Donald Trump Presidency discussion thread II

red ears

American politics is full of digging for dirt on Political opponents. Americans understand this well. If the media went after Clinton they would uncover some unsavory stuff too. Trump voters see through this for what it is. Its an attack on Trump by an untrustworthy and heavily biased media. Good luck to them and good luck to everyone getting excited about it. I just don't see it amounting to much.

derb12

And also, the narrative seems to be building here that "nothing" of any use came out of the meeting so the president was never told. Nothing to see here folks.

Are we expected to believe that trump Jr found out via email that the Russians were backing his dad prior to the (useless) meeting and over the course of the whole campaign he didn't mention this to trump sr?

InTheTrees

red ears wrote: »

I still hear people talking about Trump out in the real world but nobody mentions Russia.

I'd say the most pressing issue for most americans, at least out here on the west coast, is the idiotic "trumpcare" bill that is basically a massive cash gift to the 1% and that the republicans are desperately trying to pass before trump goes down in flames.

Trumps "legacy" is going to be massive corruption scandals and a desperate endless attempt to dismantle the healthcare system to give billionaires a tax cut.

Professor Moriarty

red ears wrote: »

The media seem to be really overdoing this whole collusion thing. I'm not sure many apart from hardcore anti trump types
and the media care much about it. I still hear people talking about Trump out in the real world but nobody mentions Russia. The same handful of posters in the thread seem to be getting very excited about it though..

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2017/07/11/the-medias-mass-hysteria-over-collusion-is-out-of-control/?utm_term=.5531d99d50ee

'For many in the media and elsewhere, the collective grievances that they have against Trump personally, the White House as a whole and Trump’s policies somehow justify their zealous promotion of the “collusion scandal.” But not because the story is valid. Rather, the media know that they are not getting to Trump with anything else. Today, much of the “news coverage” of Trump and Co. is about payback'.

Much of Trump's base will agree with you. In fact, if he burned down their houses they would still vote for him because of the lies they choose to believe. Here's the rub though. There is a middle ground that deeply regrets voting for Trump now. They are the people that are reading, seeing, hearing, and believing, what proper media outlets are saying about Trump and his cronies.

Billy86

red ears wrote: »

American politics is full of digging for dirt on Political opponents. Americans understand this well. If the media went after Clinton they would uncover some unsavory stuff too. Trump voters see through this for what it is. Its an attack on Trump by an untrustworthy and heavily biased media. Good luck to them and good luck to everyone getting excited about it. I just don't see it amounting to much.

Clinton had FOX and co as well as half of congress chasing her for years and years, the predictable "but Hillary!" excuse doesn't wash here. Trump Jr admitted he, a close Trump adviser and the campaign manager went looking to collude with Russia and then talked about sanctions with them which is also illegal. He has even released the emails for it as irrefutable proof.

B00MSTICK

Much of Trump's base will agree with you. In fact, if he burned down their houses they would still vote for him because of the lies they choose to believe. Here's the rub though. There is a middle ground that deeply regrets voting for Trump now. They are the people that are reading, seeing, hearing, and believing, what proper media outlets are saying about Trump and his cronies.

TBH I'd the majority of his support that were somewhat on the fence have long since turned leaving his core support as mentioned.
We are well aware how fanatical they are and how strong their hatred of Hillary is.

Its a simple enough line to feed their supporters:

"DT Jnr. was protecting our terrific nation by investigating intel on "crooked" Hillary. He was protecting US interests and should be applauded. Fake news tells a different story. Sad."

"No intel was shared, there was no collusion, more Fake News from the failing New York Times. His emails prove this. DT Jnr. and his associates performed a great service to our country and are continuously trying to MAGA"

Its possible members of the Republican party may start to see things differently as the position becomes less defensible but that remains to be seen.

Leroy42

red ears wrote: »

American politics is full of digging for dirt on Political opponents. Americans understand this well. If the media went after Clinton they would uncover some unsavory stuff too. Trump voters see through this for what it is. Its an attack on Trump by an untrustworthy and heavily biased media. Good luck to them and good luck to everyone getting excited about it. I just don't see it amounting to much.

