Donald Trump Jr emails show Russia communication

[M-Dent]

Just looking at the issue as a potential risk of unwittingly cooperating with a foreign adversary - the meeting was a bad idea. But I am still unconvinced it was much more than imprudent.

 

[Sojourner003]

Junior’s email dump seems to have had a domino effect. The FBI and news organizations are using it to connect the dots…

 

[Jig_Saw]

I can tell you have never dealt with the ATF. Truly unique personalities. But there’s a lot more humor involved in high level law enforcement than some might suspect. I could tell my favorite story about a meeting with ATF, FBI and CID (IRS criminal division) at the same time. I thought it very funny. But that’s another story altogether.

I know an agent. I’ll ask him if he thinks you acted properly.

If boyfriend was everything girlfriend said he was, and if the one gun really was a Thompson submachine gun, then ATF was absolutely the right choice. Illegal firearms are absolutely an ATF issue.

Well, I don’t know if calling the ATF or the local police would be the right choice, but I absolutely would let law enforcement know if someone gave me guns they said were stolen. Kind of like I would let law enforcement know if someone offered me help from a foreign government to get dirt on my political competitor. I can tell you what I wouldn’t do though, I wouldn’t say “I love it” in an email and arrange a meeting.

What makes you think Trump Jr was potentially involving himself in a felony? If Veselnitskaya handed him credible information that Hillary was involved in a criminal quid pro quo, it’s no felony to receive it; only to hide it, destroy it or alter it. If she handed him garbage or nothing at all (the latter was actually the case) there’s no obligation to talk to law enforcement about it just because she’s a Russian windbag even if you suspect she’s part of a Dem party “sting” operation. But I don’t think he thought the latter.

My reading is that he violated the law on solicitation of a foreign national for a campaign by what he wrote in the emails. Now, again, I’m not a lawyer, so I don’t know that it would be considered a violation of the law and I will let that be decided within the judicial system, but I wouldn’t want to be him tonight. There are several lawyers saying that he violated the law as well, which coincides with my belief, but I have also seen many lawyers interpret the law very weirdly, so I don’t know if I should take them seriously.

 

[7_Sorrows]

I know an agent. I’ll ask him if he thinks you acted properly.

Well, I don’t know if calling the ATF or the local police would be the right choice, but I absolutely would let law enforcement know if someone gave me guns they said were stolen. Kind of like I would let law enforcement know if someone offered me help from a foreign government to get dirt on my political competitor. I can tell you what I wouldn’t do though, I wouldn’t say “I love it” in an email and arrange a meeting.

My reading is that he violated the law on solicitation of a foreign national for a campaign by what he wrote in the emails. Now, again, I’m not a lawyer, so I don’t know that it would be considered a violation of the law and I will let that be decided within the judicial system, but I wouldn’t want to be him tonight. There are several lawyers saying that he violated the law as well, which coincides with my belief, but I have also seen many lawyers interpret the law very weirdly, so I don’t know if I should take them seriously.

I wouldn’t take them seriously.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Maybe they’ll somehow get the DNC to allow the FBI to examine the DNC computer that was supposedly hacked, and which it refuses to allow the FBI to see?

Okay, this is a distraction, but to address it. But responding to it.

It might surprise you to know that there is no legal obligation for a victim to hand over and disclose the contents of their computer if someone breaks into it. There was an FBI presentation at a security conference in 2016 in Boston in which an FBI representative stated this. The rep said they would like for people to let them examine such machines, but people have no legal obligation to do so.

 

[sallybutler]

Russia might have hacked the DNC computer. But the FBI never examined it because DNC refused to let them see it. Or at least that’s what Comey said as late as March of this year. Of course, to subpoena it, he would have had to go to the Justice Department, but he already knew it was unlikely to cooperate. For all we know, he might have asked DOJ and been refused. In any event, he complained about it publicly at least twice this year before he was fired.

