something of value.

Opposition research (or in this case...hacked emails...) are most definitely a thing of value.

I see. So if the Clinton campaign had asked for favourable coverage and puff pieces in the Mexican owned Carlos Slim Blog that would be illegal.

News coverage does not count as a campaign contribution under campaign finance regulations. But services rendered for free can absolutely count as in-kind contributions to a campaign. In this case the contribution would be the act of conducting opposition research (not the information itself).
https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/candidate-taking-receipts/contribution-types/

And the e-mail exchange mentions nothing of asking for or offering opposition research from either the Russian government or any Russian private individual. Rather it is discussing an offer of information that was (falsely) claimed to be held already by the person making the offer.

[EnglishPete]

Functionally, I'm curious, how do you defend Trump's speeches about the Hillary oppo and say that he wasn't aware of a meeting in his own building, with Don Jr, Manafort, and Kushner? He promised a press conference about Hillary's emails that very night and tweeted about it 15 minutes after the meeting. The information seems highly correlated with what the email said.

Basically, this feels like a smoking gun that Trump was open to collusion or actually did commit collusion with Russia's government. But to believe that the Podesta emails were unrelated to this - especially given Junior's statement of "later in the summer" is to defy explanation. You'll remember Roger Stone tweeted that it would be soon "Podesta's time in the barrel." It definitely feels like Trumpland knew ahead of time and were clear on the provenance of these Wikileaks. (Senior doesn't do email, for the record. It seems that this was handled at the top levels).

Basically, the set of facts between the Podesta emails, them being from the Russian government, and the timing (and backing up of that timing by Don Jr's emails) as well as Natalia Veselnitskay being linked to the Russian government implies very strongly that there is a plausible, even probable link.

This is an archive of Natalia Veselnitskaya's Facebook page. Lots of anti-Trump (and anti-Putin) images there. That added to the curious matter of how she got a Visa to get into the US after previously being refused. I think this is the smoking gun, I agree with you there. Its the smoking gun that indicates that this whole "Russia is interfering in our elections and colluding with the Trump campaign" was cooked up prior to June of last year.

That then obviously links in with all the other goings on later that were blamed on the Russians'  as these were obviously part of the same scheme. That would be why the DNC refused access to the FBI their servers to confirm that the hacking had taken place because there never had been a hacking, just a leak to be blamed on 'der Rushans'.

[EnglishPete]

Trump's son, son-in-law, and campaign manager specifically went to a meeting where they believed they could obtain damaging information on Clinton sourced from the Russian government.  

And?

Contrary to all the foaming at the mouth hysterics talking about this that isn't illegal, much less 'treason' as lots of unhinged lefties are claiming.

If someone walked into a bank and said to the teller "I'm robbing this place, give me all your money"  and then walked out after that didn't work....would you say "well hey, it was just him talking!"?

No because robbing banks would be illegal. Obtaining damaging information on Clinton sourced from the Russian government is not per se illegal.

[EnglishPete]

Trump's son, son-in-law, and campaign manager specifically went to a meeting where they believed they could obtain damaging information on Clinton sourced from the Russian government.  

And?

Contrary to all the foaming at the mouth hysterics talking about this that isn't illegal, much less 'treason' as lots of unhinged lefties are claiming.

If someone walked into a bank and said to the teller "I'm robbing this place, give me all your money"  and then walked out after that didn't work....would you say "well hey, it was just him talking!"?

No because robbing banks would be illegal. Obtaining damaging information on Clinton sourced from the Russian government is not per se illegal.

What the result was doesn't matter. The guy still gets busted for sodomy if the hooker is a cop and nothing actually happens . Its called an inchoate offense. And if trying to contract oppo research out to a hostile state Government is illegal, He is liable vicariously if His son could be considered doing this for Him as part of his services.

But there's no indication in the e-mails that DJT Jr is trying to contract opposition research to anyone. He's asking about meeting with someone who claims to already have damaging information about Clinton. That would be him trying to carry out oppo researcch himself, not trying to contract it out to anyone else.

