• 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!

Bannon: Kushner Met With Russians

rocket88 said:
So there's one set of rules, yet you make excuses for one side and want the other investigated?
Click to expand...

No, I don' t think so.

The simple end of it, was a deal concluded?
Where did the information with a Russian origination end up?

That's all. Nothing more. Switch the parties and the people, I think it would still apply. Don't you?

So one would have reasonable grounds to ask, why is the source and foundation of the Steele dossier not being examined?

Oh wait. It is. The congressional oversight committees have taken an appropriate interest in it. Flip it around, yes, Mueller's investigation continues, even in spite of the recently revealed bias, which may or may not affect its outcome. We'll have to wait and see.

Do you think that the Mueller investigation will deliver a watered down summary such as Hillary received?
 
eohrnberger said:
No, I don' t think so.

The simple end of it, was a deal concluded?
Where did the information with a Russian origination end up?

That's all. Nothing more. Switch the parties and the people, I think it would still apply. Don't you?

So one would have reasonable grounds to ask, why is the source and foundation of the Steele dossier not being examined?

Oh wait. It is. The congressional oversight committees have taken an appropriate interest in it. Flip it around, yes, Mueller's investigation continues, even in spite of the recently revealed bias, which may or may not affect its outcome. We'll have to wait and see.

Do you think that the Mueller investigation will deliver a watered down summary such as Hillary received?
Click to expand...

You don't think it would still apply if the parties were reversed. That much is clear.

If you think Clinton is wrong, you think Trump is wrong. And since you are clearly incapable if admitting that is possible, your position boils down to pure partisanship.
 
rocket88 said:
So there's one set of rules, yet you make excuses for one side and want the other investigated?
Click to expand...

eohrnberger said:
No, I don' t think so.

. . . .
Click to expand...

rocket88 said:
You don't think it would still apply if the parties were reversed. That much is clear.
Click to expand...

I don't know how to make it any clearer than I have. As I stated, there is one set of rules and they apply to everyone.

If you think Clinton is wrong, you think Trump is wrong. And since you are clearly incapable if admitting that is possible, your position boils down to pure partisanship.
Click to expand...

We have one transaction that didn't complete, and one that did. That appears to be beyond dispute.

We have good reason to believe that both intended transactions were attempting / did obtain information who's source appears to be the Russians (directly or indirectly).

We have good reason to believe that Putin's motivation for getting out from under the existing sanctions regime would have him hedge his bets against which candidate would win the election, and try to play both sides, which it appears that he did, again, one directly and one indirectly.

In the end, though, it appears that only one transaction completed, while the other didn't go beyond the first meeting, at least as far as we know at this time.

Seems your position is to claim greater fault on the Trump campaign and transition team's part, the transaction that did not complete, that did not go beyond the first meeting, more so than the DNC / Hillary campaign's part, the transaction that did complete.

Further, and admittedly a slightly separate issue, is all the places and uses where the suspect information from the completed transaction ended up. You seem not to want to discuss this at all.

A fair summary so far? If not, what am I missing?

Seems rather inconsistent to me hang someone for a transaction that did not complete, that did not go beyond the first meeting, that did not net any information, while ignoring the transaction that did complete, that did net the suspect information, and further to ignore all the other questionable uses the information form the completed transaction was used.

You accuse me of partisanship, but I think there's partisanship on in your position as well, unless I've not summarized it correctly.
 
eohrnberger said:
I don't know how to make it any clearer than I have. As I stated, there is one set of rules and they apply to everyone.



We have one transaction that didn't complete, and one that did. That appears to be beyond dispute.

We have good reason to believe that both intended transactions were attempting / did obtain information who's source appears to be the Russians (directly or indirectly).

We have good reason to believe that Putin's motivation for getting out from under the existing sanctions regime would have him hedge his bets against which candidate would win the election, and try to play both sides, which it appears that he did, again, one directly and one indirectly.

In the end, though, it appears that only one transaction completed, while the other didn't go beyond the first meeting, at least as far as we know at this time.