Regardless, the only information CrowdStrike presented to “prove” it was the Russkis was to SAY that it found the “fingerprints” of a spyware program the Russians have been known to use. But actually, the Russians are only the third most common user of that spyware. The most frequent origin of hacks using it is the U.S. I can’t remember what the second most frequent origin is. Maybe Ukraine or Iran or somebody. Everybody in the “hacking business” has those programs.

But if there are distinctive Russian “fingerprints” in the DNC computer, the FBI has never seen them. Likely the DNC doesn’t want the FBI to see the other stuff in the computer. At least that would be my guess.

Will you turn over your computer to the FBI? It has most likely been hacked by criminals, as has just about every computer in the world. If the answer is no, is it because you don’t trust the FBI (who has already indicated that many of their employees don’t like people like you), because you have sensitive information on that computer that is none of their business, you don’t see how them having your computer gives them additional abilities, some other reasons, and/or a combination of these reasons?

 

[josie_L]

Of course, she would say that.

The e-mail published by Trump Jr. suggests differently.

Whatever she is, it would be verifiable, but I have since read that she may be linked or was linked to FUSION GPS. Do you know who they are?

 

[BoomBoomMancini]

7 Sorrows, I’m just curious: is there ANYTHING, even theoretically, that might make your support for Trump waver? Has he done anything that you’ve opposed? Or are you a diehard, unshakably loyal Trump voter?

 

[josie_L]

Maybe they’ll somehow get the DNC to allow the FBI to examine the DNC computer that was supposedly hacked, and which it refuses to allow the FBI to see?

That would be a nice addition to the timeline. In fact, it might even make it credible.

Yes, and while we’re at it, I’d like to know what’s on Seth Rich’s computer.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I know an agent. I’ll ask him if he thinks you acted properly.

Well, I don’t know if calling the ATF or the local police would be the right choice, but I absolutely would let law enforcement know if someone gave me guns they said were stolen. Kind of like I would let law enforcement know if someone offered me help from a foreign government to get dirt on my political competitor. I can tell you what I wouldn’t do though, I wouldn’t say “I love it” in an email and arrange a meeting.

My reading is that he violated the law on solicitation of a foreign national for a campaign by what he wrote in the emails. Now, again, I’m not a lawyer, so I don’t know that it would be considered a violation of the law and I will let that be decided within the judicial system, but I wouldn’t want to be him tonight. There are several lawyers saying that he violated the law as well, which coincides with my belief, but I have also seen many lawyers interpret the law very weirdly, so I don’t know if I should take them seriously.

Do whatever you think serves your purpose. I know what I know.

Let’s be a little more accurate here. Trump did not “solicit” anything. He was “solicited”. He merely agreed to hear the individual out. And regarding what? If the Russian lawyer really had the goods on crimes committed by Clinton, it was Trump’s duty as a citizen to shed light on it if he could, whether it had campaign ramifications or not. There was no indication that the information was stolen or contraband. Against the background of what seems to be politically-influenced immobility on Comey’s part (but might not be, though it seemed so) are we, as citizens, somehow barred from bringing evidence of crimes to light? If that were so, then no citizen-witness could ever testify to anything.

Now, back to Clinton and Comey’s failure to investigate, e.g., her organization’s clear collusion with Ukrainian actors to produce or invent (ultimately they invented) “dirt” on Trump for use in the election. There was Comey’s failure to investigate her repeated sale of influence, including to Russia. Certain aspects of her unsavory acts were known to the public, but not because of the FBI. Comey apparently was derelict of duty in order to keep his job with the Obama administration and (he apparently thought) the upcoming Clinton administration.

But that does not mean that nobody in the whole FBI wasn’t looking at any of it. Unfortunately, Comey destroyed evidence by granting immunity to participants in Clinton’s various shenanigans. But that still doesn’t mean that no agents can reconstruct an investigation.

Why would anybody care? Clinton lost, right? And part of the reason she lost was the distrust the public had for her based on the grossly public information about her misdeeds. People should care because if Clinton really did sell out her country and violate state secrets, and repeatedly, and if she gets away with it, then there absolutely should be legislation further curbing the ability of government functionaries to do that. Personally, I would gladly see Trump pardon her if grotesqueries like the secret server and taking money from foreign governments could somehow be prevented in the future.

