V
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Oops! Did Christopher Steele inadvertently say “Crown prosecutor” while pretending to be a Russian in a Democrat “sting” operation against Trump Jr?
It would be hilarious if that’s what it turned out to be.
V
Vouthon
Guest
Trump Jr. originally told the Times this was about adoptions. But in the emails, he says in response to an offer to meet with a Russian with dirt on Clinton: “If it’s what you say, I love it".Oops! Did Christopher Steele inadvertently say “Crown prosecutor” while pretending to be a Russian in a Democrat “sting” operation against Trump Jr?
It would be hilarious if that’s what it turned out to be.
Why did he make such a blatant lie at first blush and why was this previously undisclosed meeting with an influential Russian lawyer in Trump Tower during the heat of the 2016 presidential campaign, accompanied by Kushner and Manafort, never revealed?
There’s a huge lack of transparency and obfuscation here. It’s not normal, and it may not even be legal, to meet with a foreign adversary expecting dirt on your opponent. That’s intent to conspire with a foreign government’s meddling in your country’s democratic process imho.
B
BoomBoomMancini
Guest
What if that WAS it? How would that exonerate Trump Jr?Oops! Did Christopher Steele inadvertently say “Crown prosecutor” while pretending to be a Russian in a Democrat “sting” operation against Trump Jr?
It would be hilarious if that’s what it turned out to be.
If the “hooker” you solicit is actually an undercover police officer, you’re still guilty of soliciting a prostitute.
V
Vouthon
Guest
President Donald Trump has repeatedly said that nobody on his campaign had any involvement with Russia.
I think this has put the kibosh on that self-confident claim. His own blinkin’ son had been told that a lawyer offering damaging material about Clinton was part of Russian government efforts to help his father’s election campaign. And he went to that meeting, under cover of secrecy, with Kushner and Manafort.
I think this has put the kibosh on that self-confident claim. His own blinkin’ son had been told that a lawyer offering damaging material about Clinton was part of Russian government efforts to help his father’s election campaign. And he went to that meeting, under cover of secrecy, with Kushner and Manafort.
L
lmachine
Guest
No, but Rob Goldstone, the Brit who set up the meeting, just used the British term like I sometimes hear UK visitors in the states refer to barristers.Oops! Did Christopher Steele inadvertently say “Crown prosecutor” while pretending to be a Russian in a Democrat “sting” operation against Trump Jr?
It would be hilarious if that’s what it turned out to be.
T
tomarin
Guest
In trying to follow this story I’ve been confused about who exactly told Donald Trump Jr. that the lawyer was a Russian agent?President Donald Trump has repeatedly said that nobody on his campaign had any involvement with Russia.
I think this has put the kibosh on that self-confident claim. His own blinkin’ son had been told that a lawyer offering damaging material about Clinton was part of Russian government efforts to help his father’s election campaign. And he went to that meeting, under cover of secrecy, with Kushner and Manafort.
J
jesucated
Guest
Mr. Goldstone identified her as such in a June 7th email.In trying to follow this story I’ve been confused about who exactly told Donald Trump Jr. that the lawyer was a Russian agent?
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
he said it because that’s what the conversation was really all about; at least until Trump Jr cut it off and sent the Russki packing.Trump Jr. originally told the Times this was about adoptions. But in the emails, he says in response to an offer to meet with a Russian with dirt on Clinton: “If it’s what you say, I love it".
Why did he make such a blatant lie at first blush and why was this previously undisclosed meeting with an influential Russian lawyer in Trump Tower during the heat of the 2016 presidential campaign, accompanied by Kushner and Manafort, never revealed?
There’s a huge lack of transparency and obfuscation here. It’s not normal, and it may not even be legal, to meet with a foreign adversary expecting dirt on your opponent. That’s intent to conspire with a foreign government’s meddling in your country’s democratic process imho.
This is so ridiculous. The DNC hires the disreputable Russian-owned “spy for hire” Crowdstrike firm to spy on Trump and concoct the utterly false and slanderous “dossier”. Hillary Clinton accepts tens of millions of Russian dollars while in office, inexplicably signs off on the sale of 20% of U.S. uranium, and you think it’s a big deal that Trump Jr wanted to see if this Russian lawyer had the scoop on it? I certainly would have in his place.
The Dems, on the one hand, concocted falsehoods with Russian aid and that of other foreigners. Trump Jr wanted to know what, if anything, the Russian lawyer knew. Not even a close comparison when it comes to “conspiring with foreigners”.
Anybody, including you, would have done exactly what Trump Jr did in such a circumstance.
L
lmachine
Guest
Rob Goldstone: The PR Man Behind Trump Jr.'s Russian MeetingIn trying to follow this story I’ve been confused about who exactly told Donald Trump Jr. that the lawyer was a Russian agent?
Rob Goldstone: who is the man who set up Trump Jr’s meeting with a Russian lawyer?
T
tomarin
Guest
So that’s somebody in the Trump campaign organization?Mr. Goldstone identified her as such in a June 7th email.
L
lmachine
Guest
I personally would not have, I don’t like the idea of prison.Anybody, including you, would have done exactly what Trump Jr did in such a circumstance.
J
jesucated
Guest
No. He is the agent to a Russian pop star (Emin) whose father (Aras) is a Russian real estate mogul and a friend of both Mr. Trump and Mr. Trump Jr. The father, Aras, and Mr Goldstone were apparently working to connect Mr. Trump Jr. to the Russian lawyer to facilitate the transfer of documents being provided by the Russian government as part of an effort to aid the Trump campaign.So that’s somebody in the Trump campaign organization?