So you've said but you have given no justification for your position.

The media have gone after Clinton. Trump supporters did not seem concerned about Fox News etc getting excited about that.

THis story is different as the source is Trump Jr. Everything that the NYT has claimed has turned out to be true, and agreed to by Trump Jr. They well well be biased, but the facts are the facts. What particular part of the story do you think Trump Jr is lying about and why is he working with the biased media to give credence to their story?

You seem to be saying that everyone is at it. Can you give another example of a candidate soliciting stolen records from a foreign country against another US citizen?

There is a world of difference between digging up dirt and allowing a foreign country to do it.

seamus

red ears wrote: »

American politics is full of digging for dirt on Political opponents. Americans understand this well. If the media went after Clinton they would uncover some unsavory stuff too. Trump voters see through this for what it is. Its an attack on Trump by an untrustworthy and heavily biased media. Good luck to them and good luck to everyone getting excited about it. I just don't see it amounting to much.

Funny.

The media hounded Hillary for years and the best thing they found was a private email server and a lot of deleted emails. When it leaked, it turns out that none of the emails had anything incriminating in them, just proof that Clinton had told a few porkies.

Trump got a free ride for the most part because he was seen as a joke candidate till early-mid-2016 and in less than a year of digging the media have uncovered that his campaign engaged in collusion with a foreign non-allied government to influence the election.

It's funny that you either wilfully or blindly can't see your bias in this.

Media uncovers unsavoury things about Clinton = "She's can't be trusted, she must be stopped"

Media uncovers unsavoury things about Trump = "The media can't be trusted, they must be stopped".

And here we are still talking about Clinton, 8 months after she lost the election, as if she's even relevant.

The US President's team yesterday provided proof that they were working with the Russian Government to influence the outcome of the election.
That is an indisputable fact. The media nor Hillary have anything to do with it. Trump's own team gave us this information.

What do you think of that?

ThisRegard

red ears wrote: »

American politics is full of digging for dirt on Political opponents. Americans understand this well. If the media went after Clinton they would uncover some unsavory stuff too. Trump voters see through this for what it is. Its an attack on Trump by an untrustworthy and heavily biased media. Good luck to them and good luck to everyone getting excited about it. I just don't see it amounting to much.

Have you missed the whole part where the man in question changed his story several times before eventually tweeting the proof himself?

red ears

ThisRegard wrote: »

Have you missed the whole part where the man in question changed his story several times before eventually tweeting the proof himself?

Do you think it will amount to much? I don't.

Billy86

B00MSTICK wrote: »

TBH I'd the majority of his support that were somewhat on the fence have long since turned leaving his core support as mentioned.
We are well aware how fanatical they are and how strong their hatred of Hillary is.

For a lot it's not really about her at all, the Republican fundamentalists yes, the Trumpeteers not so much - it could just as easily have been Sanders or anyone else. A lot of those who genuinely disliked Clinton for reasons other than "The Donald told me to" or "Zenbhagi!!" they've long since jumped ship on Trump, too.

DaniilKharms

red ears wrote: »

Do you think it will amount to much? I don't.

There's definitely multiple ways to look at this... for example:

- is it important
- will the truth ever all come out
- will it have a real political impact for Republicans and the GOP
- will it meaningfully damage Trump/Trump Co.

I think you can look at them individually, and find some pretty glaring irony/dissonance, but that doesn't mean any specific bit is more important to someone, or that one will impact the other.

So for instance, is it important? Yes. Will it impact Trump? No one knows, but history would lead many to say no.Are both sides playing politics with it? To some degree yes. Does that mean partisans on both sides should ignore everything they see or hear about this in the "opposing" media? No.

Etc., etc.

The fallout isn't a symbol of the severity of the issue, nor is the lack of fallout.

SeamusFX

I'm amazed at the people saying this is nothing. I'm not going to debate if this is collusion or treason, as all the cards haven't been shown yet. Donnie Dumbo Jr has proven to be a liar, just like his father who's a habitual liar, so who is dumb enough to actually believe this meeting only lasted 20 minutes and nothing came out of it? I'll be happy to sit back and watch more and more of their lies unravel, but please don't say this is nothing!!