Remediation of such enabling conditions absolutely cries out for accomplishment. Perhaps that’s why the left is so intent on deflecting attention to Trump Jr’s “windbag caller”; a complete nothing from the standpoint of law enforcement or legislation unless Congress wants to prohibit all contact with all foreigners during an election; something that will never happen and would be impossible to enforce. Others among the Dem elites might be looking forward to selling their country out in the future for money as Hillary Clinton did. $150 million is, after all, a lot of money, and there might be more where that came from.

 

[DeniseNY]

Yes, and while we’re at it, I’d like to know what’s on Seth Rich’s computer.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Okay, this is a distraction, but to address it. But responding to it.

It might surprise you to know that there is no legal obligation for a victim to hand over and disclose the contents of their computer if someone breaks into it. There was an FBI presentation at a security conference in 2016 in Boston in which an FBI representative stated this. The rep said they would like for people to let them examine such machines, but people have no legal obligation to do so.

I agree there is no legal obligation all by itself for a victim to hand over and disclose the contents of their computer if someone breaks into it. Similarly, there is no obligation for a citizen to call law enforcement in advance of a conversation, the contents of which might disclose a crime committed by another, but might not.

But if the computer is subpoenaed, the owner does have such an obligation. That computer is central to any investigation, since it’s the only physical evidence that Russia or anybody else actually hacked the DNC. And to ignore it is a total miscarriage of justice. Comey never subpoenaed it, and why? Well, he would have had to go to Loretta Lynch for that, and it was pretty obvious that Loretta Lynch’s first loyalty was to the Dem party, not criminal investigation. She made that clear to him.

Sessions was hornswoggled into disqualifying himself, so to whom could Comey then go after Trump’s inauguration? Rosenstein, that’s who. But Comey wanted Rosenstein to appoint Mueller, so that was out. Do I greatly criticize Sessions for setting that stage? Absolutely. Someday these Repubs (including many in congress) need to realize that the leaders of the Dem party are not playing by the same rules. The left is inherently totalitarian, and the Repubs need to accept that American politics is no longer a “country club”.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Yes, and while we’re at it, I’d like to know what’s on Seth Rich’s computer.

It won’t happen. Both the FBI and the DOJ have been disabled by the Dems from investigating anything relating to the Dem party or the Clintons. They have been replaced, in effect, by Mueller, who has no interest at all in anything other than hanging as many Repubs as he can, which is why he has an all-Dem-loyalist crew.

The anti-Trump coup isn’t complete, but it’s close.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

How many statements do the parents of this young man need to make against this conspiracy theory?

google.com/amp/amp.timeinc.net/time/4791788/seth-rich-parents-speak-out-fox-news-retraction-conspiracy-dnc/%3Fsource%3Ddam

google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/opinions/were-seth-richs-parents-stop-politicizing-our-sons-murder/2017/05/23/164cf4dc-3fee-11e7-9869-bac8b446820a_story.html

We know that Seth’s personal email and his personal computer were both inspected by detectives early in the investigation and that the inspection revealed no evidence of any communications with anyone at WikiLeaks or anyone associated with WikiLeaks. Nor did that inspection reveal any evidence that Seth had leaked DNC emails to WikiLeaks or to anyone else. Indeed, those who have suggested that Seth’s role as a data analyst at the DNC gave him access to a wide trove of emails are simply incorrect — Seth’s job was to develop analytical models to encourage voters to turn out to vote. He didn’t have access to DNC emails, Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee emails, John Podesta’s emails or Hillary Clinton’s emails. That simply wasn’t his job.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

How many statements do the parents of this young man need to make against this conspiracy theory?

google.com/amp/amp.timeinc.net/time/4791788/seth-rich-parents-speak-out-fox-news-retraction-conspiracy-dnc/%3Fsource%3Ddam

google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/opinions/were-seth-richs-parents-stop-politicizing-our-sons-murder/2017/05/23/164cf4dc-3fee-11e7-9869-bac8b446820a_story.html

