Trump Voters Don't Believe Don Jr. Met Russian Lawyer

ray188 · Jul 25, 2017

Mr Person said:
Hillary has nothing to do with it, so I've whited-out that portion of the post.

The connection is more than some one-time representation of the Russian government. She's seen as an insider who has regularly worked on behalf of the Russian government in many areas it is interested in. Just a few excerpts (there's more):

MOSCOW — When American prosecutors accused a senior Russian official’s son of laundering $14 million by investing in Manhattan property and other assets, she was called to defend him. When Moscow regional officials battled Ikea over the Swedish retailer’s expansion, she took on their case. Natalia Veselnitskaya, the Russian lawyer who met with Donald Trump Jr. last year to discuss possible compromising material on the Democrats, has been widely depicted as a one-issue activist consumed with getting Congress to repeal sanctions against Russian businessmen.

But lawyers and others in Moscow’s legal community called her a trusted insider, one who could be counted on to argue and win important high-profile court cases that matter to the government and to one senior, well-connected official in particular. Ms. Veselnitskaya, 42, earned her status as the go-to lawyer for the Moscow regional government. For years, she has been a lawyer for the Katsyv family, whose patriarch, Pyotr D. Katsyv, was minister of transportation of the Moscow region for more than a decade, and whose son was caught up in the New York money laundering case. The elder Mr. Katsyv is now a vice president of Russian Railways, a state-owned railroad monopoly that is the country’s largest employer and one long dogged by corruption allegations.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/11/...lnitskaya-donald-trump-jr-russian-lawyer.html

MOSCOW — The Russian lawyer who met with Donald Trump Jr. last year after his father had won the Republican nomination for president had once represented Russia’s top intelligence agency in court, according to at least two public records. The lawyer, Natalia V. Veselnitskaya, who is now at the center of the political intrigue over the Trump campaign’s possible collusion with Russia during Donald J. Trump’s presidential campaign, represented a military unit founded by the Russian Federal Security Service in 2002, publicly available records show. The service, known as the F.S.B., is the successor agency to the K.G.B. and was once headed by President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/21/world/europe/trump-russian-lawyer-fsb-kgb.html

"as with any lawyer" is not a true statement.

"As with any lawyer" is totally valid. A lawyer "represents" his or her clients; the lawyer does not "become" his or clients. As a perfect example, the perfect illustration is that Hillary did not become a child rapist just because she represented one.

You are correct, Hillary is not part of this topic. However, as a prominent lawyer, her case is useful in understand the relationship between such a person and the client.

Mr Person · Jul 25, 2017

ray188 said:
"As with any lawyer" is totally valid. A lawyer "represents" his or her clients; the lawyer does not "become" his or clients.

It actually sounds like you simply refused to read anything that might support my position and undermine yours. How about you actually address the factual scenario indicated in the articles?

ray188 said:
As a perfect example, the perfect illustration is that Hillary did not become a child rapist just because she represented one. You are correct, Hillary is not part of this topic. However, as a prominent lawyer, her case is useful in understand the relationship between such a person and the client.

I am a lawyer. I know that lawyer =/= client. That does not mean that someone who represents various aspects of the Russian government and its intelligence apparatus does not have ties to the Russian government. And it most certainly does not mean that it is somehow improper to assume that she may have been acting in the Russian government's interests in this particular case.

I do appeals and post-conviction work in criminal cases. No **** I'm not a rapist just because I work on an appeal of a rape conviction. Duh.

My career does mean that I am naturally inclined to put the constitutional rights of accused persons first. And if I am actually representing someone, that means I am professionally and ethically required to do every lawful thing in my power to obtain the best possible result for that person, even if I despise them on a personal level.

It sounds like you are deliberately conflating two things. Her repeated representation of the Russian government suggests and inclination to act in their interests, even if her representation of the Russian government does not mean that she is the Russian government. Your point could only reply to the latter claim, but it's a claim I never made. And if she was in fact acting on a Russian government official's request, she was representing them, presumably to the best of her ability. Enough of this "nothing to see here" routine.