BillyBobBS

seamus wrote: »

Bill lies about a blowjob. Impeached.

Hillary deletes some emails. Crooked Hilary, throw her in jail.

Trump colludes with a rogue nation to conspire to win an election. Next.

Of course.

Haha because the US aren't a "rogue nation" :pac:

Please stop drinking the propaganda cool aid and open your eyes.

BillyBobBS

CNN in meltdown this morning over this. Basically the president has broken no laws and this is a big nothing burger. I love it.

Christy42

BillyBobBS wrote: »

CNN in meltdown this morning over this. Basically the president has broken no laws and this is a big nothing burger. I love it.

I love your wording. His campaign team attempted to collude with a foreign government.

The media was called liars for months because they investigated this. Now we have absolute proof of this.

I want someone to explain why information relevant to a special prosecutor is not news?

Zubeneschamali

red ears wrote: »

Do you think it will amount to much? I don't.

Trump Jr doesn't matter very much, but he, Manafort and Kushner broke the law. These 3 will face criminal prosecution, and Jr. just tweeted proof that they are guilty.

So what can these 3 tell prosecutors to get a deal?

The meeting was on June 9th. On June 7th, Trump announced he would be giving a major speech about the Clintons next week:

https://twitter.com/CNN/status/740352044092002304

He never did. Why did he think he would have something major to talk about after the 9th?

15 minutes after Jrs Russia meeting ended, Trump Sr. tweeted about Hillary's 33,000 deleted emails for the first time:
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/741007091947556864

He tweets about those mails 128 times after that date.

Trump publicly called on the Russians to release hacked emails. The Russians released hacked DNC emails through Wikileaks, helping Trump. Trump weakened the Republican policy on Ukraine. After the election, Trump strongly hinted that he would drop sanctions against Russia when inaugurated.

There is a pattern here, and Trump Sr. is in it.

Which of the 3 facing charges will talk?

And is any of this important? Well, which is worse, spying on the DNC headquarters yourself, or colluding with Russian spies to hack the DNC in return for changing US policy towards Russia?

Leroy42

red ears wrote: »

Do you think it will amount to much? I don't.

That is a different position.

There is the facts themselves, and then there is no the outcome will be.

Do you think the event itself is nothing or that the outcome will be nothing or both?

Leroy42

Christy42 wrote: »

I love your wording. His campaign team attempted to collude with a foreign government.

The media was called liars for months because they investigated this. Now we have absolute proof of this.

I want someone to explain why information relevant to a special prosecutor is not news?

I have asked this question a number of times already from those that come on here stating it is nothing. They always simply state that and give no reasons why it is nothing. They don't deal with any of the issues that this brings up.

It goes back to the lack of any actual facts. They simply state it is nonsense without any reason. And then ignore any actual questioning of their position.

DaniilKharms

Christy42 wrote: »

I love your wording. His campaign team attempted to collude with a foreign government.

The media was called liars for months because they investigated this. Now we have absolute proof of this.

I want someone to explain why information relevant to a special prosecutor is not news?

Well, the thing is America politics are wildly partisan. So if you support Team X you don't care or minimize when they do something. The same goes for those that support Team Y.

Because it's so deeply partisan, the truth is kinda beside the point. Even if someone is prosecuted for this mess, that prosecution will be derided as a witch hunt by politicians and the media that support the GOP, etc.

So it's news, but it's also not news. It just depends on your belief system.

demfad

Really Interested wrote: »

That explains why twitter it does not explain the statement and the email from 3rd June. No lawyer worth a crap degree would say the statement was ok.

You asked about why release the email?
The statements are bogus. The first was drafted on Air Force one which is likely obstruction of Justice. The second was similarily hasty. When they realised the NYTimes had the email I would imagine that JRs lawyer got involved.

Billy86

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Trump Jr doesn't matter very much, but he, Manafort and Kushner broke the law. These 3 will face criminal prosecution, and Jr. just tweeted proof that they are guilty.

So what can these 3 tell prosecutors to get a deal?

