• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Trump Jr. Was Told in Email of Russian Effort to Aid Campaign

Anthony60 said:
Of course, none of that would stick. To flimsy. The real problem is that no laws were broken, that makes it much more difficult to charge someone while looking at the law in a fair way. Of course, you could come up with a slew of charges with a leftist slant. Find the man, then they'll come up with a crime later.
Click to expand...
So, you assert that "none of that would stick. To flimsy," without describing what's flimsy. Our government prosecutes hackers all the time. Conspiracy is a known crime too. This was conspiracy to hack and do other things. Those are real crimes.
 
MTAtech said:
So, you assert that "none of that would stick. To flimsy," without describing what's flimsy. Our government prosecutes hackers all the time. Conspiracy is a known crime too. This was conspiracy to hack and do other things. Those are real crimes.
Click to expand...

The Russians hacked, we think. Trump didn't hack anything. Trump got nothing. No prior knowledge or agreement. The Russian lawyer had nothing. There is no evidence of conspiracy. Did I say flimsy? I meant really flimsy.
 
MTAtech said:
The useful idiots are the ones who are in complete denial mode. Anonymous sources have always been reliable sources in journalism, as long as the journalistic standards are met. Deep Throat, of Watergate fame, was an anonymous source.

Denial would be somewhat understandable, had the Trump Admin not relentlessly denying that meetings ever occurred and if not for Manafort working for the Russians and accepting $16 million; and Flynn speaking repeatedly with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak, including, Post reporting indicates, discussing sanctions on Russia that the Trump administration might lift; and Roger Stone, who had a “back channel” to Julian Assange and the Russians; and the Kushner meetings with Russians and convenient amnesia that prevented him from remembering those meetings for his clearance forms; and Carter Page, whose interactions with Russia are under FBI investigation; and Jeff Sessions, meeting with the Russian ambassador during the campaign; and Wilbur Ross, JD Gordon, Erik Prince, etc.; and the fishy firing of James Comey; and asking Russia to hack along with Wikileaks; and the bro-love between Trump/Putin; and the Russian propaganda machine favoring Trump; and DJT "I have zero ties to Russia!" lies; Eric Trump stating "we get most of our financing from Russian banks"; and the Donald Trump Jr. "Our portfolio is made up of a disproportionate amount of Russian money" quote; and DJT selling a $60 million mansion to a Russian oligarch known for money laundering for $120 million that he never once lived in; and Trump business ties with Putin's favorite sports athlete Fedor Emilianenko; and the Trump International Corporation's mysterious private server connection to Alfa Bank, Russia's largest commercial bank; and the British MI-6 spy dossier on Trump; and the I won't release my tax returns, probably because of links to Russia; and Ivanka Trump's vacationing with Putin's girlfriend; and the 2013 Miss Universe Pageant in Moscow; and the Trump companies business ties to Felix Sater, a criminal felon indicted for stock fraud scheme with the Russian mafia; and the FL Group Icelandic hedge fund with massive ties to Putin being heavily invested in Trump Soho; and the Russian ambassador at Trump Tower sneaking in and out; and Trump floating rolling back Russian sanctions the minute he got elected.

Except for all that, there is no reason to suspect anything.
Click to expand...

That first part is like saying "slavery has always been a good thing" to justify engaging in slavery. Rejected.

The rest of your post is a wall of text. I ignore such walls. correct it...you know, paragraphs, sentences, punctuation...and I'll check it out. Until then...rejected.
 
Rogue Valley said:
There it is. A classic example of "whataboutism"
Click to expand...



If you are all butt hurt about Russia, why are you giving the guy who could have said something early on a pass?


It's not about "whataboutism". That's stupid, bro. It's about the same issue and who could have done what and didnt.
 
Cardinal said:
With regards to the nature of the meeting as it was sold to him, and demonstrated by his repeated need to lie about it.
Click to expand...



Link to the law in question, Statute and code please or I accept your concession that this is just a pipe dream and you are clueless other than your hyper partisanism as to what you are on about.
 
MTAtech said:
Let me put on my unofficial lawyer hate. Ah, that's better.

