Donald Trump Jr emails show Russia communication

  • Thread starter Thread starter Vouthon
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
No, it does not. And James Clapper disproves this.

Also, from the same article I’ve already posted:

Please read the article in my post before you post.
I did read it, and it’s conflating and confusing significant issues. Try this more comprehensive look at things: politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/oct/19/hillary-clinton/hillary-clinton-blames-russia-putin-wikileaks-rele/

Pay careful attention to the timeline and the difference between the joint statement and the later report.

Added in edit: It’s also a strawman to say that people are claiming each agency carried out an independent investigation.
 
I did read it, and it’s conflating and confusing significant issues. Try this more comprehensive look at things: politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/oct/19/hillary-clinton/hillary-clinton-blames-russia-putin-wikileaks-rele/

Pay careful attention to the timeline and the difference between the joint statement and the later report.
No, it’s not, former Director of National Intelligence has already spoken on the matter before CONGRESS. He is STATING that ONLY three agencies, not the whole of the intelligence community made this claim.
 
Coming from someone who could not recollect that a Russia/Trump collusion was being promulgated by the media (as of July 8th), I’ll stick to my own interpretations of said article:
A shamefully weak argument. Not only the fallacy of poisoning the well, but the poison is a misrepresentation.
I do [not] recall an[y] serious media outlets insisting on Russia/Trump collusion.
I similarly am unaware the medial kept alluding to Russia hacking the vote.

Perhaps you might provide some links.
[fixed typos]
I’m sure now you believe me.
While a post from the past, in another thread, lacks context, at least you could have gotten to the main thrust. I had asked for proof of your then, and still do.
 
A shamefully weak argument. Not only the fallacy of poisoning the well, but the poison is a misrepresentation.

[fixed typos]

While a post from the past, in another thread, lacks context, at least you could have gotten to the main thrust. I had asked for proof of your then, and still do.
You did not believe me when I said that the media was promulgating a Russia/Trump collusion (and by Trump I also mean his campaign aides), and so asked me for evidence/links. This is true is it not?

And not shameful when you deny the obvious, and I’m pointing that fact, because I’ve debated you for awhile now, so I feel I have some justification in saying this.
 
Prove it.
Okay, dvdjs, you got me. I’m going to personally contact Christopher Steele, maybe even fly to England to get him to say that he did not verify his sources, and while we’re at it I can get him to join CAF to answer you directly. :rolleyes:
 
Here, I’m providing some info on false claims made, and how Steele himself said the sources were unverifiable and should not have been made public:

If ‘dodgy dossier’ accusation true, Trump Jr. would have no reason to meet with Russian lawyer
The WT does not quote the dossier but indicates that there was a suggestion of a long standing connection between Trump and Russian intelligence. Was there a similar connection with Trump Jr alleged? We have been told, FWIW, that Trump new nothing about the meeting, and the people theres (that we know about so far) deny working for the Russian government. So where is the contradiction?
The dossier, financed by Democratic money and containing unverified accusations from a bevy of Russian sources, says a Kremlin source told Mr. Steele that the Russians were providing dirt on Hillary Clinton to the Trump operation.
It is little unclear form this when the bevy of Democrats tool over from the bevy of Republicans. I think we now know, however that Russians did approach rump Jr with the idea of providing dirt on HRC. Not sure if this is the event that the WY is talking about from the dossier, but there is no lack of plausibility here.
Some Democrats who have criticized foreign influence in U.S. elections have embraced the dossier and its Russian sourcing and have spread the information around Washington, including at a key congressional hearing. . . . .
This is the trick. Pretend that the that the matter is just about foreign contacts rather than the collusion.
He also accused Mr. Trump of salacious activity in a Moscow hotel room during his promoted 2013 Miss Universe contest there.
That has been denied. Is that sufficient for it to be declared untrue?
Rep. Adam B. Schiff of California, the top Democrat on the House intelligence committee, read charges from the dossier at a much-watched hearing as if they were true. Another Democrat tried to get Mr. Comey, a hearing witness, to back up Mr. Steele’s contention that Mr. Trump met with prostitutes in Moscow.
Are they untrue?
“The dossier has been totally discredited, No. 1. No. 2, Adam Schiff is totally partisan, as partisan as you can get,” Mr. Trump said. “And No. 3, the Russia story is a fake story. It was made up so that they can justify the fact that Hillary Clinton lost an election that a Democrat should not lose because it’s almost impossible for a Democrat to lose the Electoral College. And not only did she lose, but she lost by a lot because I got 306 and [she got] 232." Referring to Mr. Steele, the president said, “He made it up.”
So Trump says. Not exactly probative.
Mr. Steele said Mr. Trump’s personal attorney, Michael Cohen, traveled to Prague last year to orchestrate a hacking cover-up with Russian agents. Mr. Cohen said he had never been to Prague and presented evidence that he was in California at the time.
Yes Cohen denies it. But he only provided evidence that he was in CA near the time in question but did not provide an alibi covering the entire time frame in question. Sloppy reporting by Trump supporters has confused this issue. It is not debunked.
For example, Mr. Page said, he never met with the two Kremlin figures identified by Mr. Steele, and that while he knew of one of them he had never heard of the other. Mr. Steele’s most sensational charge is that Mr. Page and Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort organized the Russian hacking of Democratic computers.
Again we have only the denial of someone implicated in the investigation.