As for your point about this allegedly coming from a "hostile" foreign government Russia is not at war with the US any more than Ukraine is. The US and Russia have diplomatic and trade ties. The fact that the US and Russian governments haven't been getting along very well doesn't make any difference to the legality or illegality of an act. Israel is a close ally of the US but that didn't make Jonathan Pollard's actions legal or stop him from sitting in prison for 28 years.

[EnglishPete]

The Russians are our advisory.

I think the Russians may have been the Clintons' advisory. All that money they gave them probably came with some advice.

But seriously, how can you expect other people to follow your suggestion of not responding to my points when you won't even follow it yourself? LOL

[EnglishPete]

Functionally, I'm curious, how do you defend Trump's speeches about the Hillary oppo and say that he wasn't aware of a meeting in his own building, with Don Jr, Manafort, and Kushner? He promised a press conference about Hillary's emails that very night and tweeted about it 15 minutes after the meeting. The information seems highly correlated with what the email said.

Basically, this feels like a smoking gun that Trump was open to collusion or actually did commit collusion with Russia's government. But to believe that the Podesta emails were unrelated to this - especially given Junior's statement of "later in the summer" is to defy explanation. You'll remember Roger Stone tweeted that it would be soon "Podesta's time in the barrel." It definitely feels like Trumpland knew ahead of time and were clear on the provenance of these Wikileaks. (Senior doesn't do email, for the record. It seems that this was handled at the top levels).

Basically, the set of facts between the Podesta emails, them being from the Russian government, and the timing (and backing up of that timing by Don Jr's emails) as well as Natalia Veselnitskay being linked to the Russian government implies very strongly that there is a plausible, even probable link.

This is an archive of Natalia Veselnitskaya's Facebook page. Lots of anti-Trump (and anti-Putin) images there. That added to the curious matter of how she got a Visa to get into the US after previously being refused. I think this is the smoking gun, I agree with you there. Its the smoking gun that indicates that this whole "Russia is interfering in our elections and colluding with the Trump campaign" was cooked up prior to June of last year.

That then obviously links in with all the other goings on later that were blamed on the Russians'  as these were obviously part of the same scheme. That would be why the DNC refused access to the FBI their servers to confirm that the hacking had taken place because there never had been a hacking, just a leak to be blamed on 'der Rushans'.

And let's not forget that the first request to the FISA court by the Obama admin to spy on the Trump campaign came in June 2016, shortly after this meeting. So this was not only a setup but was a set up designed to be a piece of theatre for the FISA court.

The latest revelations are clearly not a nothing burger. They are strong evidence of a key part of the Obama administration's plan to set up a bogus 'Russia/Trump' conspiracy narrative as an excuse to misuse the security services to spy on and undermine a political opponent.

[EnglishPete]

Functionally, I'm curious, how do you defend Trump's speeches about the Hillary oppo and say that he wasn't aware of a meeting in his own building, with Don Jr, Manafort, and Kushner? He promised a press conference about Hillary's emails that very night and tweeted about it 15 minutes after the meeting. The information seems highly correlated with what the email said.

Basically, this feels like a smoking gun that Trump was open to collusion or actually did commit collusion with Russia's government. But to believe that the Podesta emails were unrelated to this - especially given Junior's statement of "later in the summer" is to defy explanation. You'll remember Roger Stone tweeted that it would be soon "Podesta's time in the barrel." It definitely feels like Trumpland knew ahead of time and were clear on the provenance of these Wikileaks. (Senior doesn't do email, for the record. It seems that this was handled at the top levels).

Basically, the set of facts between the Podesta emails, them being from the Russian government, and the timing (and backing up of that timing by Don Jr's emails) as well as Natalia Veselnitskay being linked to the Russian government implies very strongly that there is a plausible, even probable link.

This is an archive of Natalia Veselnitskaya's Facebook page. Lots of anti-Trump (and anti-Putin) images there. That added to the curious matter of how she got a Visa to get into the US after previously being refused. I think this is the smoking gun, I agree with you there. Its the smoking gun that indicates that this whole "Russia is interfering in our elections and colluding with the Trump campaign" was cooked up prior to June of last year.