We know that Seth’s personal email and his personal computer were both inspected by detectives early in the investigation and that the inspection revealed no evidence of any communications with anyone at WikiLeaks or anyone associated with WikiLeaks. Nor did that inspection reveal any evidence that Seth had leaked DNC emails to WikiLeaks or to anyone else. Indeed, those who have suggested that Seth’s role as a data analyst at the DNC gave him access to a wide trove of emails are simply incorrect — Seth’s job was to develop analytical models to encourage voters to turn out to vote. He didn’t have access to DNC emails, Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee emails, John Podesta’s emails or Hillary Clinton’s emails. That simply wasn’t his job.

 

[josie_L]

How many statements do the parents of this young man need to make against this conspiracy theory?

google.com/amp/amp.timeinc.net/time/4791788/seth-rich-parents-speak-out-fox-news-retraction-conspiracy-dnc/%3Fsource%3Ddam

google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/opinions/were-seth-richs-parents-stop-politicizing-our-sons-murder/2017/05/23/164cf4dc-3fee-11e7-9869-bac8b446820a_story.html

Mary Gail, you really need to look deep into this story to know that something is afoot, i.e., why confiscate the computer of a former DNC staffer who the POLICE initially informed the public was killed because of a “botched robbery”, when that was patently false? Now, it is believed that he may have been killed by a hired hit man.

p.s. Even the parents of the slain Seth Rich (RIP) initially hired a private investigator, until something scared or prevented the investigator and the parents from continuing said investigation.

 

[meltzerboy]

The Donald Trump Jr meeting is farther back than that then … and its 100% political made up BS … a meeting he did not initiate and that produced zip for influence peddling …

The DTJ meeting is different from the Obama scandal and the Reagan scandal, both of which I condemn, because it involves the son of a sitting President and perhaps the President himself. It is not the solicitation or the outcome that are of sole importance but the fact DTJ consented to the meeting itself with a representative of a foreign adversarial country with the intention to find out the dirty goods regarding the political presidential opponent of his father. The consent and intention are not kosher.

Be honest: if the shoe were on the other foot, and it was the daughter of Hillary Clinton who hosted this meeting, would you be so inclined to dismiss it?

 

[dvdjs]

… POLICE initially informed the public was killed because of a “botched robbery”, when that was patently false?

Patently? You argument on that point has been shown to be uninformed.

Now, it is believed that he may have been killed by a hired hit man.

LOL, Nice use of the passive voice. Who believes this? Not even the college sleuth club.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

Mary Gail, you really need to look deep into this story to know that something is afoot, i.e., why confiscate the computer of a former DNC staffer who the POLICE initially informed the public was killed because of a “botched robbery”, when that was patently false? Now, it is believed that he may have been killed by a hired hit man.

p.s. Even the parents of the slain Seth Rich (RIP) initially hired a private investigator, until something scared or prevented the investigator and the parents from continuing said investigation.

So, the parents are not being truthful in their letter?

I can understand searching a computer of a murder victim to see if there was any indication of someone they know having committed a crime.

It’s a conspiracy theory.

Do you know how many murders go unsolved in the US? Approximately 1/3

economist.com/news/united-states/21656725-police-fail-make-arrest-more-third-nations-killings-getting-away

 

[ThinkingSapien]

I agree there is no legal obligation all by itself for a victim to hand over and disclose the contents of their computer if someone breaks into it.

But if the computer is subpoenaed, the owner does have such an obligation. That computer is central to any investigation, since it’s the only physical evidence that Russia or anybody else actually hacked the DNC.

I don’t think the focus is singularly on the penetration of the DNC server. Rather it is on the alleged collusion of the associates of Trump. For this we can’t say that the DNC server is the only physical evidence. As members of the general public we both haven’t been privied to the body of evidence and we now have the the communications that were voluntarily released from a member of the alleged that support such allegations (the person that is the topic of this thread).