Donald Trump Jr emails show Russia communication

  • Thread starter Thread starter Vouthon
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
josie_L said:
You must have missed post #586.
Click to expand...
No I did not.
That post was added nothing to what I already posted on the legal analysis from the NYT.
Moreover, it had nothing to do with the issues raised in the post that I responded to.
 
josie_L said:
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).
Click to expand...
Asked and answered multiple times.

BTW the important aspect of “what we have yet to determine” is the whole story of what Junior and the rest of the Trump team did.
 
dvdjs said:
No I did not.
That post was added nothing to what I already posted on the legal analysis from the NYT.
Moreover, it had nothing to do with the issues raised in the post that I responded to.
Click to expand...
Oh, I must use the legal analysis from the NYT, oh please, obviously this is not a black and white scenario that the NYT is purporting it to be.
 
josie_L said:
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)?
Click to expand...
Apparently I misread it, it’s “previously unreported”, as in hadn’t been reported in the press, not “previously undisclosed”. The article is here, and mentions the disclosures by Kushner and Manafort.
 
josie_L said:
You must have missed this when I first quoted it:
Click to expand...
You really should really try to break the hait of assuming things that you just no good idea about.

The statement that was responding to included the Trump team, and their denials of collusion.
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...
That team included Manafort and Kushner; Kushner was were obligated to report. He did, finally, report - after he had first reported without the required disclosures. Your own politico analysis put indicates that jeopardy for lying to the government may be attached to this act.

Nothing in your repeated quote bears on these facts in the slightest.
 
dvdjs said:
Asked and answered multiple times.
Click to expand...
Actually, you gave me one article from Politico (which I only had time to read in part) with regards to the Ukraine, but either way, the law states that any foreign entity cannot collude with campaigners and presidential nominees to influence elections. There are no exceptions.
 
lmachine said:
Apparently I misread it, it’s “previously unreported”, as in hadn’t been reported in the press, not “previously undisclosed”. The article is here, and mentions the disclosures by Kushner and Manafort.
Click to expand...
Thank you, Imachine.
 
lmachine said:
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.
Click to expand...
And that Kushner was required to disclose in his application for security clearance, but, like Flynn, failed to do so in his original application.
 
josie_L said:
Oh, I must use the legal analysis from the NYT, oh please, obviously this is not a black and white scenario that the NYT is purporting it to be.
Click to expand...
If you had read the NYT analysis you would have found it very much teh same as the politico one. Use either one, but read the whole article. While both indicate taht at the present time there are some charges not likely, neither put people fully in the clear.
 
josie_L said:
Thank you, Imachine. But this is exactly why I refuse to read the NYT.
Click to expand...
It was previously undisclosed, as required, in Kushner’s original security clearance application. Later he regroups and disclosed this, and about 100 other contacts previously undisclosed.
 
lmachine said:
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.
Click to expand...
No, it doesn’t read like that at all, i.e., “previously unreported” means “previously unreported”, and to inform the reader many many paragraphs later that they did REPORT the meeting seems like obfuscation to me. It is not a well-worded statement.

Something cannot be “previously unreported” if it was. Plain and simple.
 
dvdjs said:
That team included Manafort and Kushner; Kushner was were obligated to report. He did, finally, report - after he had first reported without the required disclosures. Your own politico analysis put indicates that jeopardy for lying to the government may be attached to this act.

Nothing in your repeated quote bears on these facts in the slightest.
Click to expand...
I did not write that quote although your post would suggest that I did. i.e., you need to make sure you put the right people with the right quotes.
 
josie_L said:
No, it doesn’t read like that at all, i.e., “previously unreported” means “previously unreported”, and to inform the reader many many paragraphs later that they did REPORT the meeting seems like obfuscation to me. It is not a well-worded statement.

Something cannot be “previously unreported” if it was. Plain and simple.
Click to expand...
Kushner was required to disclose in his application for security clearance. In the first report he did not disclose. In the second attempt he did not disclose, Only in the third report did disclose the previously undisclosed material.

Plain and simple.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top