That then obviously links in with all the other goings on later that were blamed on the Russians'  as these were obviously part of the same scheme. That would be why the DNC refused access to the FBI their servers to confirm that the hacking had taken place because there never had been a hacking, just a leak to be blamed on 'der Rushans'.

And let's not forget that the first request to the FISA court by the Obama admin to spy on the Trump campaign came in June 2016, shortly after this meeting. So this was not only a setup but was a set up designed to be a piece of theatre for the FISA court.

The latest revelations are clearly not a nothing burger. They are strong evidence of a key part of the Obama administration's plan to set up a bogus 'Russia/Trump' conspiracy narrative as an excuse to misuse the security services to spy on and undermine a political opponent.

I've seen pretzels twisted into less knots

What's laughable is the theory that this 'investigation' is an honest down the line search for the truth. What is not in dispute was that there has been investigations into this "Trump/Russia collusion theory" going back to June of last year.

Now what are the two usual reasons why this type of investigation of a politician or a political campaign? The tow usual reasons for such an investigation are

a) A legitimate investigation launched because of genuine concerns
b) A politically motivated witch hunt

So does the evidence in this case point to the reason for this series of investigations being a) or b)? What does the evidence suggest is the reason on the balance of probability? Because the evidence keeps stacking up that its b). If anyone wants to put forward evidence that a) was the reason the investigations were launched then lets hear it.

[EnglishPete]

The question here is whether Trump hired the Kremlin to help elect him President and why (was there an illegal consideration?(launder drug money from Russian mob? blackmail from prostitutes pimped by the mob? loan money obtained by false pretenses? ) and how (what crimes against the US were authorized, committed, and by whom(known fugitives who are members of the alt-right inteligencia and digerati?))

No the question here is whether the highly dubious 'evidence' that's been presented of wrongdoing by the Trump campaign and Russia in last years election was gathered in good faith or whether its been cooked up as part of a politically motivated witch hunt.

[EnglishPete]

The question here is whether Trump hired the Kremlin to help elect him President and why (was there an illegal consideration?(launder drug money from Russian mob? blackmail from prostitutes pimped by the mob? loan money obtained by false pretenses? ) and how (what crimes against the US were authorized, committed, and by whom(known fugitives who are members of the alt-right inteligencia and digerati?))

No the question here is whether the highly dubious 'evidence' that's been presented of wrongdoing by the Trump campaign and Russia in last years election was gathered in good faith or whether its been cooked up as part of a politically motivated witch hunt.

You mean if the evidence I am talking about was Veritased together?

I take it that's a sly dig at Project Veritas, a much more trustworthy news organisation than the Carlos Slim blog or the Jeff Bezos blog. Cooked up means cooked up.

[EnglishPete]

I warned you guys back on page 5 about EnglishPete .....

Oh EnglishPete! EnglishPete! Come out and pllllaaaaayyyyyy

Oh don't worry, he will be posting soon.
He has to call-in and check with his "trump support hotline" for the latest phony-baloney counter-defense statements. He will try to sway us, amaze us and startle us with his usual hogwash lines of excuses for this latest mess.
It does wonders on fooling many ignorant trump supporters, but as usual most Atlas members can see right through his bullsh*t.

I notice you seem obsessed with the idea that I don't actually believe what I'm writing. You argue rather like a sectarian fanatic who likes to believe that those opposing him were arguing in bad faith because you don't want to accept the truth that others simply reject his dogmas in good faith.

[EnglishPete]

I notice you seem obsessed with the idea that I don't actually believe what I'm writing. You argue rather like a sectarian fanatic who likes to believe that those opposing him were arguing in bad faith because you don't want to accept the truth that others simply reject his dogmas in good faith.

Seriously, can you just leave this thread? You've made your points over and over again, and you know as well as I do that few people believe your arguments, especially when you try and back them up with random blogs or places like Infowars/Breitbart. All you're doing at this point is making pages and pages of this thread about arguments between you and various other posters. Why do you have to do this to so many Trump/Russia threads on here? Why can't you just make your point, carry on for a little while then move on?

