Donald Trump Jr emails show Russia communication

[josie_L]

Not on the question that your resurrected form another thread.

I did provide sources, go back to the thread. I put in two or three, but by that time you had not returned to the thread.

 

[Ridgerunner]

dvdjs:
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.

And for Trump haters at times, too.

I do recall being told, and rather derisively, by you to “look it up” when I asked you to prove something you asserted as fact. As I recall, that was followed by your assertion that it was not your duty to “do my homework” for me.

Josie didn’t say that to you. But, Josie is a courteous person, and perhaps didn’t want to be rude. She is not properly to be derided for that.

 

[Ridgerunner]

dvdjs:
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.

And for Trump haters at times, too.

I do recall being told, and rather derisively, by you to “look it up” when I asked you to prove something you asserted as fact. As I recall, that was followed by your assertion that it was not your duty to “do my homework” for me.

Josie didn’t say that to you. But, Josie is a courteous person, and perhaps didn’t want to be rude. She is not properly to be derided for that.

 

[josie_L]

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”.

Oh, I agree with you, and have stated these very points , but to no avail ( that Veselnitskaya was denied a Visa, that they spoke of the Magnitsky act, that nothing of worth was said at the meeting, i.e., no dirt on Clinton, that she has no connection to the Russian government or at least that is what we know as of this moment. . . .).

It makes no difference to DIEHARD Hillary supporters or anti-Trump individuals.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I did provide sources, go back to the thread. I put in two or three, but by that time you had not returned to the thread.

Don’t let it get to you, Josie.

I do recall being told, and rather derisively, by DVDJS to “look it up” when I asked him/her to prove something he/she asserted as fact. As I recall, that was followed by his/her assertion that it was not his/her duty to “do my homework” for me.

You didn’t say that. But, then, you are a courteous person, and probably don’t respond in that manner.

 

[josie_L]

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.

dvdjs, please I do not want to this to be an all out war, I am sorry, for resurrecting that thread, but it was done with the intention of making you understand that you do not always perceive things rightly.

I am sorry, truly.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Oh, I agree with you, and have stated these very points , but to no avail ( that Veselnitskaya was denied a Visa, that they spoke of the Magnitsky act, that nothing of worth was said at the meeting, i.e., no dirt on Clinton, that she has no connection to the Russian government or at least that is what we know as of this moment. . . .).

It makes no difference to DIEHARD Hillary supporters or anti-Trump individuals.

I agree with Alan Dershowitz and many others that there was nothing illegal about the meeting. Nor, indeed, do I have any reason to believe there was anything illegal about the sleazy and false “Trump dossier” put together by the private “spy agency” the DNC hired to spy on Trump. Nor do I have any reason at this point to think there was anything illegal about the Clinton campaign’s attempt to get dirt on Trump from various Ukrainian government actors.

If you look at the statues about all of this, most of it is aimed at the foreign actors.

 

[josie_L]

I agree with Alan Dershowitz and many others that there was nothing illegal about the meeting. Nor, indeed, do I have any reason to believe there was anything illegal about the sleazy and false “Trump dossier” put together by the private “spy agency” the DNC hired to spy on Trump. Nor do I have any reason at this point to think there was anything illegal about the Clinton campaign’s attempt to get dirt on Trump from various Ukrainian government actors.

If you look at the statues about all of this, most of it is aimed at the foreign actors.

I feel dizzy for how many times I have tried to state this, I do not feel either cases constitutes illegality, but again, there is a double standard, i.e., when a Republican does it it’s illegal, when a Democrat does it, it’s okay.

And that dossier is just awful, much of it has been debunked, no matter what some may say, If people want to pin their hopes on such trash, then let them, God help us though, if this is the state the world of politics has come to.

 

[meltzerboy]

I agree with Alan Dershowitz and many others that there was nothing illegal about the meeting. Nor, indeed, do I have any reason to believe there was anything illegal about the sleazy and false “Trump dossier” put together by the private “spy agency” the DNC hired to spy on Trump. Nor do I have any reason at this point to think there was anything illegal about the Clinton campaign’s attempt to get dirt on Trump from various Ukrainian government actors.

If you look at the statues about all of this, most of it is aimed at the foreign actors.

Dershowitz usually tells it like it is. That doesn’t mean I always agree with him without looking into the matter myself, but he is generally less knee-jerk partisan in his views than most.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Dershowitz usually tells it like it is. That doesn’t mean I always agree with him without looking into the matter myself, but he is generally less knee-jerk partisan in his views than most.