And next time on Dallas…
V
Vouthon
Guest
What Clinton did or did not do in her dealings with Russia while in office is one thing.he said it because that’s what the conversation was really all about; at least until Trump Jr cut it off and sent the Russki packing.
This is so ridiculous. The DNC hires the disreputable Russian-owned “spy for hire” Crowdstrike firm to spy on Trump and concoct the utterly false and slanderous “dossier”. Hillary Clinton accepts tens of millions of Russian dollars while in office, inexplicably signs off on the sale of 20% of U.S. uranium, and you think it’s a big deal that Trump Jr wanted to see if this Russian lawyer had the scoop on it? I certainly would have in his place.
The Dems, on the one hand, concocted falsehoods with Russian aid and that of other foreigners. Trump Jr wanted to know what, if anything, the Russian lawyer knew. Not even a close comparison when it comes to “conspiring with foreigners”.
Anybody, including you, would have done exactly what Trump Jr did in such a circumstance.
Arranging a meeting during an election campaign with a woman whom you have already been told by e-mail is the agent of a foreign government seeking to meddle in your country’s democratic process to support one candidate over another, as part of that foreign government’s attempt to help your father get elected, is quite a different beast altogether.
The e-mail bluntly states that Russia wanted to help Trump and so Trump Jr. accepted the meeting, as well as any subsequent information, on that basis.
I’m sorry but I would not have acted as he had.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
What involvement is that? He didn’t sell any uranium to Russia did he? He didn’t get millions of dollars from Russia, did he? He didn’t stand by and do nothing while Russia absorbed part of Crimea did he? He didn’t back away from the Middle East so Russia could expand its influence there did he?President Donald Trump has repeatedly said that nobody on his campaign had any involvement with Russia.
I think this has put the kibosh on that self-confident claim. His own blinkin’ son had been told that a lawyer offering damaging material about Clinton was part of Russian government efforts to help his father’s election campaign. And he went to that meeting, under cover of secrecy, with Kushner and Manafort.
No. He allowed a Russian lawyer to come to his office to see if the lawyer had any evidence of Clinton’s involvement with Russia, as she claimed. Maybe he hoped the Russian would even have information on John Podesta’s receipt of a gift of stock in a Russian company.
The only people in the 2016 campaign who actually received anything at all from Russians were the Democrats. Receiving and giving favors from Russia is “involvement”. Agreeing to listen to claimed evidence of it is not.
S
Sojourner003
Guest
You forgot to mention Benghazi.What involvement is that? He didn’t sell any uranium to Russia did he? He didn’t get millions of dollars from Russia, did he? He didn’t stand by and do nothing while Russia absorbed part of Crimea did he? He didn’t back away from the Middle East so Russia could expand its influence there did he?
No. He allowed a Russian lawyer to come to his office to see if the lawyer had any evidence of Clinton’s involvement with Russia, as she claimed. Maybe he hoped the Russian would even have information on John Podesta’s receipt of a gift of stock in a Russian company.
The only people in the 2016 campaign who actually received anything at all from Russians were the Democrats. Receiving and giving favors from Russia is “involvement”. Agreeing to listen to claimed evidence of it is not.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Then you should have if you had the chance.What Clinton did or did not do in her dealings with Russia while in office is one thing.
Arranging a meeting during an election campaign with a woman whom you have already been told by e-mail is the agent of a foreign government seeking to meddle in your country’s democratic process to support one candidate over another, as part of that foreign government’s attempt to help your father get elected, is quite a different beast altogether.
The e-mail bluntly states that Russia wanted to help Trump and so Trump Jr. accepted the meeting, as well as any subsequent information, on that basis.
I’m sorry but I would not have acted as he had.
The whole world knows Clinton did favors for Russian agents in the uranium deal. And the whole world knows she received millions from Russian agents. Some Russian offers to provide you with evidence about her Russian involvement and you would turn down the opportunity to at least learn what it was?
You would have listened. Anybody would have.
But I’ll admit, it doesn’t appear he gave it a lot of credence, even from the very first.
L
lmachine
Guest
It’s really funny to watch people pivoting back to “HILLARY HILLARY HILLARY” now that the proof is coming out.What involvement is that? He didn’t sell any uranium to Russia did he? He didn’t get millions of dollars from Russia, did he? He didn’t stand by and do nothing while Russia absorbed part of Crimea did he? He didn’t back away from the Middle East so Russia could expand its influence there did he?
No. He allowed a Russian lawyer to come to his office to see if the lawyer had any evidence of Clinton’s involvement with Russia, as she claimed. Maybe he hoped the Russian would even have information on John Podesta’s receipt of a gift of stock in a Russian company.
The only people in the 2016 campaign who actually received anything at all from Russians were the Democrats. Receiving and giving favors from Russia is “involvement”. Agreeing to listen to claimed evidence of it is not.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Why do you think Benghazi had anything to do with Hillary Clinton’s receiving money from Russia? I don’t think anybody thinks that.You forgot to mention Benghazi.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
It’s relevant for several reasons. First, because these thin accusations of Trump appear intended to deflect from the truly outrageous relationships Hillary Clinton, Podesta and perhaps others had with Russian agents; matters that really cry out for investigation. Second, because it points out the utter bias of the media, which ignores the elephant in the room in order to focus on an alleged flea that isn’t even there. And finally, it might eventually be discovered that the real “Russian effort” here is to utilize the American left to weaken the American government by reducing the Trump administration to powerlessness; an effort that might have preceded the election itself.It’s really funny to watch people pivoting back to “HILLARY HILLARY HILLARY” now that the proof is coming out.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.