The memo was 35 pages long. Only a few of the items in the memo wee touched on the article. Items have been denied, but not debunked.
 
So yes, dvdjs, the claims that Russia/Trump colluded together to hack the DNC and Podesta’s emails are made by this Steele dossier, which was believed by many members of the Democratic party, and NOT A FIGMENT OF Greenwald’s (Columbia lawyer) IMAGINATION.
Who, exactly, belives it.
More importantly, on what basis does Greenwald elevate this to the sine qua non of collusion?
 
DHS published a joint statement with the DNI back in October expressing the same verdict about Russian interference, so it’s fair to say a handful of agencies have publicly drawn conclusions. But simply because the DNI speaks for the intelligence community as a whole doesn’t mean all 17 agencies reached independent conclusions, let alone conducted independent investigations. Clinton overstates her case.
If you look at the contemproaneous articles, they did not. they analyzed the substance of the remark and considered it truthful. And Trump’s repseonse ot be fatuous.

And btw, did you notivce the little trick by Dailer Caller?
“But simply because the DNI speaks for the intelligence community as a whole doesn’t mean all 17 agencies reached independent conclusions, let alone conducted independent investigations. Clinton overstates her case.”
Sis Clinton claim that “all 17 agencies reached independent conclusions” or “conducted independent investigations”? It is easier to accuse some one of lying when you put the words into their mouth.
As for Russian interference into the elections, not even the NSA believes as per the voting registration-themed spear-phishing campaign targeting U.S. local government organizations may have affected the results of the presidential elections:
That has been the story since the beginning, even from Obama. Has that been challenged, seriously?.
 
You did not believe me when I said that the media was promulgating a Russia/Trump collusion (and by Trump I also mean his campaign aides), and so asked me for evidence/links. This is true is it not?

And not shameful when you deny the obvious, and I’m pointing that fact, because I’ve debated you for awhile now, so I feel I have some justification in saying this.
Show the articles that you have in mind when making your claims.
 
Okay, dvdjs, you got me. I’m going to personally contact Christopher Steele, maybe even fly to England to get him to say that he did not verify his sources, and while we’re at it I can get him to join CAF to answer you directly. :rolleyes:
Or you could focus your remarks to things that are verifiable.
 
Or you could focus your remarks to things that are verifiable.
In many of my posts I have cited articles of which I quoted in full or in part, the fact, being that I do not say much that isn’t verifiable. You just deign to consider it unreliable and/or not to your liking.

And the fact of the matter is that the media was promulgating a Russia/Trump collusion from the get go and you wouldn’t believe me.
 
Show the articles that you have in mind when making your claims.
I don’t have to prove anything that is undeniably obvious to everyone else but yourself.

And I think that we can safely say that this latest discovery by the NYT of a Trump/Russia narrative is exactly what I’m referring to when I say the media has been obsessed with creating a Trump/Russia narrative for a long while now.

And that dossier is at the heart of it.
 