Seems your position is to claim greater fault on the Trump campaign and transition team's part, the transaction that did not complete, that did not go beyond the first meeting, more so than the DNC / Hillary campaign's part, the transaction that did complete.

Further, and admittedly a slightly separate issue, is all the places and uses where the suspect information from the completed transaction ended up. You seem not to want to discuss this at all.

A fair summary so far? If not, what am I missing?

Seems rather inconsistent to me hang someone for a transaction that did not complete, that did not go beyond the first meeting, that did not net any information, while ignoring the transaction that did complete, that did net the suspect information, and further to ignore all the other questionable uses the information form the completed transaction was used.

You accuse me of partisanship, but I think there's partisanship on in your position as well, unless I've not summarized it correctly.
Click to expand...
I don't know what you mean by "transaction" or how in the world you think Clinton did worse, but you're obfuscating the reality of what transpired last year.

Lets get the facts straight, shall we?

The Trump campaign was warned by the FBI that Russian operatives would seek to influence the election with bribery, yet instead of informing the authorities of Russian operatives using information obtained through espionage as leverage, they continued to seek outreach to nationals close to the Kremlin.

Over and over again, Flynn, Kushner, Don Jr, and company sought information from foreign actors they knew had breached national security, and offered to change foreign policy, in an effort to gain an advantage in the election. Then when they were legally required to come clean to the federal and Congressional investigators, they decided to lie and hide the truth.

What they did is something far more reckless than Clinton having an unsecured server. They invited hostile foreign actors into our politics, happily considering bribes for assistance.

It's also criminal.
 
Last edited:
MovingPictures said:
I don't know what you mean by "transaction" or how in the world you think Clinton did worse, but you're obfuscating the reality of what transpired last year.

Lets get the facts straight, shall we?

The Trump campaign was warned by the FBI that Russian operatives would seek to influence the election with bribery, yet instead of informing the authorities of Russian operatives using information obtained through espionage as leverage, they continued to seek outreach to nationals close to the Kremlin.

Over and over again, Flynn, Kushner, Don Jr, and company sought information from foreign actors they knew had breached national security, and offered to change foreign policy, in an effort to gain an advantage in the election. Then when they were legally required to come clean to the federal and Congressional investigators, they decided to lie and hide the truth.

What they did is something far more reckless than Clinton having an unsecured server. They invited hostile foreign actors into our politics, happily considering bribes for assistance.

It's also criminal.
Click to expand...

The position he's trying to articulate is that the ultimate source of some of Clinton's research was Russian. As if that excuses Junior. He wants to find an excuse-any excuse- that makes the left evil and the right holy. And he's failing miserably.
 
eohrnberger said:
I don't know how to make it any clearer than I have. As I stated, there is one set of rules and they apply to everyone.



We have one transaction that didn't complete, and one that did. That appears to be beyond dispute.

We have good reason to believe that both intended transactions were attempting / did obtain information who's source appears to be the Russians (directly or indirectly).

We have good reason to believe that Putin's motivation for getting out from under the existing sanctions regime would have him hedge his bets against which candidate would win the election, and try to play both sides, which it appears that he did, again, one directly and one indirectly.

In the end, though, it appears that only one transaction completed, while the other didn't go beyond the first meeting, at least as far as we know at this time.

Seems your position is to claim greater fault on the Trump campaign and transition team's part, the transaction that did not complete, that did not go beyond the first meeting, more so than the DNC / Hillary campaign's part, the transaction that did complete.

Further, and admittedly a slightly separate issue, is all the places and uses where the suspect information from the completed transaction ended up. You seem not to want to discuss this at all.

A fair summary so far? If not, what am I missing?

Seems rather inconsistent to me hang someone for a transaction that did not complete, that did not go beyond the first meeting, that did not net any information, while ignoring the transaction that did complete, that did net the suspect information, and further to ignore all the other questionable uses the information form the completed transaction was used.

You accuse me of partisanship, but I think there's partisanship on in your position as well, unless I've not summarized it correctly.
Click to expand...

Clinton's actions in no 2at excuse Trump. This is why I voted for neither of them because they're both crooked and both willing to sell us up the river to gain power.