The meeting was on June 9th. On June 7th, Trump announced he would be giving a major speech about the Clintons next week:

https://twitter.com/CNN/status/740352044092002304

Just to add in, he announced this at 9:14pm on June 7th. The meeting was confirmed via email at 6:14pm on June 7th, just three hours prior.

These nothingburgers are awful juicy and meaty!

Leroy42

BillyBobBS wrote: »

CNN in meltdown this morning over this. Basically the president has broken no laws and this is a big nothing burger. I love it.

52 U.S. Code § 30121 - Contributions and donations by foreign nationals
US Code
Contributions and donations by foreign nationals
(a) ProhibitionIt 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.

Why do you think this law has not been broken?

I am not a lawyer, and certainly no expert on US law, but to you must be in order to be able to claim that no laws were broken.

aloyisious

red ears wrote: »

American politics is full of digging for dirt on Political opponents. Americans understand this well. If the media went after Clinton they would uncover some unsavory stuff too. Trump voters see through this for what it is. Its an attack on Trump by an untrustworthy and heavily biased media. Good luck to them and good luck to everyone getting excited about it. I just don't see it amounting to much.

I read what was in the link you posted of the opinion-piece by a reader in the W/P, dutifully printed by the W/P as part of its practice to give readers their free speech say on current affairs in the media.

It's quite probably true that if the media went after the Clintons [plural] they would find some unsavoury stuff. The thing about the latest revealed episode is that it was the Trumps [plural] who arranged a meet with the lawyer [through 2 third party links to the trump family] in order to get some unsavoury stuff to damage the candidature and election chances of HRC. It had also been "forgotten" by the Trump family when it came to family members listing it in the inconvenient formal federal paperwork required to work in the W/H.

It ain't about the Clintons, hasn't been since Nov. HRC had her chance and lost in Nov.

Don Snr is the person most people are interested in as he is in the Oval Office, not her. Don is courting the interest and attention of the public every day [mostly] through non-media methods by choice, avoiding the questioning of the free press. he's extended this practice down to the W/H media briefings where not even they are viewable by the public, just sound.

Don Jnr was forced to play catch-up in the game of public openness when he found the NYT had possession [without hacking] of his emails, allegedly courtesy of his fellow W/H staffers - which has not been denied by the family or it's PR people.

The revelation is down to sleuthing by the free press, not Trump family transparency. It's not bias that Don fears of the media, its it's freedom from control by him.

Billy86

DaniilKharms wrote: »

Well, the thing is America politics are wildly partisan. So if you support Team X you don't care or minimize when they do something. The same goes for those that support Team Y.

Because it's so deeply partisan, the truth is kinda beside the point. Even if someone is prosecuted for this mess, that prosecution will be derided as a witch hunt by politicians and the media that support the GOP, etc.

So it's news, but it's also not news. It just depends on your belief system.

There is a sizable difference between them though, likely in part from the GOPs ability to tap into and prey on the uneducated in combination with the mega rich who they're really serving. Just one example but it sums it up quite nicely - in 2013, 38% of Democrats supported Obama's plan for military action in Syria while in 2017 under Trump that number was 37%. Republicans by comparison in 2013 were only 22% in favour of Obama doing so yet under Trump 86% agree with it.

Can't find the link but I read a whole, long list of these a week or so back and it's pretty stunning - you can pretty much just invert the number for support of something by Republican based on the letter beside the persons name doing it. Democrat support tends to be considerably closer to the middle and with a much, much smaller shift. We're talking a difference of typically 10-20% (Dems) vs a difference of typically 50-60% here (Reps). It's truly remarkable stuff, will see if I can dig it up in my browser history later.

Zubeneschamali

I read stories today that Donald Jr's lying statement in response to the NYT's first installment was written by WH staffers on Air Force One, returning from Europe, and approved by Trump personally.

So the bit about Junior not being part of the Administration is perhaps irrelevant - the administration were involved in covering up the crime and obstructing justice.

aloyisious

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I read stories today that Donald Jr's lying statement in response to the NYT's first installment was written by WH staffers on Air Force One, returning from Europe, and approved by Trump personally.