Ok, the hacked material was stolen from DNC and private sources. To start, the crimes would include hacking, wire fraud, trade secret theft and economic espionage, for starters. Now, the people who were at the meeting, knew from the email that the material was stolen. So, we can say that their crime is conspiracy. It is also illegal for a candidate to accept contributions from a foreign government or foreigners. The case could be made that giving this information over to Trump's campaign was an illegal gift. Accepting that gift is a crime and if the purpose of that gift was a quid pro quo to lift sanctions, that could be bribery and treason.

I am sure that the FBI could come up with a broader list.
Click to expand...





Can you show that the persons attending the meeting were expecting to receive such material? It's truly amazing how you all can come up with all this fantasy but can't see how the other candidate, clearly broke the law. It is truly astounding.



law and statute please.
 
So...now we have this lawyer telling a different story:

The Russian lawyer who met with Donald Trump Jr. during the presidential campaign denied in an exclusive interview with NBC News that she had any connection to the Kremlin and insisted she met with President Donald Trump’s son in 2016 to discuss sanctions between Russia and the U.S., not to hand over information about Hillary Clinton’s campaign.

“I never had any damaging or sensitive information about Hillary Clinton. It was never my intention to have that,” Natalia Veselnitskaya said.

But Veselnitskaya flatly denied any connection to the Russian government. Kremlin officials said on Monday that they were unfamiliar with the lawyer.

Veselnitskaya explained she has questioned for many years a story that became the basis for a claim against her client, Russian businessman Denis Kadsyv. She sought an investigation by the U.S. Congress into the allegations.

Part of the information she put together for her client included details about a company run by a former U.S. citizen. She believes this company didn’t pay taxes in either Russia or the U.S. and may also have made donations to the D.N.C.

These details are what may have sparked the interest of Trump’s campaign, she said.

Russian Lawyer Who Met With Trump Jr.: I Didn'''t Have Clinton Info They Wanted - NBC News
Click to expand...

But here is where it REALLY gets interesting:

"I never asked anybody for a particular meeting with Mr. Donald Trump Jr., or with anybody else," she said.

In describing how the meeting came about, Veselnitskaya didn’t name the person who set it up over the phone while she was in New York for work.

She added that she now knows that it was arranged in part by pop-star Emin Agalarov, who appeared in a music video with Trump when the Miss Universe pageant, which Trump owned at the time, was held in Moscow in 2013. She said she has never met Agalarov.
Click to expand...

"in part". Okay...who entails the "other part"?

Anyway, we have someone contacting her, dangling something she's interested in, to get her to a meeting with some Trump people. And, as we already know, someone dangled something that the Trumps would be interested in to get THEM to a meeting. When they all got there, they found that neither had what the other wanted.

So the question now should be: Who did the dangling? Maybe some "unnamed sources" will come forward and tell us, eh?
 
FreedomFromAll said:
I know it must be driving you nuts that Trump didnt win on his own merits.
Click to expand...

It was a combination of Trumps " merits " and what the Democrats were offering that led to Trumps victory over Hillary Clinton.

Voters were sick and tired of having a President that put the needs of other Nations over the needs of Americans.

They were sick of having a President who thought it was necessary to apologize for America rather than a President who sincerely believed in American exceptional.
They were sick of living with the consequences of the Progressive agenda

Plus, after 8 years of Obama the Democrats were left with only a couple of options when it came to appealing to voters.

Dems couldnt run on the successes of the last 8 years under Obama because there were none, so they were forced to pander to their coalition of victims.

And after losing 5 straight special elections since Trumps inaugeration, theyre still doing it

Or did Putin interfere with those elections too ?
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
If you are all butt hurt about Russia, why are you giving the guy who could have said something early on a pass?
Click to expand...
I never supported Obama's foreign policy, nor his many blunders and leading from behind.

But that's history. Can't change it or get it back. Trump is now the CinC. It's all on him now.

ReverendHellh0und said:
It's not about "whataboutism". That's stupid, bro. It's about the same issue and who could have done what and didnt.
Click to expand...