There are a few anti-Trump posters who have posted only garbage in this thread. Ask them to leave first.

[EnglishPete]

I notice you seem obsessed with the idea that I don't actually believe what I'm writing. You argue rather like a sectarian fanatic who likes to believe that those opposing him were arguing in bad faith because you don't want to accept the truth that others simply reject his dogmas in good faith.

Seriously, can you just leave this thread?

No.

If you don't like posting in the same thread as me then you can always leave if you want to.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There have been pages and pages and and pages of posts in this and other threads by anti Trump posters making the same points, often consisting of little more than content free hostile rhetoric, over and over again ad nauseum. I ma responding with my own points, my own opinions and theories and theories of others that I think are worthy of examination.

If you would like to take part in a thread that is simply a Trump bashing circle jerk you can find them in plenty of places on the internet.

[EnglishPete]

Interesting theory here about what was going on with the Donald Trump Jr meeting





You know this theory makes as much sense as any of the meeting. I can just imagine Veselnitskaya is there, building up to the big offer which would have been 'we'll help you if you promise to do something about the sanctions'. Don Jr is sitting there thinking 'what the hell is this woman on about? Adoptions of Russian babies? Mawhatski Act? Where's all the dirt on Hillary Clinton this timewaster said she had? Right I've had enough of this timewaster' "meeting is over"

[EnglishPete]

It's actually about just one person sucking the oxygen out of the room rather than a group. I don't care for your views, but personally I have no issue with you posting so long as you allow other discussion in the thread to take place (and I mean that in more than just a technical sense). You are part of the reason big threads in the past have gotten locked - because you don't know when to stop.

Anyway, I've made my point, so I'm done here. But you and others should keep in mind that endless arguing helps drive other potential discussion away.

OK.  I do see your point about posting too many posts in a single thread so I'll meet you half way. I've just deleted my last post and reposted it in a new thread instead.

[EnglishPete]

EnglishPete is not alt-right. Please stop misusing the term alt-right. It's driving me crazy.

I think the term 'alt right' has become so elastic as to be almost meaningless.

[EnglishPete]

Is that website like a discount Breitbart?

Its a quote of a twitter thread but in order to avoid pointless discussions of the website I'm quoting from I've amended it to just the original thread. The point is not which blog the theory is presented in but whether it makes sense of the events better than other theories.

[EnglishPete]

Here's the full thread for those who can't read the text in the above pic on their device. The theory is put forward by some guy called Jack. If you got a better theory lets hear it.


NavyJack‏
@USNJack
Follow
More
#RussiaGate/#RussianCollusion Cash Flow Diagram. (thread below)


NavyJack‏ @USNJack  Jul 11
Replying to @USNJack
Natalia Veselnitskaya and Glenn Simpson (Fusion GPS) were and are being paid by wealthy Russian Oligarchs to get the sanctions lifted.

 NavyJack‏ @USNJack  Jul 11
 In Dec 2015, Fusion GPS was hired by GOP #NeverTrump to create “opposition research” (dirt) against Trump to ensure he did not receive

 NavyJack‏ @USNJack  Jul 11
 the GOP nomination. These payments continued thru Jul 2016. In late May 2016 a plot to sabotage the Trump campaign was devised that resulted

 NavyJack‏ @USNJack  Jul 11
 in the meeting between members of the Trump campaign and Natalia Veselnitskaya.

 NavyJack‏ @USNJack  Jul 11
 The goal of the meeting was to attempt to get a Trump campaign official to state that in exchange for assistance from Russian “officials”

 NavyJack‏ @USNJack  Jul 11
 the Trump administration (if elected) would lift the sanctions against the wealthy Russian Oligarchs.

 NavyJack‏ @USNJack  Jul 11
 The goal was to allow #NeverTrump to use this “collusion” to force Trump to remove himself from contention

 NavyJack‏ @USNJack  Jul 11
 as the GOP Presidential Candidate. The participants from the Trump campaign did not take the bait.