Answering these points by saying that Hillary isn't a rapist because she represented an accused rapist is pure obfuscation.

ray188 · Jul 25, 2017

Mr Person said:
It actually sounds like you simply refused to read anything that might support my position and undermine yours. How about you actually address the factual scenario indicated in the articles?

Having read your original post before making my comments, I believe it makes the point - she is a lawyer with many clients. And again, if defending a child raper does not make you a child raper, representing government entities does not make you part of the government.

I am a lawyer. I know that lawyer =/= client. That does not mean that someone who represents various aspects of the Russian government and its intelligence apparatus does not have ties to the Russian government. And it most certainly does not mean that it is somehow improper to assume that she may have been acting in the Russian government's interests in this particular case.

I do appeals and post-conviction work in criminal cases. No **** I'm not a rapist just because I work on an appeal of a rape conviction. Duh.

My career does mean that I am naturally inclined to put the constitutional rights of accused persons first. And if I am actually representing someone, that means I am professionally and ethically required to do every lawful thing in my power to obtain the best possible result for that person, even if I despise them on a personal level.

It sounds like you are deliberately conflating two things. Her repeated representation of the Russian government suggests and inclination to act in their interests, even if her representation of the Russian government does not mean that she is the Russian government. Your point could only reply to the latter claim, but it's a claim I never made. And if she was in fact acting on a Russian government official's request, she was representing them, presumably to the best of her ability. Enough of this "nothing to see here" routine.
There is no conflation here. It is simple a matter of separation the lawyer from her clients/cases. I believe that such is appropriate.

Answering these points by saying that Hillary isn't a rapist because she represented an accused rapist is pure obfuscation.

Only to those who want to draw inaccurate conclusions in the case under consideration.

Mr Person · Jul 25, 2017

ray188 said:
Only to those who want to draw inaccurate conclusions in the case under consideration.

First of all, if you want to reply to my post, don't put YOUR text in the quote box, bolded or not. As of right now, you have inserted the two following things I didn't say into the reply quote box:

"Having read your original post before making my comments, I believe it makes the point - she is a lawyer with many clients. And again, if defending a child raper does not make you a child raper, representing government entities does not make you part of the government."

and

"There is no conflation here. It is simple a matter of separation the lawyer from her clients/cases. I believe that such is appropriate."

Second, your post would otherwise be of the kind to make me smile. You are broadcasting that you realize the weaknesses in your own position when you utterly fail to respond to my points and instead merely repeat your earlier remarks.

Third, "And again, if defending a child raper does not make you a child raper, representing government entities does not make you part of the government." is just plain stupid. I told you why:

A. Her repeatedly being trusted by the Russian government to handle matters important to it makes it more likely, but not necessarily certain, that she was representing the Russian government in this matter (as opposed to just herself, which wouldn't make any damned sense - another thing you haven't bothered to address).

B. If she was in fact asked to do this by someone in the Russian government, then she would be - DUH - representing the Russian government. That is quite literally the opposite of separation of the lawyer from her clients/cases. You are trying to throw up a smoke screen by pretending the issue is whether she was "part of the Russian government" (as in...what? An appointed or elected official?). Utterly beside the point, which is whether or not she was acting on behalf of the Russian government, in its interest.

You failed to respond to either. You just repeated yourself and ignored every challenge to what you previously said. See #2.

ray188 · Jul 25, 2017

Mr Person said:
First of all, if you want to reply to my post, don't put YOUR text in the quote box, bolded or not. As of right now, you have inserted the two following things I didn't say into the reply quote box:

"Having read your original post before making my comments, I believe it makes the point - she is a lawyer with many clients. And again, if defending a child raper does not make you a child raper, representing government entities does not make you part of the government."

and

"There is no conflation here. It is simple a matter of separation the lawyer from her clients/cases. I believe that such is appropriate."

Second, your post would otherwise be of the kind to make me smile. You are broadcasting that you realize the weaknesses in your own position when you utterly fail to respond to my points and instead merely repeat your earlier remarks.