It's classic whataboutism to divert away from Trump. Whatabout Obama? Whatabout Hillary? Whatabout Benghazi? Whatabout Uranium One? And on and on ad nauseum.

It's a tactic used when no cogent argument remains available. Sorry bro, but I don't subscribe to giving Trump a pass for the here and now.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
Link to the law in question, Statute and code please or I accept your concession that this is just a pipe dream and you are clueless other than your hyper partisanism as to what you are on about.
Click to expand...

Not yet, since you still seem to be fuzzy on the "guilty mind" part.

Which of these points do you deny?

1. A meeting between Donald Trump Jr. and Russian lawyer, Natalia Veselnitskaya, is by Rob Goldstone, a publicist for Emin Agalarov, a Russian pop musician and real estate magnate. Goldstone informs Jr. in an email that the information is acquired by the Russian government.
2. Jr. sets up the meeting at Trump Tower and brings Manafort and Kushner.
3. Jr. is disappointed because the lawyer did not in fact have the damaging information but wanted to talk about adoptions instead.
4. Jr. lied about having meetings with Russians, then said there was a meeting but it was about adoptions, then when new information came out said he went there because he was offered damaging information about Clinton.
 
Cardinal said:
Not yet, since you still seem to be fuzzy on the "guilty mind" part.

Which of these points do you deny?

1. A meeting between Donald Trump Jr. and Russian lawyer, Natalia Veselnitskaya, is by Rob Goldstone, a publicist for Emin Agalarov, a Russian pop musician and real estate magnate. Goldstone informs Jr. in an email that the information is acquired by the Russian government.
Click to expand...

From your own link:

It is unclear whether Mr. Goldstone had direct knowledge of the origin of the damaging material. One person who was briefed on the emails said it appeared that he was passing along information that had been passed through several others.
Click to expand...

Also:

But Mr. Goldstone, who wrote the email over a year ago, denied any knowledge of involvement by the Russian government in the matter, saying that never dawned on him. “Never, never ever,” he said. Later, after the email was described to The Times, efforts to reach him for further comment were unsuccessful.
Click to expand...
 
roughdraft274 said:
One of the most interesting details of this meeting is that it occurred after Russia hacked the DNC and stole emails and before they started leaking them. Wonder what they talked about, hmm?
Click to expand...

Nope this meeting took place in June, 2016 --before the RNC convention and about 2 weeks prior to DNC databases getting hacked into from what is being reported.
 
Oreo said:
You'll be biting the dust on this one. First off, I imagine Robert Mueller already has a copy of this email, and I really don't care what information, if any, was shared in this meeting, it is solid evidence that Trump surrogates indeed were working with the Russians in an attempt to sway an American election.

This is it--this is the smoking gun.

This is on top of learning a week ago that Paul Manafort, who was also present in this meeting, was forced by the DOJ to register as a Foreign agent. He was working for the Russians in the 2012-2014 era recieving 17 MILLION from them for him to advise them on U.S. policy regarding the Ukraine.
Paul Manafort retroactively registers with Justice Dept. as foreign agent - CBS News
Click to expand...

There has yet to be a shred of actual evidence presented to the public. Nothing.
 
Harshaw said:
From your own link:
Click to expand...


It doesn't matter. Trump Jr. was warned in advance that this information was coming from Russia via an email. At that point he should have contacted the FBI--he didn't. Instead he set up a meeting, looking for the damaging information against Hillary Clinton.

To add insult to injury--he denied the meeting ever occurred by never disclosing it, and only (after) he got busted, admitted the meeting-then made up another story that it was about Russian adoptions and then had to admit--he lied again--by then admitting he arranged the meeting over dirt on Hillary Clinton that was promised by this attorney.