The WT does not quote the dossier but indicates that there was a suggestion of a long standing connection between Trump and Russian intelligence. Was there a similar connection with Trump Jr alleged? We have been told, FWIW, that Trump new nothing about the meeting, and the people theres (that we know about so far) deny working for the Russian government. So where is the contradiction?
No, it does not quote the dossier, it breaks it down to summarize claims made. And many of the claims were false and unsubstantiated. It was the Steele dossier that linked Russia to Trump in the first place even though said author of dossier said that the sources were unverified.
It is little unclear form this when the bevy of Democrats tool over from the bevy of Republicans. I think we now know, however that Russians did approach rump Jr with the idea of providing dirt on HRC. Not sure if this is the event that the WY is talking about from the dossier, but there is no lack of plausibility here.
dvdjs, how do the claims made in the dossier of a Russia/Trump collusion and the meeting with Trump Jr. and Veselnitskaya make any sense, i.e., if there was a collusion between Russia and Trump wherein information was being shared, then why the necessity to meet with a Russian lawyer? Didn’t Trump have access to Russian intel/information already, making said meeting redundant and dangerous? This is the contradiction.
 
In many of my posts I have cited articles of which I quoted in full or in part, the fact, being that I do not say much that isn’t verifiable. .
Not on the question that your resurrected form another thread.
 
I don’t have to prove anything that is undeniably obvious to everyone else but yourself.
You don’t have to prove anything at all.
You don’t have to back up anything you say with evidence.

That, sadly, seems to be standard operating procedure for the Trump diehards.
 
In many of my posts I have cited articles of which I quoted in full or in part, the fact, being that I do not say much that isn’t verifiable. You just deign to consider it unreliable and/or not to your liking.

And the fact of the matter is that the media was promulgating a Russia/Trump collusion from the get go and you wouldn’t believe me.
Meaning no offense, but the topic is the Trump Jr emails. Plainly he was told that somebody (unidentified) was offering some kind of major information on Hillary Clinton that was “Russian government” information. It is not clear whether it was to be presented by any representative of the Russian government, an intentional “leak” by the Russkis, or just a plain old “leak”.

Trump Jr said he would “love it” (the information) but in April deferred receiving it until “later in the summer”. Shows clear interest, but nothing urgent. Ultimately this Velesniskaya and some others showed up, had nothing to offer, but wanted to talk about the Magnitsky Act. Manafort and Kushner wandered off, presumably uninterested in Velesnitskaya’s actual presentation. Trump Jr apparently heard her out but had no follow up on any of it.

In the meantime, Trump Jr at least intended to contact the Russian star “Emin”, who he knew from the entertainment industry, about all of it. “Emin” was supposedly behind the whole outreach to Trump Jr. We don’t know what their conversation was if, indeed, it occurred.

And that’s the tale. As far as anyone knows, there was never any kind of followup meeting or information presented. Velesnitskaya, as far as is presently known, was once a Russian government prosecutor, but now seems to be a lobbyist known by all kinds of people in DC. I don’t know how many former “Russian prosecutors” there are in Russia, but there would be tens of thousands of them in the U.S.; perhaps hundreds of thousands, very few of whom would presently be agents of the U.S. government. But whatever.

We do know her visa was initially rejected. It was later granted conditionally so she could participate as an attorney in a trial here. (There are no attorneys in the U.S., of course, and, of course Velesnitskaya purports not to be able to speak English, so that justification might reasonably be questioned) It appears she overstayed her visa, and essentially participated in lobbying while she was here, which is what she was attempting to do with Trump Jr. Nobody knows whether she is an “agent” of the Russian government any more than any other Russian who is over here, or whether she is just a middle aged Russian woman with a briefcase.

I see that Alan Dershowitz has joined the group of lawyers who say there’s nothing criminal in anything that happened. And he’s certainly no “Trump supporter”.
 
If you look at the contemproaneous articles, they did not. they analyzed the substance of the remark and considered it truthful. And Trump’s repseonse ot be fatuous.

And btw, did you notivce the little trick by Dailer Caller?
“But simply because the DNI speaks for the intelligence community as a whole doesn’t mean all 17 agencies reached independent conclusions, let alone conducted independent investigations. Clinton overstates her case.”

Sis Clinton claim that “all 17 agencies reached independent conclusions” or “conducted independent investigations”? It is easier to accuse some one of lying when you put the words into their mouth.

That has been the story since the beginning, even from Obama. Has that been challenged, seriously?.
This is what Hillary Clinton said as per POLITIFACT:
“We have 17 intelligence agencies, civilian and military, who have all concluded that these espionage attacks, these cyberattacks, come from the highest levels of the Kremlin, and they are designed to influence our election.”
So yes, dvdjs, she overstated her claim and so the Daily Caller is not wrong.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top