Third, "And again, if defending a child raper does not make you a child raper, representing government entities does not make you part of the government." is just plain stupid. I told you why:

A. Her repeatedly being trusted by the Russian government to handle matters important to it makes it more likely, but not necessarily certain, that she was representing the Russian government in this matter (as opposed to just herself, which wouldn't make any damned sense - another thing you haven't bothered to address).

B. If she was in fact asked to do this by someone in the Russian government, then she would be - DUH - representing the Russian government. That is quite literally the opposite of separation of the lawyer from her clients/cases. You are trying to throw up a smoke screen by pretending the issue is whether she was "part of the Russian government" (as in...what? An appointed or elected official?). Utterly beside the point, which is whether or not she was acting on behalf of the Russian government, in its interest.

You failed to respond to either. You just repeated yourself and ignored every challenge to what you previously said. See #2.

Do you want to discuss editing and format or the issue?

As to the issue, yes, I have repeated myself. When the issue is fairly basic and straight forward, there is nothing to be gained by following anyone down various and sundry diversionary rabbit holes.

Bottom line - there are no other aspects to this - a lawyer represents his or her clients. He or she does not become their clients. There is no more rational thinking possible on that.

In the case at hand, when her agenda became obvious, the meeting was terminated - there is no more to it than that. Who she represented in the past has no bearing on that meeting.

Mr Person · Jul 25, 2017

ray188 said:
Do you want to discuss editing and format or the issue?

As to the issue, yes, I have repeated myself. When the issue is fairly basic and straight forward, there is nothing to be gained by following anyone down various and sundry diversionary rabbit holes.

Bottom line - there are no other aspects to this - a lawyer represents his or her clients. He or she does not become their clients. There is no more rational thinking possible on that.

In the case at hand, when her agenda became obvious, the meeting was terminated - there is no more to it than that. Who she represented in the past has no bearing on that meeting.

:shock:

Yet again, you could not bring yourself to respond to a single one of my supporting points. Yet again, you repeated yourself. That tells me that I'm managing to waste the time that I come here to waste. The only upside is that most of the exchange is at least sitting on the same page.

A dieu....

:2wave:

ray188 · Jul 26, 2017

Mr Person said:
:shock:

Yet again, you could not bring yourself to respond to a single one of my supporting points. Yet again, you repeated yourself. That tells me that I'm managing to waste the time that I come here to waste. The only upside is that most of the exchange is at least sitting on the same page.

A dieu....

:2wave:

It is true. I have been repeating myself.

When one states the truth about a situation in a clear, open way there is no reason to change the words.

As to responding to points - all points have been responded to in the context of the topic as opposed to going into other areas. Focus helps create understanding in discussions.

upsideguy · Jul 26, 2017

Hawkeye10 said:
Who ever has gone broke overestimating the stupidity of the American people?

Certainly not Donald Trump....

American · Jul 26, 2017

rocket88 said:
If a Trump slurper doesn't like what you say, it is automatically false. The only truth is in the God-Emperor's tweets. Which by the way, admit that the meeting took place.

:roll:

American · Jul 26, 2017

Unitedwestand13 said:
Fox is officially the trump news network.

If that's true, they are alone. Everyone else is the Anti-Trump networks. Maybe you should consider giving them a break.

prometeus · Jul 26, 2017

ray188 said:
In the case at hand, when her agenda became obvious, the meeting was terminated - there is no more to it than that. Who she represented in the past has no bearing on that meeting.

I am curious, how did you arrive to that conclusion and what evidence did you use?

ray188 · Jul 26, 2017

prometeus said:
I am curious, how did you arrive to that conclusion and what evidence did you use?

That's what he said and no one has shown otherwise. But, you're right - I can't prove there was no more to it. And I can't prove they didn't have sex - will that be the next allegation???

prometeus · Jul 26, 2017

ray188 said:
That's what he said and no one has shown otherwise.

He? Who is he and what did he say? The "agenda" was made clear from the get go well before the meeting and it certainly was not adoption, so what exactly are you attempting to say?

But, you're right - I can't prove there was no more to it.

