Donald Trump Jr emails show Russia communication

[josie_L]

Yes but remember the Trump faithful would prefer believing her than an actual email.

Just saw this comment, and it made me laugh, really, you insinuate that I would prefer to believe her over the emails, how so, when I’m simply informing another poster that she is stating that she has no ties to the government, i.e., it doesn’t mean I believe her?

Either she is or isn’t tied to the government and since she is stating otherwise, then ultimately it’s her word against an email wherein she no where states that she is.

p.s. Although, there is a claim that she is connected or possibly linked to Fusion GPS.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

Just saw this comment, and it made me laugh, really, you insinuate that I would prefer to believe her over the emails, how so, when I’m simply informing another poster that she is stating that she has no ties to the government, i.e., it doesn’t mean I believe her?

Either she is or isn’t tied to the government and since she is stating otherwise, then ultimately it’s her word against an email wherein she no where states that she is.

p.s. Although, there is a claim that she is connected or possibly linked to Fusion GPS.

She could be a con artist. But it doesn’t matter. He went to go get information that was explained to him as being from Russia in order to help his dad.

 

[josie_L]

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

You can state that it is, but it won’t change how many feel about the murder of Seth Rich because there are just too many suspicious elements to it.

And why confiscate the computer of a victim of a supposed “botched robbery”, is that what police usually do in a botched robbery case? Or is it that they never believed the botched story line in the first place and knew he was murdered for other reasons?

I’m not one to veer down the path of conspiracy theories (never actually), but this murder of a DNC staffer happened just before incriminating emails from the DNC were leaked, and one as to wonder at the timing of it all.

 

[Reuben_J]

She could be a con artist. But it doesn’t matter. He went to go get information that was explained to him as being from Russia in order to help his dad.

Nothing of that is against the election law.

 

[DeniseNY]

Nothing of that is against the election law.

Exactly

 

[tomarin]

Nothing of that is against the election law.

Do you think it’s a proper thing to do (regardless of whether it’s illegal)? As someone above said, if it were Chelsea meeting with agents of unfriendly foreign governments would you let it pass?

 

[Reuben_J]

Do you think it’s a proper thing to do (regardless of whether it’s illegal)?

If it is not against the law, there is nothing one can do about it. That’s the reason we have the law. Receiving and getting information about your opponent in an election is pretty common, so I don’t see any abnormality about it.

Edit:

Why, somebody just published Mr. Trump’s income tax return without his permission. That should be a bigger crime.

 

[Jig_Saw]

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

Aren’t you the least bit curious?

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.

First, I am pretty sure that once Junior actively sets up the meeting, he is soliciting, which he did (read the emails). Secondly, there was no indication that any of the information was about Clinton doing something illegal - it was referred to as ‘dirt’. Third, the information doesn’t have to be stolen or contraband for Junior to not receive it, but it also cannot be from a foreign government. Fourth, the idea that Junior was acting as an agent of the law is hilarious. I wish Chris Hanson still did “To Catch a Predator” so we can see that excuse tried out.

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.

All deflections from the discussion that we are talking about Junior seeking information of a political opponent from a foreign government and involving the highest levels of the Trump campaign after months of denying anything of the sort.

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.

You seem completely in denial that it is clear from the emails that the Trump campaign was soliciting information on their political opponent from a foreign government. I mean, you were the one continuously saying there is nothing there, there is no evidence and now we have evidence. Then the switch to a personal interpretation of the law (ignoring all the lying that came from that camp) and the Dems do it anyway.

We now have evidence that the Trump campaign sought to collude with a foreign government during a Presidential election. I personally find it disturbing.

 

[7_Sorrows]

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

What conspiracy theory? You mean he wasn’t murdered?

 

[josie_L]

She could be a con artist. But it doesn’t matter. He went to go get information that was explained to him as being from Russia in order to help his dad.

Yes, she could very well be a con artist who meant to set up Donald Trump Jr., but my argument was with Vouthon initially, i.e., he was basing his information on the emails alone, which is why I had provided him with additional information that contradicted this.

And yes, it does matter who she is, in order to understand her motivations and how she fits into this unraveling story.

 

[7_Sorrows]

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?

He hasn’t done anything yet to make my support waver.
I don’t have a crystal ball so I can’t see into the future.

 

[ProVobis]

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?

I don’t think its a voting issue. Trump is just like other television celebrities in many respects. He had supporters and detractors when he was cheating on his first wife (among other things). So it’s not surprising that he continues to have very emotional supporters and detractors today. To some extent this also applies to other Presidential candidates as well but the TV exposure is very long-lasting.

 

[7_Sorrows]

I don’t think its a voting issue. Trump is just like other television celebrities in many respects. He had supporters and detractors when he was cheating on his first wife (among other things). So it’s not surprising that he continues to have very emotional supporters and detractors today. To some extent this also applies to other Presidential candidates as well but the TV exposure is very long-lasting.

I never watched Trump on TV, but the more viciously and unfairly I see him attacked, the more I want to defend him.

 

[josie_L]

Aren’t you the least bit curious?