The difference is that I didn't aid them. You did.
 
MovingPictures said:
I don't know what you mean by "transaction"
Click to expand...

As far as has been reported, Don Jr. has a single meeting with the Russian lawyer, which netted, as far as we know, no useful information. The transaction of obtaining information from this meeting never completed as far as is known.

We do know where the chain of exchanges of the other Russian information went. Russia => Steele => Fusion GPS => DNC / Hillary campaign (same thing at the time).

We also know that this same information ended up at Obama's FBI, DOJ, CIA, and was used to gain a FISA warrant on Trump and his campaign. Worrisome that, but as I said, a separate issue to the one being discussed.

or how in the world you think Clinton did worse, but you're obfuscating the reality of what transpired last year.

Lets get the facts straight, shall we?

The Trump campaign was warned by the FBI that Russian operatives would seek to influence the election with bribery,
Click to expand...

I found stories about FBI delivering a standard intelligence briefing, a warning, to both campaigns that Russian intelligence might try to infiltrate their campaigns. I didn't find anything specific to bribery.

yet instead of informing the authorities of Russian operatives using information obtained through espionage as leverage, they continued to seek outreach to nationals close to the Kremlin.

Over and over again, Flynn, Kushner, Don Jr, and company sought information from foreign actors they knew had breached national security, and offered to change foreign policy, in an effort to gain an advantage in the election. Then when they were legally required to come clean to the federal and Congressional investigators, they decided to lie and hide the truth.

What they did is something far more reckless than Clinton having an unsecured server. They invited hostile foreign actors into our politics, happily considering bribes for assistance.

It's also criminal.
Click to expand...

What you describe is criminal, Russians should be influencing US elections, nor should they be paid bribes to do so.

Whether that's actually what happened, I'm not so sure.

I'd be interested in learning more about
  • Over and over again, Flynn, Kushner, Don Jr, and company sought information from foreign actors they knew had breached national security
  • offered to change foreign policy

What I was referring to was paid for information which was a benefit to the Hillary campaign, which came from a foreign source (be it Russia, or Steele, still a foreign source), which also is criminal.

Also troubling is where that information ended up in the then sitting administration (DOJ, FBI, CIA, etc.) and how it was used to gain a FISA warrant against a presidential candidate and a presidential campaign who just happened to be from the opposing political party. Not at all comfortable with that.
 
rocket88 said:
Clinton's actions in no 2at excuse Trump. This is why I voted for neither of them because they're both crooked and both willing to sell us up the river to gain power.
Click to expand...

"Clinton's actions in no way excuse Trump." ?

Agreed. There is one set of rules for everyone, and they apply equally to everyone. At least in theory. After July 5th 2016, I rather doubt that's the case anymore.

The difference is that I didn't aid them. You did.
Click to expand...

Given how strong Hillary's incorrect polls (as they turned out to be) were, there really wasn't a choice, was there?

Do you think for one moment that without Hillary we'd still have Trump? I don't believe that.
 
eohrnberger said:
As far as has been reported, Don Jr. has a single meeting with the Russian lawyer, which netted, as far as we know, no useful information. The transaction of obtaining information from this meeting never completed as far as is known.
Click to expand...
That was far from the only meeting the Trump circle had with Russian nationals, nor is there anything credible about Don Jr's claim that nothing came from the meeting, since he initially lied about it's purpose.

We do know where the chain of exchanges of the other Russian information went. Russia => Steele => Fusion GPS => DNC / Hillary campaign (same thing at the time).
Click to expand...
Wrong. The Clinton camp never used it against Trump, and Clinton's circle had nothing to do with what was found by Steel; Trump was known to have shady connections to the Kremlin long before the dossier. There's also a big difference between opposition research that is legal, and taking meetings with foreign actors that tell you they have breached the nations security.