 NavyJack‏ @USNJack  Jul 11
 They concluded that the purpose of meeting with Natalia Veselnitskaya was misrepresented from the start

 NavyJack‏ @USNJack  Jul 11
 and ended the discussion before any offer or collusion could be inferred.


 NavyJack‏ @USNJack  Jul 11
More
NavyJack Retweeted NavyJack
To fully understand #RussiaGate, please review this thread and the associated references.
https://twitter.com/USNJack/status/873340676498436096

[EnglishPete]

How does it feel to put more energy into parroting the party line than Sean Spicer?

Feels great

[EnglishPete]

Makes sense. The whole thing has wreaked of a set up. Even the guys at the liquor store who are as uninterested as they come in this stuff we're talking about how shady it all seemed. Don Jr's stock has really risen among the deplorables if anything.

lmao, a set up, unbelievable even for you as far as things go.

That's what the evidence is pointing to, some kind of set up. However if you've got a better theory let's hear it.

[EnglishPete]

Makes sense. The whole thing has wreaked of a set up. Even the guys at the liquor store who are as uninterested as they come in this stuff we're talking about how shady it all seemed. Don Jr's stock has really risen among the deplorables if anything.

lmao, a set up, unbelievable even for you as far as things go.

That's what the evidence is pointing to, some kind of set up. However if you've got a better theory let's hear it.

The Kremlin supports Trump's campaign, but wants to make sure he's on their page re: the Magnitsky Act. They offer a meeting with a lawyer offering info on Hillary so they can "check in" with the campaign's thoughts. Not being the brightest bulb out there, Trump Jr. accepts, and doesn't think to tell the FBI about the details of the email setting up the meeting. That's about it.

And what is it in the evidence that suggests to you that your theory is more likely than the theory set out above? Just doesn't seem likely to me but I'm all ears.

[EnglishPete]

Don't know if it's been posted here yet, but Cernovich is postulating that Obama arranged this meeting so the lawyer could wiretap Trump Tower while she was there

LOL.
The Deplorables will swallow this whole.
I mean, if you can get them to believe that Obama was a Muslim and born outside the USA, then you can get those bird-brains to believe anything.

Says a man who has been pushing the evidence free Trump/Russia collusion conspiracy theory for months.

[EnglishPete]

[EnglishPete]

Don't know if it's been posted here yet, but Cernovich is postulating that Obama arranged this meeting so the lawyer could wiretap Trump Tower while she was there

LOL.
The Deplorables will swallow this whole.
I mean, if you can get them to believe that Obama was a Muslim and born outside the USA, then you can get those bird-brains to believe anything.

Says a man who has been pushing the evidence free Trump/Russia collusion conspiracy theory for months.

At this point what exactly would "evidence" be to you?   A video of Putin personally handing Trump a black briefcase or something?

What does it take for you to believe there is a "possibility" of Trump-Russian collusion?

Well if the evidence pointed in that direction rather than the opposite direction.

There are two alternative scenarios here, both of which involve conspiracies

Scenario A - A presidential campaign colluded and conspired with the Russian government for them to illegally interfere in the US election for the benefit of the campaign.

Scenario B - Political opponents of a Presidential campaign, both in the government and outside it conspired to set up a politically motivated witch hunt against that campaign to manufacture bogus charges against them.

Now neither scenario is, prima face, implausible. They both represent the kind of thing you might expect to go on in high level politics. So in which direction does the evidence point?

Well with all the faked and set up evidence that has been used, the obviously fabricated Fusion GPS dossier, the highly dubious Crowdstrike report that the DNC refused on multiple occasions for the FBI to verify and which the FBI accepted anyway despite Crowdstrike's questionable reputation. Now this transparently set up meeting from last year with a dodgy Russian lawyer linked to Fusion GPS and allowed in the country without a visa.

If the evidence starts pointing in the direction of Scenario A rather than Scenario B then I'll accept it. I'll turn the question around to you. What evidence would it take for you to accept the possibility that these charges and the "evidence" for them has been cooked up as part of a politically motivated witch hunt?