So the bit about Junior not being part of the Administration is perhaps irrelevant - the administration were involved in covering up the crime and obstructing justice.

Another leak from within?

DaniilKharms

Billy86 wrote: »

There is a sizable difference between them though, likely in part from the GOPs ability to tap into and prey on the uneducated in combination with the mega rich who they're really serving. Just one example but it sums it up quite nicely - in 2013, 38% of Democrats supported Obama's plan for military action in Syria while in 2017 under Trump that number was 37%. Republicans by comparison in 2013 were only 22% in favour of Obama doing so yet under Trump 86% agree with it.

Can't find the link but I read a whole, long list of these a week or so back and it's pretty stunning - you can pretty much just invert the number for support of something by Republican based on the letter beside the persons name doing it. Democrat support tends to be considerably closer to the middle and with a much, much smaller shift. We're talking a difference of typically 10-20% (Dems) vs a difference of typically 50-60% here (Reps). It's truly remarkable stuff, will see if I can dig it up in my browser history later.

There's not really, in so many respects:

- They both play games with people's healthcare
- neither supported universal healthcare for decades
- neither has a meaningful plan to deal with gun violence
- or fix the education system
- both ignore struggling Americans, or lie to their face
- both take vast sums from corporations, and are in bed with lobbyists
- both warmonger, and support dictators
- neither is honest about US foreign policy
- both blindly defend their party
- both flip flop on issues for political reasons

etc., etc., etc.

You can say that they're really different, but it truly depends on your priorities. If you want to vote for a party that has a plan to tackle gun violence, if that's your priority, you may as well stay home. If you want to vote for a party that doesn't fund itself with money from corporations, banks and lobbyists, you may as well stay home.

I appreciate that they are different, but neither is good, by any reasonable definition of good.

aloyisious

Hannity; we will ask him every single question I can think of....

https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwin-pPd3oPVAhUhCMAKHSvEC98QqUMIKjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.foxnews.com%2Fpolitics%2F2017%2F07%2F11%2Fdonald-trump-jr-tells-sean-hannity-in-retrospect-probably-would-have-done-things-little-differently.html&usg=AFQjCNG3y_AzweN-ZIs-UvXCeM7VFFQg2g

Sorry about the other small screen news items on the link, I'm not tech-savvy enough to cut them out.

sReq | uTeK

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Trump Jr doesn't matter very much, but he, Manafort and Kushner broke the law. These 3 will face criminal prosecution, and Jr. just tweeted proof that they are guilty.

So what can these 3 tell prosecutors to get a deal?

The meeting was on June 9th. On June 7th, Trump announced he would be giving a major speech about the Clintons next week:

https://twitter.com/CNN/status/740352044092002304

He never did. Why did he think he would have something major to talk about after the 9th?

15 minutes after Jrs Russia meeting ended, Trump Sr. tweeted about Hillary's 33,000 deleted emails for the first time:
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/741007091947556864

He tweets about those mails 128 times after that date.

Trump publicly called on the Russians to release hacked emails. The Russians released hacked DNC emails through Wikileaks, helping Trump. Trump weakened the Republican policy on Ukraine. After the election, Trump strongly hinted that he would drop sanctions against Russia when inaugurated.

There is a pattern here, and Trump Sr. is in it.

Which of the 3 facing charges will talk?

And is any of this important? Well, which is worse, spying on the DNC headquarters yourself, or colluding with Russian spies to hack the DNC in return for changing US policy towards Russia?

Just interested to know what Law they actually broke?

Not being smart, just curious.

Professor Moriarty

DaniilKharms wrote: »

There's not really, in so many respects:

- They both play games with people's healthcare
- neither supported universal healthcare for decades
- neither has a meaningful plan to deal with gun violence
- or fix the education system
- both ignore struggling Americans, or lie to their face
- both take vast sums from corporations, and are in bed with lobbyists
- both warmonger, and support dictators
- neither is honest about US foreign policy
- both blindly defend their party
- both flip flop on issues for political reasons

etc., etc., etc.

