Donald Trump Jr emails show Russia communication

  • Thread starter Thread starter Vouthon
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
abucs said:
What is the connection between Trump junior meeting with the Russian lawyer and Podesta being tricked into handing over his password?
Click to expand...
Nothing. One is not relevant to the other.

When Trump supporters, here and elsewhere, confronted with allegations and evidence that people involved with his campaign have behaved badly, or illegally, or unethically, have no response beyond “but Hillary,” they’re essentially admitting that they have no defense.

It’s not a telling retort. It’s a confession.
 
Trump Campaign Paid Don Jr.’s Lawyer $50,000 Two Weeks Before Email Scandal
About two weeks before the release of emails showing Donald Trump Jr. seeking opposition research from attorneys representing the Russian government, his father’s reelection campaign began paying the law firm now representing Trump Jr. in the ensuing political and legal fallout.
Click to expand...
A new filing with the Federal Election Commission shows that President Trump’s reelection campaign paid $50,000 to the law offices of Alan Futerfas on June 26. On July 11, the New York Times revealed the contents of a June 2016 email exchange in which Trump Jr., through an associate, solicited damaging information about 2016 election rival Hillary Clinton.
Click to expand...
Just a day earlier, he had enlisted the services of Futerfas, who is best known for representing four of New York’s major Italian mob families. The announcement of the hire came not from the Trump campaign but from the president’s company, where Trump Jr. remains a trustee.
Click to expand...
…]
Click to expand...
It was not immediately clear whether the campaign expenditure was renumeration for Futerfas’s representation of Trump’s son, on Russia-related or other matters. But the payment sticks out on a presidential campaign’s expenditure list: Futerfas’s expertise is in white collar criminal defense, not political and election law.
Click to expand...
The Trump campaign’s FEC filing shows significant expenditures on legal representation as it wades through scrutiny involving alleged Russian meddling in the 2016 election. As part of that investigation, the FBI is examining whether the Trump campaign guided Russian disinformation efforts aimed at key voting precincts.
Click to expand...
This doesn’t make much sense to me. Trump claims he didn’t learn about the emails until they were reported, but we know his lawyers knew about them three weeks earlier and Trump’s campaign started paying Trump Jr.'s lawyer two weeks before the story broke. I wonder if Trump was being truthful in this instance.
 
abucs said:
What is the connection between Trump junior meeting with the Russian lawyer and Podesta being tricked into handing over his password?
Click to expand...
Inisfallen said:
Nothing. One is not relevant to the other.

When Trump supporters, here and elsewhere, confronted with allegations and evidence that people involved with his campaign have behaved badly, or illegally, or unethically, have no response beyond “but Hillary,” they’re essentially admitting that they have no defense.

It’s not a telling retort. It’s a confession.
Click to expand...
But didn’t all this start because of the allegations that Russians tricked Podesta into giving them his password?

Then the allegations were that the Trump team colluded with the Russians to do this.

So when the Trump team denied colluding with the Russians, isn’t it common sense to view these denials in the context of tricking Podesta?
 
abucs said:
But didn’t all this start because of the allegations that Russians tricked Podesta into giving them his password?

Then the allegations were that the Trump team colluded with the Russians to do this.

So when the Trump team denied colluding with the Russians, isn’t it common sense to view these denials in the context of tricking Podesta?
Click to expand...
Not sure how tricky anyone had to be. Wasn’t his password “password”?
 
abucs said:
So when the Trump team denied colluding with the Russians, isn’t it common sense to view these denials in the context of tricking Podesta?
Click to expand...
No. The denials were categorical. Moreover, the failure to disclose hadn’t a thing to do with anything other than a requirement for certain officials to disclose.
 
abucs said:
But didn’t all this start because of the allegations that Russians tricked Podesta into giving them his password?

Then the allegations were that the Trump team colluded with the Russians to do this.

So when the Trump team denied colluding with the Russians, isn’t it common sense to view these denials in the context of tricking Podesta?
Click to expand...
No. It’s not common sense.

