No mention of trump's admission

MarkyS · 2018-08-13T03:59:58.630Z

reflechissez:

MarkyS:

TRUE information on an opponent may affect how people view that opponent - I certainly hope so

Hilarious.

Why?

I should hope that when you know the candidates better you will make a much more informed choice and I should think no one would be against knowing the candidates as well as possible.

You aren’t?

M

MarkyS · 2018-08-13T04:15:22.288Z

CaughtInTheMiddle:

bullseyelqcs:

Or maybe you go to the authorities with information that a foreign government is offering to interfere with our election process.

Maybe.

the Trumps aren’t an honest family. no way they go to the authorities. they WANT to cheat.

EXPLAIN to me how possibly revealing that the Clintons committed crimes in Russia in ANY WAY can be construed as “cheating” anymore than revealing that Paul Manafort had problems in Ukraine was.

I’ll wait RIGHT HERE for your answer.

Had Trump Jr. gotten such proof the first place they would have gone would be to the authorities! They ALONE would have been able to verify the information and then do something legal with it.

The 2nd place would be to the press, and rightly so.

And by the way, talking about the Trumps as not an honest family is HILARIOUS when the Clintons are in any way compared to them.

Who had classified information on their private server, in violation of the law, just so they could control their government emails?

Who failed to turn over those all her government emails, in violation of the government records act after leaving government service, in violation of the law?

Who had 30,000 subpoenaed emails DESTROYED? (we call that “obstruction,” by the way).

Those aren’t speculations. Those are already proven crimes by the Clinton crime family in their quest to control records that LIKELY would point to worse crimes.

M

Hellsbane · 2018-08-13T06:41:14.046Z

The 80,s called and they want their foreign policy back!

Vigilante · 2018-08-13T08:39:23.798Z

Funny thing about “Proven” crimes huh

kingarthur65 · 2018-08-13T16:07:59.928Z

Stealing that information and committing a crime to get that information is not relevant?

kingarthur65 · 2018-08-13T16:12:29.141Z

You don’t know what was offfered or given to Jr.
We know he says he was bored with the meeting because it was about adoption.
Do you think he was too dumb to understand the topic at hand? Or maybe he has not been honest about the meeting. Can you think of any other explNation for his description of the meeting?

lulubee · 2018-08-13T17:37:18.865Z

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2018/08/13/theres-a-big-tell-in-trumps-latest-defense-of-donald-jr/?utm_term=.3465c82cd904

MarkyS · 2018-08-13T21:40:28.900Z

Vigilante:

Funny thing about “Proven” crimes huh

Do you DENY that:

…Clinton had classified information on her private server, in violation of the law?

…Clinton failed to turn over those all her government emails, in violation of the government records act after leaving government service, in violation of the law?

…Clinton had 30,000 subpoenaed emails DESTROYED?

That the CORRUPT Obama DOJ and FBI didn’t prosecute her for those crimes and possibly other crimes may be corrected. Many of the architects of that corruption - Comey, McCabe, Strzok and others - have been since FIRED, and correctly so.

When politics intrude on equal justice under the law there is nothing “funny” about it.

M

MarkyS · 2018-08-13T21:47:21.612Z

kingarthur65:

Stealing that information and committing a crime to get that information is not relevant?

There is ZERO evidence that anything discussed or even PROPOSED to be discussed at the Tower meeting had anything at all to do with the DNC hacks or the Podesta hacks. All that was supposed to be delivered was legitimate proof from the Russian state prosecutor of crimes committed by the Clintons in Russia. And even that didn’t actually happen, as it turned out.

So no, nothing at all relevant.

M

MarkyS · 2018-08-13T21:58:08.334Z

kingarthur65:

You don’t know what was offfered or given to Jr.

Neither do you, so why tell me that it was anything but what has been spoken of? We have the testimony of everyone at the meeting. It jives with what I have said.

We know he says he was bored with the meeting because it was about adoption.

He was not interested in discussing the Magnitsky Act and he was miffed that he was lied to, in order to get the meeting on false pretenses, so he ended the meeting quickly.

Do you think he was too dumb to understand the topic at hand?

No. The TOPIC was supposed to be the crimes of the Clinton in Russia. That is what he was TOLD it would be about. He quickly understood that was a ruse to get the meeting and nothing but. He understood everything.

Can you think of any other explNation for his description of the meeting?

I have given you his sworn testimony description of the meeting. It was supposed to be one thing and turned out to be another thing but what it was NEVER supposed to be about was stolen emails taken from the DNC and John Podesta.

No one involved has made that claim.

What we have YET to get full answers to were who the Russians at the meeting were ACTUALLY working for, as they were in contact with Glenn Simpson of Fusion GPS both before and after the meeting.

Care to offer any legitimate theory / explanation for that?

M

kingarthur65 · 2018-08-13T22:44:01.558Z

I never mentioned stolen emails. I asked you if crimes were ireevelsnt.
Jr didn’t mention the Magnitsky act. He said it was about ADOPTION. Was he being evasive when he said ADOPTION instead of SANCTIONS, or did he not know they were one and the same?