You can say that they're really different, but it truly depends on your priorities. If you want to vote for a party that has a plan to tackle gun violence, if that's your priority, you may as well stay home. If you want to vote for a party that doesn't fund itself with money from corporations, banks and lobbyists, you may as well stay home.

I appreciate that they are different, but neither is good, by any reasonable definition of good.

Much the same as in Ireland, the electorate votes for the least worst option from their own perspective. What if a Sanders got the nomination for the Dems and Trump got the nomination for the GOP? Do you think that everything would remain the same for American society no matter who was elected? Look at what has happened to the EPA. Look at the healthcare the GOP is trying to bring in. Look at the proposed deregulation. Look at the nationalistic foreign policy. Do you think a Sanders led admin would be the same? No party is perfect in any way but I know who I'd rather see in power.

Leroy42

sReq | uTeK wrote: »

Just interested to know what Law they actually broke?

Not being smart, just curious.

52 U.S. Code § 30121 - Contributions and donations by foreign nationals

sReq | uTeK

Leroy42 wrote: »

52 U.S. Code § 30121 - Contributions and donations by foreign nationals

Again though, no contribution was made as he clearly states, and it's been corroborated by all parties involved, including the russian lawyer, no contribution was made..

So I'll ask again, unless taking a meeting with someone from a different country is a crime, where did he break the law?

Also is information deemed a contribution? surely if there was actual evidence there that Hilary Clinton was working with foreign entities the US would want to know about it?

By the way, i'll add I'm not a Trump supporter and shocked he was elected, but this just seems like a storm in a tea cup. I hear the word treason being thrown around also, safe to say they need to be at war for treason to occur, as for purgery, well I don't think he took the stand and swore an oath.

It's so far removed its beyond silly.

Zubeneschamali

Leroy42 wrote: »

52 U.S. Code § 30121 - Contributions and donations by foreign nationals

Yes, and that law explicitly states that soliciting such is a federal crime, you don't have to prove they got anything.

Trump stated that he, Manafort and Kushner went to the meeting to get dirt from the Russian Government on Clinton. Guilty.

For Reals

aloyisious wrote: »

Hannity; we will ask him every single question I can think of....

https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwin-pPd3oPVAhUhCMAKHSvEC98QqUMIKjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.foxnews.com%2Fpolitics%2F2017%2F07%2F11%2Fdonald-trump-jr-tells-sean-hannity-in-retrospect-probably-would-have-done-things-little-differently.html&usg=AFQjCNG3y_AzweN-ZIs-UvXCeM7VFFQg2g

Sorry about the other small screen news items on the link, I'm not tech-savvy enough to cut them out.

Well a soft interview allowing him give his scripted story, (the 'sirens/antenna' particularly smacks of script). Coupled with a lie, IMO, that he got an email citing dirt on Clinton, arranged a meeting, invited his brother in-law, a then senior campaign advisory, but didn't tell Trump or even mention it in passing, neither of the three did? Simply not believable.
Anyone who buys any of that interview is only fooling themselves.

Still the Republicans will never vote to impeach. It would take Trump burning the bible on live TV.

sReq | uTeK

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Yes, and that law explicitly states that soliciting such is a federal crime, you don't have to prove they got anything.

Trump stated that he, Manafort and Kushner went to the meeting to get dirt from the Russian Government on Clinton. Guilty.

And here in lies subjectivity, any Lawyer will argue:

"Solicit - ask for or try to obtain (something) from someone."

Trump Jr, did not Solicit anything, he merely was responding and agreed to meet the Lawyer on matters of heed deemed important and relating to national security.
As the meeting was irrelevant in such nature, my client deemed it not necessary to inform anyone.

But he just said he met with the intention of obtaining damaging information on national television.

My client was subjected to a national witch hunt, he was in no fit state of mind whilst giving that interview. It was not a statement obtained under the guise of Law, nor was it a testimony.

.....

For what its worth I'd love to see the Trump administration brought to it's knees, sadly this won't be the catalyst to do so.

spacecoyote

DaniilKharms wrote: »

There's not really, in so many respects:

- They both play games with people's healthcare
- neither supported universal healthcare for decades
- neither has a meaningful plan to deal with gun violence
- or fix the education system
- both ignore struggling Americans, or lie to their face
- both take vast sums from corporations, and are in bed with lobbyists
- both warmonger, and support dictators
- neither is honest about US foreign policy
- both blindly defend their party
- both flip flop on issues for political reasons

etc., etc., etc.