So you are making it up instead.

And I can't prove they didn't have sex - will that be the next allegation???

Cute diversion.

ray188 · Jul 26, 2017

prometeus said:
He? Who is he and what did he say? The "agenda" was made clear from the get go well before the meeting and it certainly was not adoption, so what exactly are you attempting to say?

So you are making it up instead.

Cute diversion.

You will have to be more clear as to your question. The topic is a meeting with a lobbyist/lawyer by Donald Jr. The agenda was "dirt". She tried to change it to "adoption" once they were all there. He walked. I fail to see the issue.

As to the "diversion" - I think it's valid. I can't prove what happened or didn't happen, you can't prove what happened or didn't happen - so how can we fight about what happened??

Glowpun · Jul 26, 2017

Hawkeye10 said:
Who ever has gone broke overestimating the stupidity of the American people?

If Trump says the moon is made of cheese, some of his followers will actually BELIEVE him! Think of it.

I attended a Trump campaign rally once. What struck me were the appearances of many of his followers. Not to denigrate anyone, but the word "peasant" came to the fore as they would say in the old country.

Hawkeye10 · Jul 26, 2017

Glowpun said:
If Trump says the moon is made of cheese, some of his followers will actually BELIEVE him! Think of it.

I attended a Trump campaign rally once. What struck me were the appearances of many of his followers. Not to denigrate anyone, but the word "peasant" came to the fore as they would say in the old country.

Sure, that is fair, but understand that the stupidity and lack of caring about truth is everywhere.

Oreo · Jul 27, 2017

Somerville said:
The propaganda machinery has been so successful in creating hatred toward mainstream media outlets, that even when the person named in an article admits the article is true, some Americans refuse to accept the news.

The question that must be answered: WHERE are these deniers getting their 'news'?

We're dealing with a rare breed here, possibly inbred. These are people who will only BELIEVE what they WANT to believe. Henceforth they will ignore any negative news on Trump, refer to it as FAKE news and or whoever is delivering this news (conservative or liberal) will be called a lying liberal regardless if they're conservative.

Chris Wallace mentions this phenomena in this video.

I put this video on another board, and immediately Chris Wallace & Shep Smith were gay liberals that really belonged on CNN--stated by a few Trump supporters.

The other half of the Trump supporter group are suffering from what is known as the Dunning-Kruger effect. They have been attached at the hip to right wing talk show hosts over the last 2 decades. Getting a 3 or more hour daily dose of right wing hyperbole, stuffed full of half truths and enough conspiracy theories to fill the capital building from floor to ceiling.

The Dunning-Kruger Effect:
"Some believe that many of those who support Donald Trump do so because of ignorance — basically they are under-informed or misinformed about the issues at hand. When Trump tells them that crime is skyrocketing in the United States, or that the economy is the worst it’s ever been, they simply take his word for it.

The seemingly obvious solution would be to try to reach those people through political ads, expert opinions, and logical arguments that educate with facts. Except none of those things seem to be swaying any Trump supporters from his side, despite great efforts to deliver this information to them directly. The Dunning-Kruger effect explains that the problem isn’t just that they are misinformed; it’s that they are completely unaware that they are misinformed. This creates a double burden. If one is under the illusion that they have sufficient or even superior knowledge, then they have no reason to defer to anyone else’s judgment. This helps explain why even nonpartisan experts — like military generals and Independent former Mayor of New York/billionaire CEO Michael Bloomberg — as well as some respected Republican politicians, don’t seem to be able to say anything that can change the minds of loyal Trump followers.

Out of immense frustration, some of us may feel the urge to shake a Trump supporter and say, “Hey! Don’t you realize that he’s an idiot?!” No. They don’t. That may be hard to fathom, but that’s the nature of the Dunning-Kruger effect — one’s ignorance is completely invisible to them."
A neuroscientist explains what may be wrong with Trump supporters’ brains

Donald Trump breaks the conservative media - Business Insider
The GOP That Failed - POLITICO Magazine

John McCain--stated this during his Senate speech. "Stop listening to bombastic radio and T.V. talk show hosts--they want nothing good for this country."