If Donald Trump, Jr. knowingly sought information helpful to his father’s campaign from people he believed were agents of a foreign government, specifically Russia, that is what it is. I’m no lawyer, and I don’t know if it’s a crime or not, but it certainly smells bad, and belies all those denials that have been coming from the Trump camp for so long now (and seems to be provoking Kushner and others to rush to revise their disclosure forms).

Because Russia may have duped John Podesta into giving up a password doesn’t make John Podesta responsible for the actions of Donald Trump, Jr. Or Donald Trump, Sr., for that matter.
 
Inisfallen said:
If Donald Trump, Jr. knowingly sought information helpful to his father’s campaign from people he believed were agents of a foreign government, specifically Russia, that is what it is. I’m no lawyer, and I don’t know if it’s a crime or not, but it certainly smells bad, .
Click to expand...
But if someone claims to have evidence of criminality regarding one of the candidates running for President, isn’t it ethical to hear what they have to say so that the American public can be informed on such an important matter?
 
abucs said:
But if someone claims to have evidence of criminality refarding one of the candidates running for President, isn’t it ethical to hear what they have to say so that the American public can be informed on such an important matter?
Click to expand...
No.

You get the authorities involved.
 
abucs said:
But if someone claims to have evidence of criminality regarding one of the candidates running for President, isn’t it ethical to hear what they have to say so that the American public can be informed on such an important matter?
Click to expand...
If someone linked to a hostile foreign government wants to share information of uncertain provenance, the ethical thing to do is bring law enforcement to the meeting, not campaign higher ups.
 
dvdjs said:
No. The denials were categorical. Moreover, the failure to disclose hadn’t a thing to do with anything other than a requirement for certain officials to disclose.
Click to expand...
If the meeting was a minor thing that in the end didn’t interest the Trump campaign at all, and went nowhere then isn’t the disclosure (or lack of it) also really a minor matter?
 
abucs said:
If the meeting was a minor thing that in the end didn’t interest the Trump campaign at all, and went nowhere then isn’t the disclosure (or lack of it) also really a minor matter?
Click to expand...
Just because they walked away didn’t mean they weren’t still interested. Just sayin…
 
abucs said:
If the meeting was a minor thing that in the end didn’t interest the Trump campaign at all, and went nowhere then isn’t the disclosure (or lack of it) also really a minor matter?
Click to expand...
Probably. But that, at the moment, with all the dissembling, is a very big if.
 
This article shows how opposition research works.

politico.com/magazine/story/2017/07/15/i-ran-oppo-research-against-donald-trump-he-has-no-idea-what-hes-talking-about-215381
So what should have Donald Trump Jr. done when he received these emails? Not taken the meeting, for starters. And then, he should have turned the emails over to law enforcement. But he didn’t, and now, he and his father are once again trying to convince us that abhorrent behavior is normal.
Click to expand...
I heard one response from the bowels of the right-wing internet alleging that the Clinton campaign “did the same thing.” The evidence? A Politico investigation showing the DNC gathered information from a Ukrainian political operative. Conveniently left out, though, is that those efforts were to expose Paul Manafort’s very problematic ties to Russia—information that was released to the public and obtained lawfully by a Ukrainian anti-corruption probe.
Click to expand...
 
dvdjs said:
If someone linked to a hostile foreign government wants to share information of uncertain provenance, the ethical thing to do is bring law enforcement to the meeting, not campaign higher ups.
Click to expand...
Leaving aside that the ultimate authorities were Obama and Lynch, aren’t there two big questions with that statement.

Firstly the exact links between the lawyer and Putin seem a bit unknown at this stage. I grant you that this may change with more knowledge but at the moment such links don’t seem to be so strong. Perhaps in the future the lawyer will be found to have links to Putin, or to Russian intelligence or to have negotiated with key international figures previously on behalf of the Kremlin. At this stage, I at least, know of no such role for the lawyer.

Secondly doesn’t it make sense to hear what the alleged crime is before getting authorities involved? The crime could range from Clinton receiving bribes from Russian individuals, to not paying her taxes (yeah, free kick) to not paying her traffic fines, to stealing Russian towels from her Moscow hotel.

So knowing which authorities to get involved depends on the nature of the alleged crime and to know the alleged crime you first have to listen to the allegation.

ok, going to bed now, I’ll leave you to it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top