Vigilante · 2018-08-14T07:40:05.254Z

I didnt wear my seatbelt. In Violation of the law! I text while I drove. In violation of the law! I reused a stamp that didnt get postmarked. In Violation of the law!

Vigilante · 2018-08-14T07:43:27.565Z

MarkyS:

No. The TOPIC was supposed to be the crimes of the Clinton in Russia. That is what he was TOLD it would be about. He quickly understood that was a ruse to get the meeting and nothing but. He understood everything

WildRose · 2018-08-14T07:43:55.133Z

Well that was challenging.

A veteran DNC operative who previously worked in the Clinton White House, Alexandra Chalupa, worked with Ukrainian government officials and journalists from both Ukraine and America to dig up Russia-related opposition research on Trump and Manafort. She also shared her anti-Trump research with both the DNC and the Clinton campaign, according to the Politico report.

Chalupa met with Ukrainian ambassador Valeriy Chaly and one of his aides, Oksara Shulyar, at the Ukrainian Embassy in March 2016 to talk about unearthing Paul Manafort’s Russian connections, Chalupa admitted to Politico. Four days later, Trump officially hired Manafort. …

The Politico report also notes that the DNC encouraged Chalupa to try to arrange an interview with Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko to talk about Manafort’s ties to the former pro-Russia president of Ukraine, Viktor Yanukovych, whom Manafort previously advised.

Slate Magazine – 11 Jul 17

Did the Clinton Campaign Really Collude With Ukraine?

The similarities between Ukrainian efforts to help Clinton and Russian efforts to help Trump are thin.

WildRose · 2018-08-14T07:57:24.119Z

They also met with some of the same Russians that met with the Trump Campaign.

People associated with Hillary Clinton’s campaign also met with Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak, according to Russian President Vladimir Putin’s spokesman.

“Well, if you look at some people connected with Hillary Clinton during her campaign, you would probably see that [the Russian ambassador] had lots of meetings of that kind,” Dmitry Peskov told CNN’s Fareed Zakaria in an interview that aired Sunday.

Peskov said that none of the meetings between campaigns and Kislyak were about the election.

Washington Examiner

Donald Trump

Vigilante · 2018-08-14T07:59:00.849Z

Prohibition

It shall be unlawful for—
(1) a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make—
(A) a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election;
(B) a contribution or donation to a committee of a political party; or
(C) an expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication (within the meaning of section 30104(f)(3) of this title); or
(2) a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) from a foreign national.
(b) “Foreign national” definedAs used in this section, the term “foreign national” means—
(1) a foreign principal, as such term is defined by section 611(b) of title 22, except that the term “foreign national” shall not include any individual who is a citizen of the United States; or
(2) an individual who is not a citizen of the United States or a national of the United States (as defined in section 1101(a)(22) of title 8) and who is not lawfully admitted for permanent residence, as defined by section 1101(a)(20) of title 8.

WildRose · 2018-08-14T08:09:40.426Z

Can you show where a case has ever even been filed much less prosecuted in which it was asserted that the "donation’ was information?

NebraskaFootball · 2018-08-14T18:03:24.541Z

MarkyS:

The WH has also recently denied that the President was involved in drafting Jr’s statement:

“I do want to be clear ― the president was not involved in the drafting of the statement and did not issue the statement,” Sekulow told NBC’s Chuck Todd on July 16. “It came from Donald Trump Jr. … It was, in fact, from him and I believe it was his lawyer was in consultation.”

Conjecture in the press - “reportedly” - does NOT constitute anything but another possible FAKE NEWS story - one more among the MANY they regularly trade in, these days.

Get someone on the record, for ONCE.

Whoops…

The Daily Beast – 2 Jun 18

White House Lawyers Say Trump Wrote Misleading Response to Trump Tower Meeting

Jay Sekulow, one of the attorneys who signed the letter, told The Daily Beast that no one on the president’s legal team played a role in leaking it.

The letter even says there is documentation of the president’s role in putting together that initial misleading statement.

“You have received all of the notes, communications and testimony indicating that the President dictated a short but accurate response to the New York Times article on behalf of his son, Donald Trump, Jr.,” the lawyers wrote.

His attorney’s went on the record, as you requested, admitting that Trump dictated the letter. Of course, after first lying about it, as you noted in your post.

kingarthur65 · 2018-08-14T18:22:53.410Z

Does this mean that both Donalds were too dumb to realize that the adoption discussion was about sanctions? Certainly they weren’t trying to mislead anyone with those statements about how bored he was with that talk about adoption.

NebraskaFootball · 2018-08-14T18:24:21.478Z

kingarthur65:

Does this mean that both Donalds were too dumb to realize that the adoption discussion was about sanctions? Certainly they weren’t trying to mislead anyone with those statements about how bored he was with that talk about adoption.

I think there is no doubt that they are both that ignorant. And likely are STILL too ignorant to understand, to this day.