Everytime they lie they get busted for it, and there is a reason for it. It was British intelligence that warned U.S. intelligence of all this contact between Trump surrogates and whom they believed to be Russian Intelligence agents back in 2015. This is an alliance we have with several countries known as the 5 eyes we share intelligence with. IOW--Trump and his closest aids were being watched, monitored, and were under survelliance since 2015, and not necessarily by U.S. intelligence.
British intelligence passed Trump associates' talks with Russian on to US counterparts - CNNPolitics.com
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/apr/13/british-spies-first-to-spot-trump-team-links-russia
 
Last edited:
Captain Adverse said:
No, it is not! :no:

First, this story is based on the recollection of three "anonymous" sources. We have seen how valid past reports from "anonymous sources" have been. :roll:

Second, all evidence shows that the "Russian agent" was merely a child advocacy lawyer and had no such information; that it was merely a ploy to get access to talk about Russian adoption issues.

Third, this "evidence" of a meeting was not revealed by any "collusion investigation," but by the open report of foreign contacts by one of the participants as required by law.

Fourth, Trump Jr. was not a government official, but a private citizen who had been approached with an offer of information that could help the campaign. Investigating such information to see if it has any value is fairly normal in any political campaign.

Finally, trying to turn this non-incident into proof of actual collusion is typical of the disloyal opposition...crying "Fire!" when there isn't even smoke, just more fog they keep dreaming up.
Click to expand...

Let Faux News use anonymous sources and you are breathing easy.
 
Cardinal said:
Not yet, since you still seem to be fuzzy on the "guilty mind" part.

Which of these points do you deny?

1. A meeting between Donald Trump Jr. and Russian lawyer, Natalia Veselnitskaya, is by Rob Goldstone, a publicist for Emin Agalarov, a Russian pop musician and real estate magnate. Goldstone informs Jr. in an email that the information is acquired by the Russian government.
Click to expand...

Let's stop right here and take a closer look at this, shall we?

We also know that Agalarov, along with someone else (Goldstone?) induced Veselnitskaya to come to the meeting by implying that the Trump people would talk about sanctions.

Now, why did someone go through all that effort to set up a meeting when neither side had anything the other side thought they might be getting? Perhaps someone should start asking Agalarov and Goldstone what's going on?
 
haymarket said:
reality is always the best proof as the only ones denying it are the delusional.
Click to expand...

There ya go..."my reality is real, yours is delusional".

LOL!!
 
This joins the long list of what happens when little rich kids including daddy get involved in politics with zero experience. The Trumps have no business in politics much less in military issues.
 
Oreo said:
It doesn't matter. Trump Jr. was warned in advance that this information was coming from Russia via an email.
Click to expand...

That's the assertion made at the beginning of the NYT story.

The points I quoted from the same story seem very much to contradict that idea.

I suppose that's what happens when you rely on people's word for something you haven't actually seen, but are really hoping, Dan Rather-style, that it "confirms" something you want to be true.
 
haymarket said:
And we now have the proof of collusion between the Russians and the highest levels of the Trump campaign.
Click to expand...

No evidence of criminal activity has been established. The liberal version of collusion. :sinking:
 
Mycroft said:
Let's stop right here and take a closer look at this, shall we?

We also know that Agalarov, along with someone else (Goldstone?) induced Veselnitskaya to come to the meeting by implying that the Trump people would talk about sanctions.

Now, why did someone go through all that effort to set up a meeting when neither side had anything the other side thought they might be getting? Perhaps someone should start asking Agalarov and Goldstone what's going on?
Click to expand...

I have no idea why you wrote that. Veselnitskaya specifically wanted a future Trump administration to reverse the Magnitsky Act. Veselnitskaya specifically stated that Trump wanted damaging info on Clinton bad. That was her foot in the door. Since I assume you've been keeping up with events, your post makes no sense.
 
Oreo said:
It doesn't matter. Trump Jr. was warned in advance that this information was coming from Russia via an email. At that point he should have contacted the FBI--he didn't. Instead he set up a meeting, looking for the damaging information against Hillary Clinton.

To add insult to injury--he denied the meeting ever occurred by never disclosing it, and only (after) he got busted, admitted the meeting-then made up another story that it was about Russian adoptions and then had to admit--he lied again--by then admitting he arranged the meeting over dirt on Hillary Clinton that was promised by this attorney.
Click to expand...

There was no reason for him to notify the FBI.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom