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

[Person Man]

It's war. Infowars, Breitbart, Drudge under FBI investigation for espionage.

https://www.infowars.com/breaking-democrats-call-for-criminal-investigation-of-infowars-drudge-breitbart/

I mean, even the InfoWars headline says that "Democrats are calling for investigation," not "Infowars, etc. under investigation."

To them, its the same thing.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

It's war. Infowars, Breitbart, Drudge under FBI investigation for espionage.

https://www.infowars.com/breaking-democrats-call-for-criminal-investigation-of-infowars-drudge-breitbart/

I mean, even the InfoWars headline says that "Democrats are calling for investigation," not "Infowars, etc. under investigation."

To them, its the same thing.

Guilty consciences maybe? For a long time, I really figured that was the deal with Trump. That he'd laundered some shady Russian money (and at least suspected that's what he was doing, even if he didn't really know) and maybe made a few over-exuberant promises (as he is wont to do) to people he shouldn't have. And that what was going to get him was the cover-up.

But given how the Trump-Russia thing has now gone to confirmed collaboration (at least on the Trump side) after all those denials... who knows? Maybe those awful ads they run are all actually fronts for KGB money via Russian mobsters, and all three of them are willing (but deniable) fronts for Russian infowar directed at the US. 5th Generation War, here we come?

[Middle-aged Europe]

Chuck Grassley wants Paul Manafort to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee and threatens him with a subpeona:

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/341680-iowa-senator-to-call-former-trump-campaign-chairman-to-testify

[Hindsight was 2020]

Boy the administration really what's to create a whataboutism over that Ukraine bs story

[ApatheticAustrian]

Russian Officials Overheard Discussing Trump Associates Before Campaign Began
https://www.wsj.com/articles/russian-officials-overheard-discussing-trump-associates-before-campaign-began-1499890354

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

For anyone who hasn't bother to actually read the emails Trump Jr released (as, ironically, Del Tachi over in the thread on facts apparently has not), I've put together some of the key messages here.

The fact of the matter is, at this time, there is actually very, very little that has been established as fact in the Trump/Russia case that actually implicates the President in illegally colluding with the Russian government to undermine the American electoral process.

His son, son-in-law, and campaign manager (who is also a long-time tenant) went to a meeting for the express purposes of getting damaging information on his opponent from a foreign government. Later that evening, Trump himself promised such information was forthcoming. At the very least he is directly implicated in attempting to collude with the Russian government to intervene in the US Presidential election.

Meeting with a random lawyer from Russia who may or may not have had any intelligible information on Hillary Clinton does not demonstrate a willingness to collude with the Russian government in order to break the law.

Random lawyer from Russia =/= Russian government

It would make no difference if this lawyer was from Russia, Nigeria, Holland or Florida.

Here are key parts of the email exchange, taken from the NYT's more readable presentation. If you doubt the contents or context, feel free to look at them else where, including on Jr's own twitter.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/07/11/us/politics/donald-trump-jr-email-text.html
https://twitter.com/donaldjtrumpjr/status/884789418455953413







This is Trump Jr, Kushner, and Manafort going to a meeting specifically to meet with someone described to them as a representative of the Russian government with damaging information on Hillary Clinton that would be provided to them by the Russian government. What she turned out to be or have is certainly relevant, but it does not change the fact than 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.  

[GeorgiaModerate]

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.

[ProudModerate2]

For anyone who hasn't bother to actually read the emails Trump Jr released (as, ironically, Del Tachi over in the thread on facts apparently has not), I've put together some of the key messages here.

The fact of the matter is, at this time, there is actually very, very little that has been established as fact in the Trump/Russia case that actually implicates the President in illegally colluding with the Russian government to undermine the American electoral process.

His son, son-in-law, and campaign manager (who is also a long-time tenant) went to a meeting for the express purposes of getting damaging information on his opponent from a foreign government. Later that evening, Trump himself promised such information was forthcoming. At the very least he is directly implicated in attempting to collude with the Russian government to intervene in the US Presidential election.