You can say that they're really different, but it truly depends on your priorities. If you want to vote for a party that has a plan to tackle gun violence, if that's your priority, you may as well stay home. If you want to vote for a party that doesn't fund itself with money from corporations, banks and lobbyists, you may as well stay home.

I appreciate that they are different, but neither is good, by any reasonable definition of good.

Your answer is in no way addressing the point that Billy made. He was making a point in relation to the leaning of supporters in favour/against decisions made by their own/the opposition parties, showing a strong bias in opinions by (R) supporters versus that of (D) supporters.

Your point may generally speaking correct in relation to how the parties themselves behave, but is not an accurate rebuttal of Billy's point.

Leroy42

sReq | uTeK wrote: »

Again though, no contribution was made as he clearly states, and it's been corroborated by all parties involved, including the russian lawyer, no contribution was made..

So I'll ask again, unless taking a meeting with someone from a different country is a crime, where did he break the law?

Also is information deemed a contribution? surely if there was actual evidence there that Hilary Clinton was working with foreign entities the US would want to know about it?

By the way, i'll add I'm not a Trump supporter and shocked he was elected, but this just seems like a storm in a tea cup. I hear the word treason being thrown around also, safe to say they need to be at war for treason to occur, as for purgery, well I don't think he took the stand and swore an oath.

It's so far removed its beyond silly.

Did you read it?

It states:

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;

A contribution was expected, hence the meeting. That they didn't get it (which we only have their version of events on which to base that belief) is not the point.

It is not solely about money. Anything of value. Trump Jr has already said that this was very interesting, and he felt it was Oppo type intel (as if that is some way of a defence) but that only serves to show that he valued it.

You then also need to set aside the strange coincidence of Trump starting to tweet about HC e-mails shortly after, stating he would make a speech a few days after and asking Russian to find those 33,000k e-mails shortly after.

You then have to believe that Trump, who has always said that his family are his closest advisors, was kept out of the loop not only at the time but ever since then when the Russian thing was increasing in intensity.

At the end of the day, the length of the meeting and the outcome of the meeting and who was there at the meeting is mainly based on what Trump Jr has said. We already know that Trump JR has lied about this repeatedly so why would anyone place any confidence in his claim.

Surely at this stage Trump needs to explain the sudden interest in HC 33,000 e-mails.

Billy86

sReq | uTeK wrote: »

Just interested to know what Law they actually broke?

Not being smart, just curious.

First, in colluding on information given - "It shall be unlawful for a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make 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". In the emails it mentioned that this information was coming from foreign nationals Russian government officials in order to support the Trump campaign, which is illegal.

However much more straight forward is that they were talking about adoption programs which Trump Jr admitted to from the outset (and actually tried to use as a way of brushing the whole thing off, which has backfired spectacularly). In 2012, Russia suspended all adoption programs to the US right as they were finalising the Magnitsky Act, which was a series of sanctions related to Russian fraud and the death of Sergei Magnitsky in Russia prison when he was investigating these matters. As such it is impossible to talk about US/Russia adoption programs without talking about sanctions, a violation of the Logan Act (which is why Michael Flynn got the boot and himself is also under formal investigation). And if there were any room for doubt, the lawyer they met with has been one of -if not the- chief actor on Russia's behalf to try and have those sanctions removed for the last several years.

Also, I'm quite sure Kushner would be down for another for failure to disclose.

sReq | uTeK

Leroy42 wrote: »

Did you read it?

It states:

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;

A contribution was expected, hence the meeting. That they didn't get it (which we only have their version of events on which to base that belief) is not the point.

It is not solely about money. Anything of value. Trump Jr has already said that this was very interesting, and he felt it was Oppo type intel (as if that is some way of a defence) but that only serves to show that he valued it.

