Depends on what you’re interested in, what measures you use to pursue them, and how it fits in with the rest of the story, such as Trump having promised to reveal items of interest after the meeting. Doesn’t necessarily mean a tie-in but what else could Trump base his promise on?
Can we get away from this fallacy that the Russian agent was offering evidence on criminal behavior of Clinton? The exact phrase was dirt. Not crimes. Dirt.
You must have missed post #586.
I did not have sex with that woman,Monica Lewinsky…Bill Clinton
Not if the law forbids working with foreign governments to influence elections.
As I said earlier, if they only thing you’ve got to say to refute the allegations about the Trump campaign is “but Clinton!”, then you’re basically admitting that Trump and his campaign are indefensible.
I was responding to another poster quoting Richard Nixon,so I guess your accusations would app,y there as well
In her defense, I was the one who changed the argument from Trump to Nixon, though I feel the situation is more analogous to Nixon’s coverup.
Yes and no, because we have yet to determine if Trump Jr.'s actions are illegal, especially since he was not part of the Trump campaign, and some are saying this is not collusion (post #586). However, since, everyone is determined to call this collusion with a foreign entity (and this law applies to any foreign entity, not just adversaries) then why isn’t Hillary and her campaign not getting any flack for colluding with the Ukraine? Hardly, seems fair to denounce one while stating the other is a okay (which is the part I agree with you on).
Jared Kushner and Paul Manafort were part of the campaign.
I’m sure the situation with Ukraine and the Republican shift of policy with them will be tackled next. I hope it’s brought up on a separate thread.
Well, we know that Paul Manafort “left” the campaign in August, and Kushner did report the meeting:
You realize that despite what most of the media is saying, this failed meeting does not mean that Russia helped Trump win the election, and that Trump was privy to this knowledge. The Russia/Trump narrative entails more than just ONE failed meeting between Trump Jr. and a private Russian citizen.
I’m sorry, but I refuse to read anything by the NYT and LA TIMES, I can’t stand those papers.
I would agree that it is. But people want to make the most of this. So be it. But I’m sure Putin must be laughing his head off.
she was responding to the quote by Nixon posted by another poster.
Manafort disclosed the meeting in the last month or two, and Kushner added the meeting to his disclosure forms in response to that. The NYT “previously undisclosed” refers to these being the first disclosures despite the meeting happening over a year ago.
Okay, I caved in and read most of the article (curiousity got the better of me), although I’m not sure what this has to do with collusion??
You also realize that Manafort, by August I believe, was no longer part of the campaign, right?
Not really germane: Junior’s was sold on the idea that he was meeting with someone who had information from Russia’s prosecutor general.
Not a bit. Report and let the authorities consider the appropriate next move. At the very least, consult with a attorney. Junior at best ran the risk of inadvertently falling into a criminal conspiracy or compromising himself.
It seems like obfuscation to use the words “previously undisclosed” if they didn’t. Can you please provide me with the article (I don’t read the NYT but in this particular case I will)?