Meeting with a random lawyer from Russia who may or may not have had any intelligible information on Hillary Clinton does not demonstrate a willingness to collude with the Russian government in order to break the law.

Random lawyer from Russia =/= Russian government

It would make no difference if this lawyer was from Russia, Nigeria, Holland or Florida.

Here are key parts of the email exchange, taken from the NYT's more readable presentation. If you doubt the contents or context, feel free to look at them else where, including on Jr's own twitter.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/07/11/us/politics/donald-trump-jr-email-text.html
https://twitter.com/donaldjtrumpjr/status/884789418455953413







This is Trump Jr, Kushner, and Manafort going to a meeting specifically to meet with someone described to them as a representative of the Russian government with damaging information on Hillary Clinton that would be provided to them by the Russian government. What she turned out to be or have is certainly relevant, but it does not change the fact than 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.  

I have not seen a single post from a trumpist to defend any of this.
There is a whole-lota deflection, like pointing to a bird sitting on the street light pole, and trying to change the topic.
They are ignoring the facts that are in black and white print, and the emails were even supplied to the public/media by trump jr himself.
They're stumped. So they reduce themselves to acting like children and playing games with the truth. This should sound familiar, as the orange-haired clown is man-child number 1.

(Thanks for posting this summarization, Ghost of Ruin.)

[ApatheticAustrian]

LOL

The Kreml told journalists in July 2016 - asked about hacked emails - they should talk do Don Jr. xD

https://twitter.com/sarahkendzior/status/885259806084300800

[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.

[ApatheticAustrian]

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.

it is not treason in any legal sense.

it could absolutely be illegal, just not the crime most people think of.

[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/

[SteveRogers]

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/

[ProudModerate2]

Atlas members,
Don't let EnglishPete derail this thread.
If his hogwash theories are not worthy of a response, don't respond.
If he tries to steer the topic somewhere else, don't respond.

[Mike Thick]

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/

With all due respect, I find it hard to take a blog called "weaponized autism" seriously

[ApatheticAustrian]

The long-dormant account of CyberBerkut, alleged to be linked 2 Kremlin, comes alive & begins tweeting about links between Clinton & Ukraine
https://twitter.com/razhael/status/885078590215389184

tick tick tick

[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.

[Santander]

The fact that Don Jr. may have technically broken campaign finance laws is small potatoes, and the FEC is toothless anyway.

The real significance of these developments is that we've crossed the Rubicon from "no evidence of collusion" to "clear evidence of attempted collusion". Let's see where the evidence leads from here.

[Mike Thick]

The fact that Don Jr. may have technically broken campaign finance laws is small potatoes, and the FEC is toothless anyway.

The real significance of these developments is that we've crossed the Rubicon from "no evidence of collusion" to "clear evidence of attempted collusion". Let's see where the evidence leads from here.

Ding ding ding

[ApatheticAustrian]

Was Russian Lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya in the U.S. Illegally?
http://www.thedailybeast.com/was-russian-lawyer-natalia-veselnitskaya-in-the-us-illegally

irony never stops....

[Santander]

Was Russian Lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya in the U.S. Illegally?
http://www.thedailybeast.com/was-russian-lawyer-natalia-veselnitskaya-in-the-us-illegally

irony never stops....

That would be a problem of the Obama administration.

[ProudModerate2]

The fact that Don Jr. may have technically broken campaign finance laws is small potatoes, and the FEC is toothless anyway.

The real significance of these developments is that we've crossed the Rubicon from "no evidence of collusion" to "clear evidence of attempted collusion". Let's see where the evidence leads from here.

Ding ding ding

Well, f*** me sideways !
Did Santander just say that ? ("clear evidence of attempted collusion")
Someone pinch me .... I must be dreaming or something.

[Nyvin]

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!"?

[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'.

[Santander]

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!"?

That's not an appropriate comparison here.