We also know that this same information ended up at Obama's FBI, DOJ, CIA, and was used to gain a FISA warrant on Trump and his campaign. Worrisome that, but as I said, a separate issue to the one being discussed.
Click to expand...
Wrong. Manafort's conversations with Russian nationals were intercepted by the CIA, whom were listening in on foreign visitors -- which is perfectly legal. As Manafort was a US citizen, it was a matter for domestic intelligence, so the matter was turned over to the FBI, who then obtained the FISA warrant.

I found stories about FBI delivering a standard intelligence briefing, a warning, to both campaigns that Russian intelligence might try to infiltrate their campaigns. I didn't find anything specific to bribery.
Click to expand...
Bribery is Russia and China's game, so it goes without saying.

I'd be interested in learning more about
  • Over and over again, Flynn, Kushner, Don Jr, and company sought information from foreign actors they knew had breached national security
  • offered to change foreign policy
Click to expand...
Everything I stated has been publicly available for awhile now, so I don't know how you're possibly in the dark.

It's known that Flynn and Kushner were aware of Russian meddling in the election, and it's on record they wanted to use Russian embassies to by-pass any interception by the CIA. It's also on record that both talked to Russia's ambassador about nine times between them, and Flynn decided to lie to the FBI about his conversations with the ambassador.

Kushner, Sessions, and Flynn also lied on their security applications, which is felony perjury. Kushner and Sessions also have given false statements to the US Congress.

For people that didn't do anything wrong, they sure commit a lot of process crimes.

What I was referring to was paid for information which was a benefit to the Hillary campaign, which came from a foreign source (be it Russia, or Steele, still a foreign source), which also is criminal.
Click to expand...
That is not criminal at all.

Also troubling is where that information ended up in the then sitting administration (DOJ, FBI, CIA, etc.) and how it was used to gain a FISA warrant against a presidential candidate and a presidential campaign who just happened to be from the opposing political party. Not at all comfortable with that.
Click to expand...
Sir, you simply don't know what you're talking about.
 
MovingPictures said:
That was far from the only meeting the Trump circle had with Russian nationals, nor is there anything credible about Don Jr's claim that nothing came from the meeting, since he initially lied about it's purpose.
Click to expand...

eohrnberger said:
We do know where the chain of exchanges of the other Russian information went. Russia => Steele => Fusion GPS => DNC / Hillary campaign (same thing at the time).
Click to expand...
MovingPictures said:
Wrong. The Clinton camp never used it against Trump, and Clinton's circle had nothing to do with what was found by Steel; Trump was known to have shady connections to the Kremlin long before the dossier. There's also a big difference between opposition research that is legal, and taking meetings with foreign actors that tell you they have breached the nations security.
Click to expand...
Umm. Clinton campaign, DNC paid for research that led to Russia dossier ... (Washington Post)
I never claimed the Clinton campaign used the Steel research. Doesn't matter if they did or not anyway. What matters is that they paid for what was a campaign benefit which came from a foreign source. So not so wrong.

eohrnberger said:
We also know that this same information ended up at Obama's FBI, DOJ, CIA, and was used to gain a FISA warrant on Trump and his campaign. Worrisome that, but as I said, a separate issue to the one being discussed.
Click to expand...
Wrong. Manafort's conversations with Russian nationals were intercepted by the CIA, whom were listening in on foreign visitors -- which is perfectly legal. As Manafort was a US citizen, it was a matter for domestic intelligence, so the matter was turned over to the FBI, who then obtained the FISA warrant.
Click to expand...
Umm. FBI used dossier allegations to bolster Trump-Russia investigation ... (CNN) Not so wrong. But IIRC, Obama's FBI tried multiple times to get a FISA warrant against Trump and his campaign. I do believe the last one, the one with the Steele dossier, was the attempt that actually got the warrant.

The fact that the Steele dossier was used to bolster the FISA warrant of the Trump campaign, knowing its source was the Russians, doesn't cause any sort of pause? Whom are the Russians going to manufacture implicating intel on next, and give it to the FBI for a FISA warrant?

Bribery is Russia and China's game, so it goes without saying.
Click to expand...

No issue, a standard and cheap way for a foreign agent to compromise and enlist some for their uses. I don't recall bribery being mentioned, hell all these people are more than rich enough, I don't see it as a useful motivator for any of them.