I’m a long way from being a legal expert, but I’ll say this. It has been my observation that when it comes to socially liberal legal causes, Dershowitz is with them. But when it comes to the “letter of the law”, particularly when it comes to criminalizing something, he just looks at the law as it is.

 

[dvdjs]

This is what Hillary Clinton said as per POLITIFACT:
So yes, dvdjs, she overstated her claim and so the Daily Caller is not wrong.

You honestly do not regocnize the difference between “concluded” and “conducted independent investigations” and “independently concluded”?

 

[dvdjs]

I did provide sources, go back to the thread. I put in two or three, but by that time you had not returned to the thread.

I will go back and check, even though two or three sounds anecdotal not probative.

 

[dvdjs]

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.

What we have learned is that members of Trump’s inner circle were interested in exploring collusion. And that contacts were made, notwithstanding the repeated denials of contact. The rest remains to be determined. That is what Mueller III is doing.

 

[dvdjs]

dvdjs, please I do not want to this to be an all out war, I am sorry, for resurrecting that thread, but it was done with the intention of making you understand that you do not always perceive things rightly.

I am sorry, truly.

No need, but thanks. I do not take any of this (or mean any of this) personally at all. It is however, a little difficult to recall the context of the older thread.

I am skeptical of the idea of Trump that the MSM is fake, is making stuff up etc. I think it tendentious at best and dangerous.

When potentially related notions come up here, I am interested in learning how people arrive at the perceptions that they do, what they are reading and how they use information to develop their ideas - especially for serious posters. That is the point of my questions.

 

[dvdjs]

I feel dizzy for how many times I have tried to state this, I do not feel either cases constitutes illegality, but again, there is a double standard, i.e., when a Republican does it it’s illegal, when a Democrat does it, it’s okay.

And that dossier is just awful, much of it has been debunked, no matter what some may say, If people want to pin their hopes on such trash, then let them, God help us though, if this is the state the world of politics has come to.

I agree that there is no legal case to be made with the information publicly available.
I am not sure, and certainly do not take it on faith in Trump’s words, that the ongoing investigations will not uncover evidence of criminal behavior.

 

[dvdjs]

I do recall being told, and rather derisively, by DVDJS to “look it up” when I asked him/her to prove something he/she asserted as fact. As I recall, that was followed by his/her assertion that it was not his/her duty to “do my homework” for me.

You posted this:

Originally Posted by Ridgerunner
The Russia thing gets weirder by the day, it seems.

When it first was presented to Obama, he didn’t think anything of it, didn’t warn anybody, didn’t do anything to stop “Russian interference” with the election.

Your post is not on a matter of interpretation but on a matter of fact. It is false. You either posted that knowingly or with reckless disregard for the truth. It is difficult to take such posts as serious. Hence the lack of willingness in doing your homework.

 

[Ridgerunner]

What we have learned is that members of Trump’s inner circle were interested in exploring collusion. And that contacts were made, notwithstanding the repeated denials of contact. The rest remains to be determined. That is what Mueller III is doing.

“Exploring collusion”? If Mueller is investigating non-crimes that resulted in nothing at all, then his “investigation” really is just a “witch hunt”.

 

[Ridgerunner]

You posted this:

Your post is not on a matter of interpretation but on a matter of fact. It is false. You either posted that knowingly or with reckless disregard for the truth. It is difficult to take such posts as serious. Hence the lack of willingness in doing your homework.

Nice try. You said what I said you did, and it was rudely dismissive. Josie, of course, was far more polite when you demanded she “prove” something she said.

 

[josie_L]

You honestly do not regocnize the difference between “concluded” and “conducted independent investigations” and “independently concluded”?

I am referring to Hillary’s statement only, so can you elaborate?

 

[dvdjs]

“Exploring collusion”? If Mueller is investigating non-crimes that resulted in nothing at all, then his “investigation” really is just a “witch hunt”.

How do you think that prosecutions for crimes like criminal conspiracy, money laundering, tax evasion, embezzlement, insider trading, and the like happen.

There are not like murder mystery where the is obvious evidence of a crime and the investigation is to reveal whodunnit? Rather there are suggestions that actions being taken are of a criminal nature. The object is to sort out exactly what has been done and to discover the evidence of a crime.

You may think that such investigations are witch hunts. I disagree.
In the current situation we know they wanted to play ball and they have been deflecting and covering up. We will see where that leads.