In reality their only interest is in ratings and obscene profit breaks. There is no doubt that Trump is POTUS today because of people who have insisted on living in a right wing media bubble.

Casca XV · Jul 27, 2017

Hawkeye10 said:
Who ever has gone broke overestimating the stupidity of the American people?

Explains Leftists in America.

Casca XV · Jul 27, 2017

Somerville said:
The propaganda machinery has been so successful in creating hatred toward mainstream media outlets, that even when the person named in an article admits the article is true, some Americans refuse to accept the news.

The question that must be answered: WHERE are these deniers getting their 'news'?

Where are you getting your News? The only way Russia collusion is illegal is if the Trump Campaign actually help the Russians hack computer servers. Not even that Fruitcake in the James Brown Wig claims that. There is now forensic evidence that there never was a hack, just a leak. A campaign receiving info from a foreign Govt is not illegal. If so the Hillary Campaign is screwed because they did it with the Govt of Ukraine.

Oreo · Jul 27, 2017

Casca XV said:
Where are you getting your News? The only way Russia collusion is illegal is if the Trump Campaign actually help the Russians hack computer servers. Not even that Fruitcake in the James Brown Wig claims that. There is now forensic evidence that there never was a hack, just a leak. A campaign receiving info from a foreign Govt is not illegal. If so the Hillary Campaign is screwed because they did it with the Govt of Ukraine.

Collusion with a foreign adversary to interfere into an American election is Treason. Hacking into any public or private personal computer in this country is a FELONY--and there's many people in prison over it today.

If you collude with someone to commit murder--you will be charged with murder even though you didn't actually pull the trigger. Any crime in this country is treated in the same manner. Then we move into accessory to a crime committed, failure to report a crime, etc. etc. etc.

ray188 · Jul 27, 2017

Oreo said:
Collusion with a foreign adversary to interfere into an American election is Treason. Hacking into any public or private personal computer in this country is a FELONY--and there's many people in prison over it today.

If you collude with someone to commit murder--you will be charged with murder even though you didn't actually pull the trigger. Any crime in this country is treated in the same manner. Then we move into accessory to a crime committed, failure to report a crime, etc. etc. etc.

Now - as to proof of "collusion". That is where the story becomes no more that repeated theories and anti-Administration propaganda. By the way, no one, Dem or otherwise, is claiming that the so called "interference" had any effect on the outcome of the elections. It is time to accept the fact that the Dems put up up a lousy candidate and President Trump is the result. Move on to what is good for America - and the "Resistance" is not.

"Hacking" - yes it is illegal. And it has been going on for many years. What efforts has the government made to stop it?? It seems there was a total lack of interest in hacking until it revealed the corruption by the DNC of their own primary system.

ray188 · Jul 27, 2017

Back to the basic issue about Donald Jr. meeting with the Russian lobbyist/lawyer - I have been saying that lawyers represent a wide variety of clients. Operative word "represent". The theory of the anti-Trump crowd is that because she represented Russian government entities, she was "the Russian government".

Well, try this one on for size - Obama's AJ Eric Holder nominated Debo P. Adegbile to head the DOJ's Department of Civil Rights. Adegbile had worked hard to free former Black Panther Mumia Abu-Jamal - a convicted cop killer.

Now, does that make Adegbile a cop killer? Should Holder have been fired for nominating him? Was Holder "colluding" with the Black Panthers or cop killers?

Somerville · Jul 27, 2017

Casca XV said:
Where are you getting your News? The only way Russia collusion is illegal is if the Trump Campaign actually help the Russians hack computer servers. Not even that Fruitcake in the James Brown Wig claims that. There is now forensic evidence that there never was a hack, just a leak. A campaign receiving info from a foreign Govt is not illegal. If so the Hillary Campaign is screwed because they did it with the Govt of Ukraine.

Where do I get my news? Daily or weekly emails from several non-American media outlets along with American mainstream media. I also receive the President's daily email and from a couple rightwing 'media' sources.