Everything I stated has been publicly available for awhile now, so I don't know how you're possibly in the dark.
Click to expand...

Everything I've cited is public as well, yet you seem to be unaware of them. :shrug:

It's known that Flynn and Kushner were aware of Russian meddling in the election, and it's on record they wanted to use Russian embassies to by-pass any interception by the CIA. It's also on record that both talked to Russia's ambassador about nine times between them, and Flynn decided to lie to the FBI about his conversations with the ambassador.
Click to expand...

Presidential campaigns talk to foreign powers. Transition teams also talk to foreign powers. The real question is was there a crime committed or not? As of yet, no crime having been committed has been shown in evidence; the Mueller investigation (if this is within its scope, expanded or not), has not concluded. I'll wait.

Kushner, Sessions, and Flynn also lied on their security applications, which is felony perjury. Kushner and Sessions also have given false statements to the US Congress.

For people that didn't do anything wrong, they sure commit a lot of process crimes.


That is not criminal at all.


Sir, you simply don't know what you're talking about.
Click to expand...

Please see citation which directly contradict your claims.
I think, perhaps, that we are looking at the same thing from two different perspectives.
 
Last edited:
joG said:
I am not really surprised that people talk with each other to find out things they want to know. That seems commendable to me. How do you go about it? Hack their computers? ;)
Click to expand...

What do you expect from a Never Trumper, adoring adulation? :lol:
 
rocket88 said:
No, it's clear that everything he does is beyond reproach because his father in law is god-incarnate.
Click to expand...

Thanks for admitting he didn't break the law. That's new...lol
 
NeverTrumpGOP said:
I thought there were no meetings with Russians.
Click to expand...

As it was evident that people with the set of characteristics of this group had had many meetings with people from all around the world, the question can have only been to ascertain relevant meetings worth mentioning. At least that is what any sane person would assume.
 
eohrnberger said:
"Clinton's actions in no way excuse Trump." ?

Agreed. There is one set of rules for everyone, and they apply equally to everyone. At least in theory. After July 5th 2016, I rather doubt that's the case anymore.



Given how strong Hillary's incorrect polls (as they turned out to be) were, there really wasn't a choice, was there?

Do you think for one moment that without Hillary we'd still have Trump? I don't believe that.
Click to expand...

I agree with you on that last point.

If there's going to be one set of rules, it also applies to Trump.
 
apdst said:
Thanks for admitting he didn't break the law. That's new...lol
Click to expand...

Depends on how you see the law. He certainly intended to break the law. According to you, it's ok. Because he works for Donald Christ.
 
rocket88 said:
I agree with you on that last point.

If there's going to be one set of rules, it also applies to Trump.
Click to expand...

We have agreement on that point then. Fair enough.
 
rocket88 said:
Depends on how you see the law. He certainly intended to break the law. According to you, it's ok. Because he works for Donald Christ.
Click to expand...

Evidence of intent, please?
 
eohrnberger said:
That's fair.

To date, wasn't the only meeting between Don Jr. and a 'Russian' was that lawyer who wanted to talk about orphaned kids?
Click to expand...

Yes, that's the ticket.....

You probably need to do some binge watching of past episodes to catch up. I don't want to give you any spoilers.
 
apdst said:
Evidence of intent, please?
Click to expand...

Conspiracy charges are largely crimes of intent. A crime was committed even before (and sometimes to the exclusion of) the intended crime.

For example, you try to find someone to kill your business partner. Looking for a hired killer is intent to kill. Offering a specific person money to kill your business partner is a crime of conspiracy. The whole plan need not go another step and people are going to jail.
 
Last edited:
upsideguy said:
Conspiracy charges are largely crimes of intent. A crime was committed even before (and sometimes to the exclusion) of the intended crime.
Click to expand...

Ok...evidence?
 
apdst said:
Ok...evidence?
Click to expand...

Patience. There is already enough circumstantial evidence that you need database to keep it sorted. Mueller is bound to string it together into a concise story that even Republicans can understand.

Mueller Time.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom