Russian Troll farms

[Jig_Saw]

What collusion was that? In agreeing to listen to what might have been the proof positive of Clinton’s selling the country for money when it’s pretty plain that she did, that’s being a good citizen. The Dems are spending millions of taxpayer dollars trying to pin that very thing on Trump, without any evidentiary basis at all, and, so far, without success.

Bahahahahahaha. Sure. That’s why he said “I love it” in an email. He was just being a patriot. One paragraph down and exactly what I would expect to hear from a Russian Troll Farmer.

Tell us what crime he committed and give us the citation from the USC and regulations. You won’t, of course, because he didn’t.

We’ve been through this one and you know it. I think it is a violation of campaign law, but admit I do not know enough about the law to be sure. You don’t, but don’t know about the law to be sure. Why do you enjoy repeating the same talking points over and over again? That’s something I would expect from a gasp Russian troll farmer.

And after that, you can tell us how his agreeing to meet with an as-then unidentified person compromised national security.

When did I say that meeting with an unidentified person compromised national security? I didn’t. That’s a sort of deflection that I would expect from a Russian troll famer.

If one is looking for Russian trolls, one ought to look in the direction of those who are attacking the administration and trying mightily to prevent it from functioning. Putin would be stupid not to promote that, and twice as stupid to oppose it.

Of course, it is those that look at this mess of an administration that is fighting with our allies and kissing up to our traditional enemies and say, hey, that’s not good that are the secret Russian trolls. Your detective work is outstanding comrade, you’ve caught me. I’m off to drink some vodka and collect some mushrooms.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I think it is a violation of campaign law, but admit I do not know enough about the law to be sure

Exactly. You just want it to be so because you hate Trump, even though you have no idea at all.

 

[Jig_Saw]

Exactly. You just want it to be so because you hate Trump, even though you have no idea at all.

No, comrade, I said that I read it as a violation of the law using a reasonable reading that a layman may do. I acknowledge that I may not understand the nuances of the legality because I am not a lawyer. I must say though that this can easily be turned on you since one could say they think that you don’t think the law applied to DJT’s attempted collusion because you love Trump and/or are a Russian troll farmer.

 

[Theo520]

You realize that there is no Troll farm behind the OP, and that campaign research is perfectly legal, if the information was obtained legally. Didn’t the Dems even pay to get a dossier on Trump from foreign sources?

You really should look up the definition of collusion, you constantly misapply it here.

 

[Jig_Saw]

You realize that there is no Troll farm behind the OP, and that campaign research is perfectly legal, if the information was obtained legally. Didn’t the Dems even pay to get a dossier on Trump from foreign sources?

That’s a relief, because then I can be confident that you aren’t a Russian troll farmer and won’t try to change the definition of collusion again.

You really should look up the definition of collusion, you constantly misapply it here.

Oops, spoke too soon. I used the definition in the dictionary that I used and applies in this case.

 

[Inisfallen]

So some Russian rock star tells Trump Jr that some Russian (unidentified) has dirt on Hillary and Trump Jr, knowing Hillary sold American uranium to Russia for $150 million dollars was supposed to turn it down?

He was supposed to say “Oh no, I don’t want to know about that. It’s okay to sell your office for foreign money.”

Could have been the smoking gun, and if it had been, Trump Jr would be hailed for exposing the corruption.

But it was a big nothing. It cost America nothing. The Mueller “investigation” which is supposedly doing the very same thing, is costing us millions.

I’d buy that Donald Trump Jr. was doing this for the good of the country, rather than the good of the Trump campaign, if he’d, say, notified the FBI or other appropriate body so that they could observe the meeting, perhaps with an undercover agent, or record it.

But he didn’t do that.

 

[Ridgerunner]

No, comrade, I said that I read it as a violation of the law using a reasonable reading that a layman may do. I acknowledge that I may not understand the nuances of the legality because I am not a lawyer. I must say though that this can easily be turned on you since one could say they think that you don’t think the law applied to DJT’s attempted collusion because you love Trump and/or are a Russian troll farmer.

“Comrade”? Force of habit? And you call ME a Russian troll farmer?

There really aren’t any nuances to it. Research things like this before you claim people have broken the law.

And do you really think Alan Dershowitz is a Russian troll farmer? Liberals used to love him until he rightly opined not only that Trump Jr broke no law, but that “collusion” is a criminal act only in antitrust cases. Research what he said about it and you’ll see.

But you know what? I don’t think you are a Russian troll at all. A person so blinded by hatred of Trump that he wants to convict him of a crime that doesn’t exist, is just a Trump-hating liberal. I’m guessing Russian trolls are probably more subtle than that.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I’d buy that Donald Trump Jr. was doing this for the good of the country, rather than the good of the Trump campaign, if he’d, say, notified the FBI or other appropriate body so that they could observe the meeting, perhaps with an undercover agent, or record it.

But he didn’t do that.

It’s certainly possible, even likely, that his motivations were mixed. I can’t read his mind, but he probably hoped this “mystery person” (he didn’t know until the meeting) would come up with the real story about Clinton selling U.S. interests to Russia for money, and that it would both aid in getting justice done and in the campaign. I think we can reasonably conclude he would not have kept it a secret if it was the real thing.

Since he didn’t know anything about the content, there was no compelling reason to ask the FBI to sit in the next room. In any event, he did have witnesses, and if evidence of criminal wrongdoing by Clinton was forthcoming, then I agree he should have gone to law enforcement with it, and probably would have.

As it turned out, of course, it was nothing, and if he or someone else had a secret recorder running, it was probably turned off after the first sentence.

 

[Jig_Saw]

“Comrade”? Force of habit? And you call ME a Russian troll farmer?

No, it was a bad autocorrect. I meant to say c’mon man.

There really aren’t any nuances to it. Research things like this before you claim people have broken the law.

I have. Some legal experts think he broke the law, some don’t. Often times, it seems to follow their political beliefs. I figure it will be settled in court.

And do you really think Alan Dershowitz is a Russian troll farmer? Liberals used to love him until he rightly opined not only that Trump Jr broke no law, but that “collusion” is a criminal act only in antitrust cases. Research what he said about it and you’ll see.

It’s funny that you think liberals used to love Dershowitz. Always seems like a self-promoting talking head to me.

But you know what? I don’t think you are a Russian troll at all.

Good. I have fooled you, errr, I mean, of course, I’m not.

A person so blinded by hatred of Trump that he wants to convict him of a crime that doesn’t exist, is just a Trump-hating liberal. I’m guessing Russian trolls are probably more subtle than that.

Clearly, I am unpatriotic to question to question foreign influence when the son of a presidential candidate meets with someone claiming to be an agent of the Russian government who promises ‘dirt’ on his political opponent and proclaims “I love it”. I think someone here is blinded by something, that’s for sure.

 

[JW55]

Jig_Saw-

Amazing, Giving you the benefit of the doubt, I am assuming your comments were stated in the heat of an exchange on this thread. You obviously haven’t been around the forum long to call Ridgerunner a “Russian Troll”. The last thing he is, is a Russian Troll. I certainly don’t agree with all his comments on a lot of topics, but your comment has no foundation. He always provides an opinionated but reasonable exchange. A lot of this fearmongering, and blaming the Russians for everything that doesn’t go the way you think it should be sounds like 1950’s McCarthyism.

 

[Jig_Saw]

I can’t read his mind

but I will pretend to on the internet by defending him constantly and twisting what happened to whatever narrative I heard from Sean Hannity.

 

[Jig_Saw]

Jig_Saw-

Amazing, You obviously haven’t been around the forum long to make a comment like that about Ridgerunner. The last thing he is, is a Russian Troll. I certainly don’t agree with all his comments on a lot of topics, but your comment has no foundation. He always provides an opinionated but reasonable exchange.

Boy, that’s a relief, because he seems to say a lot of things that I would expect a Russian troll to say in covering up the possibly criminal behavior of the Trump campaign, where I would disagree are actually reasonable.

 

[Theo520]

Oops, spoke too soon. I used the definition in the dictionary that I used and applies in this case.

illegal cooperation or conspiracy, especially between ostensible opponents

Collusion would apply as a word if someone on Trump’s campaign was in cahoots with the Hillary campaign, or visa versa. No, you clearly haven’t comprehended the definition.

 

[Jig_Saw]

illegal cooperation or conspiracy, especially between ostensible opponents

Collusion would apply as a word if someone on Trump’s campaign was in cahoots with the Hillary campaign, or visa versa. No, you clearly haven’t comprehended the definition.

And you don’t see a hostile foreign power is an ostensible opponent?

 

[Theo520]

It’s foreign cash donations that are the rub.
Are you pissed about all the donations to Hillary’s piggy bank when she was SOC?

She really learned a few lessons after her and Bill were caught with that Chinese money.

 

[Jig_Saw]

It’s foreign cash donations that are the rub.

Are you pissed about all the donations to Hillary’s piggy bank when she was SOC?

She really learned a few lessons after her and Bill were caught with that Chinese money.

All the Hillary stuff is deflection. Dirt costs money, so is there a difference between cash and things that cost cash?

 

[niceatheist]

niceatheist:

The claim was made that no collusion happened, when evidence of attempted collusion was made

Are you really saying that being willing to listen to some foreign person who claims to have evidence of wrongdoing is “collusion”, and therefore wrongful? If it is, then congress, the intelligence community, law enforcement and business people are “guilty of collusion” all the time.

Certainly, Trump Jr’s action is not “collusion” in any legally prohibited sense.

Tell us this. If Mueller did the very same thing, would he be guilty of some form of wrongful “collusion”? When Congress wants to hear about the origins of the bogus DNC “dossier” on Trump, is that “collusion”?

The whole “collusion with Russia” thing is nothing but a bugbear generated by the DNC to comfort its adherents and deceive the credulous, and accusing Trump Jr of it is a worse one.

When your left to defending actions based on whether they violated a statute or not, you’ve already conceded that the action was wrong.

Let’s be clear here. The claim was made that there was no collusion. Then evidence surfaced showing three of Trump’s key campaign staff met with a Russian who claimed she had information on Hillary Clinton. IN the end, it appears the Russian in question was probably misrepresenting herself, and no actual collusion happened. And it might be illegal under campaign finance law, but that’s really besides the point. What it demonstrates is the Trump campaign certainly was open to using Russian sources for dirt on Clinton, and that the meeting ended up being about sanctions at least suggests the possibility of quid quo pro.

But you demonstrate ably how the goalposts have steadily been shifted, but only for Trump.

 

[niceatheist]

It’s foreign cash donations that are the rub.
Are you pissed about all the donations to Hillary’s piggy bank when she was SOC?

She really learned a few lessons after her and Bill were caught with that Chinese money.

Do you have some evidence money donated to the Clinton Foundation ended up in Clinton or Democratic coffers?

 

[ChunkMonk]

You should be more accurate, Trump Jr. was set up to meet a Russian lawyer that had dirt on Hillary.

 

[niceatheist]

You should be more accurate, Trump Jr. was set up to meet a Russian lawyer that had dirt on Hillary.

He took the bait. He clearly was interested in collusion. It demonstrates the campaign was quite willing to go to Russian sources for dirt.