First, I am pretty sure that once Junior actively sets up the meeting, he is soliciting, which he did (read the emails). Secondly, there was no indication that any of the information was about Clinton doing something illegal - it was referred to as ‘dirt’. Third, the information doesn’t have to be stolen or contraband for Junior to not receive it, but it also cannot be from a foreign government. Fourth, the idea that Junior was acting as an agent of the law is hilarious. I wish Chris Hanson still did “To Catch a Predator” so we can see that excuse tried out.

All deflections from the discussion that we are talking about Junior seeking information of a political opponent from a foreign government and involving the highest levels of the Trump campaign after months of denying anything of the sort.

You seem completely in denial that it is clear from the emails that the Trump campaign was soliciting information on their political opponent from a foreign government. I mean, you were the one continuously saying there is nothing there, there is no evidence and now we have evidence. Then the switch to a personal interpretation of the law (ignoring all the lying that came from that camp) and the Dems do it anyway.

We now have evidence that the Trump campaign sought to collude with a foreign government during a Presidential election. I personally find it disturbing.

Do you find this disturbing?

Democrats intentionally used disinformation from Russia to attack Trump, campaign aides

**While the mainstream news media hunts for evidence of Trump-Russia collusion, the public record shows that Democrats have willfully used Moscow disinformation to influence the presidential election against Donald Trump and attack his administration.
**

The disinformation came in the form of a Russian-fed dossier written by former British intelligence agent Christopher Steele. It contains a series of unverified criminal charges against Mr. Trump’s campaign aides, such as coordinating Moscow’s hacking of Democratic Party computers.

Some Democrats have widely circulated the discredited information. Mr. Steele was paid by the Democrat-funded opposition research firm Fusion GPS with money from a Hillary Clinton backer. Fusion GPS distributed the dossier among Democrats and journalists.

The information fell into the hands of the FBI, which used it in part to investigate Mr. Trump’s campaign aides.

Mr. Steele makes clear that his unproven charges came almost exclusively from sources linked to the Kremlin and Russian President Vladimir Putin. He identified his sources as “a senior Russian Foreign Ministry figure,” a former “top level Russian intelligence officer active inside the Kremlin,” a “senior Kremlin official” and a “senior Russian government official.”

The same Democrats who have condemned Russia’s election interference via plying fake news and hacking email servers have quoted freely from the Steele anti-Trump memos derived from creatures of the Kremlin.

**In other words, there is public evidence of significant, indirect collusion between Democrats and Russian disinformation, a Trump supporter said.
**
“If anyone colluded with the Russians, it was the Democrats,” said a former Trump campaign adviser who asked not to be identified because of the pending investigations.

“After all, they’ve routinely shopped around false claims from the debunked Steele dossier, which listed sources including senior Kremlin officials. If anyone should be investigated in Washington, it ought to be Adam Schiff, Eric Swalwell, Mark Warner and their staffers.”

That is a reference to Rep. Adam B. Schiff of California, the top Democrat on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence; Sen. Mark R. Warner, Virginia Democrat and vice chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence; and Rep. Eric Swalwell, a California, Democrat on the House intelligence panel.

By his own admission, Mr. Steele’s work has proved unreliable.

washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jul/11/democrats-spread-false-russian-information-on-trum/?utm_source=onesignal&utm_campaign=pushnotify&utm_medium=push

 

[tomarin]

If it is not against the law, there is nothing one can do about it. That’s the reason we have the law. Receiving and getting information about your opponent in an election is pretty common, so I don’t see any abnormality about it.

Edit:

Why, somebody just published Mr. Trump’s income tax return without his permission. That should be a bigger crime.

Do you see how the Russians might want something in return for their favors? And if that something were not in the best interest of the U.S., you would be fine with that?

 

[Jig_Saw]

Do you find this disturbing?

Is this thread about Hillary?

 

[Reuben_J]

I don’t think its a voting issue. Trump is just like other television celebrities in many respects. He had supporters and detractors when he was cheating on his first wife (among other things). So it’s not surprising that he continues to have very emotional supporters and detractors today. To some extent this also applies to other Presidential candidates as well but the TV exposure is very long-lasting.

Whoa, whoa, whoa. I believe you are not Trump’s supporter but there is no necessity to brand those who do.

 

[josie_L]

Is this thread about Hillary?

Why, yes, since it’s about campaigners who used Russian mis/information to try to discredit the opposing presidential candidate!!!

 

[josie_L]

Gotta love the fact, that the Democrats/Hillary campaign used Russian government sources of misinformation to discredit Trump, but then go about accusing Trump Jr. for trying to do the same.

Can anyone say hypocrisy???

 

[meltzerboy]

Gotta love the fact, that the Democrats/Hillary campaign used Russian government sources of misinformation to discredit Trump, but then go about accusing Trump Jr. for trying to do the same.

Can anyone say hypocrisy???

Why would the Hillary campaign need to do that? Trump discredited himself with virtually every word he uttered.

If the former is true, you are essentially saying here that two wrongs make a right. Is that what you believe?