Not sure that Trump has any acolytes with sufficient knowledge of computer systems to actually be of assistance to Russian or other hackers.

It's looking more and more that Trump is so deeply in debt to Russian entities that they are basically telling me what to do in regards to foreign relations. They don't really care that much about his actions trying to suck up to our ultra-conservative evangelicals.

As I asked before - WHERE are you getting your news? WHERE did you read that there is no "forensic evidence" hacking?

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...h-of-39-states-threatens-future-u-s-elections

Oreo · Jul 27, 2017

ray188 said:
Now - as to proof of "collusion". That is where the story becomes no more that repeated theories and anti-Administration propaganda. By the way, no one, Dem or otherwise, is claiming that the so called "interference" had any effect on the outcome of the elections. It is time to accept the fact that the Dems put up up a lousy candidate and President Trump is the result. Move on to what is good for America - and the "Resistance" is not.

"Hacking" - yes it is illegal. And it has been going on for many years. What efforts has the government made to stop it?? It seems there was a total lack of interest in hacking until it revealed the corruption by the DNC of their own primary system.

It doesn't matter if Russia changed a single vote in this country, it's still collusion with a foreign adversary to interfere into an American election which will be considered Treason. It's the criminal behavior--and yes hackings have been a huge issue in this country which is why we consider cyber attacks to be the 21st century Act of War.

Just 1-1/2 years ago the Russians hacked into the Pentagon and it was moving so fast through the Joint Chiefs of Staff emails that they had to shut the system down for 2 weeks to replace hardware and software.
Russian hack on the Pentagon: Hackers struck last year at the heart of the U.S. military in 2015 - CBS News

They're constantly trying to get into utility (electric grids) especially if they're feeding U.S. military bases, and other critical National Security installations.
505 - HTTP Version Not Supported

In this 8 minute video Shep Smith explains that Trump surrogates were not only on the phone with the Russian ambassador but with Russian intelligence agents, including the very day that Russians hacked into DNC databases.

What makes it worse for this adminstration is they continually denied any contact with Russians during the campaign season.
Kushner contradicts Trump team's denials of Russia contacts - CNNPolitics.com

The other thing they still haven't figured out is they were being watched since 2015. This is why they're continually getting busted. They couldn't even get away with a secret meeting in the Trump Tower. They have been closely watched and not by U.S. Intelligence sources. Comey testified that U.S. intelligence didn't jump into this until July 2016.

GCHQ first became aware in late 2015 of suspicious “interactions” between figures connected to Trump and known or suspected Russian agents, a source close to UK intelligence said. This intelligence was passed to the US as part of a routine exchange of information, they added.

Over the next six months, until summer 2016, a number of western agencies shared further information on contacts between Trump’s inner circle and Russians, sources said.

The European countries that passed on electronic intelligence – known as sigint – included Germany, Estonia and Poland. Australia, a member of the “Five Eyes” spying alliance that also includes the US, UK, Canada and New Zealand, also relayed material, one source said.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/apr/13/british-spies-first-to-spot-trump-team-links-russia

Regardless this country is not going to tolerate traitors sitting in the Oval office.

MrShangles · Jul 27, 2017

rocket88 said:
If a Trump slurper doesn't like what you say, it is automatically false. The only truth is in the God-Emperor's tweets. Which by the way, admit that the meeting took place.

Us Trumpsters do believe the meeting took place, Jr said it did, yes he was looking for dirt on their opponent, but wait didn't both parties do it, shouldn't we investigate them both, us Trumpsters aren't saying no investigation for our man, we want to get to the bottom, don't y'all democrats want to know if you're party was doing it also so we can fix the problems.
If you don't think you're side needs investigation please explain!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Trump Voters Don't Believe Don Jr. Met Russian Lawyer

Active member

A Little Bitter

Active member

A Little Bitter

Active member

A Little Bitter

Active member

Pragmatic Idealist

Trump Grump Whisperer

Trump Grump Whisperer

Active member

Active member

Buttermilk Man

Well-known member

Well-known member

Active member

Active member

Well-known member