You then also need to set aside the strange coincidence of Trump starting to tweet about HC e-mails shortly after, stating he would make a speech a few days after and asking Russian to find those 33,000k e-mails shortly after.

You then have to believe that Trump, who has always said that his family are his closest advisors, was kept out of the loop not only at the time but ever since then when the Russian thing was increasing in intensity.

At the end of the day, the length of the meeting and the outcome of the meeting and who was there at the meeting is mainly based on what Trump Jr has said. We already know that Trump JR has lied about this repeatedly so why would anyone place any confidence in his claim.

Surely at this stage Trump needs to explain the sudden interest in HC 33,000 e-mails.

I did, hence my post #1737

Leroy42

sReq | uTeK wrote: »

And here in lies subjectivity, any Lawyer will argue:

"Solicit - ask for or try to obtain (something) from someone."

Trump Jr, did not Solicit anything, he merely was responding and agreed to meet the Lawyer on matters of heed deemed important and relating to national security.
As the meeting was irrelevant in such nature, my client deemed it not necessary to inform anyone.

But he just said he met with the intention of obtaining damaging information on national television.

My client was subjected to a national witch hunt, he was in no fit state of mind whilst giving that interview. It was not a statement obtained under the guise of Law, nor was it a testimony.

.....

For what its worth I'd love to see the Trump administration brought to it's knees, sadly this won't be the catalyst to do so.

Did you really just post that? You contradicted your own argument!

Only if the lawyer was Lionel Hutz would they start with that argument

He tried to obtain information from the lawyer. QED.

Leroy42

sReq | uTeK wrote: »

I did, hence my post #1737

Right, so care to comment on the particulars of that law that you feel are not applicable here.

He tried to obtain something of value for a foreign person. Why do you think he has not broken that law (I assume that neither of us are experts on US law so I am not arguing that he is guilty only that there is a case to answer)

seamus

I'm not normally big into regurgitating Trump's sewer of consciousness, but I find this interesting in how he's trying to deflect.

We've gone from "no contact with Russia" to "some benign contact with Russia" to "OK, some intel contact with Russia, but we've fired that guy" to "yeah, we talked to Russia, but go nothing out of them" to "Hillary Clinton must be at least as bad as I am, why won't you investigate her?":

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/885128373441355777

Basically "Yes, I have done something wrong, but what about Hillary?". Incredible.

demfad

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Trump Jr doesn't matter very much, but he, Manafort and Kushner broke the law. These 3 will face criminal prosecution, and Jr. just tweeted proof that they are guilty.

So what can these 3 tell prosecutors to get a deal?

The meeting was on June 9th. On June 7th, Trump announced he would be giving a major speech about the Clintons next week:

https://twitter.com/CNN/status/740352044092002304

He never did. Why did he think he would have something major to talk about after the 9th?

15 minutes after Jrs Russia meeting ended, Trump Sr. tweeted about Hillary's 33,000 deleted emails for the first time:
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/741007091947556864

He tweets about those mails 128 times after that date.

Trump publicly called on the Russians to release hacked emails. The Russians released hacked DNC emails through Wikileaks, helping Trump. Trump weakened the Republican policy on Ukraine. After the election, Trump strongly hinted that he would drop sanctions against Russia when inaugurated.

There is a pattern here, and Trump Sr. is in it.

Which of the 3 facing charges will talk?

And is any of this important? Well, which is worse, spying on the DNC headquarters yourself, or colluding with Russian spies to hack the DNC in return for changing US policy towards Russia?

Remember, at the top of the security form (the one on which Kushner omitted these Russia meetings) its states that falsifying or omission are a federal offence.
This could be up to 10 years in prison. It's a pretty open and shut case for Kushner. Minimum, the feds have this leverage over him.

sReq | uTeK

Leroy42 wrote: »

Did you really just post that? You contradicted your own argument!

Only if the lawyer was Lionel Hutz would they start with that argument

He tried to obtain information from the lawyer. QED.

I iterated was solicit was..not started with it, and followed up with a rebuttle showing what they could have said TRUMP jr was doing.

sReq | uTeK

Leroy42 wrote: »

Right, so care to comment on the particulars of that law that you feel are not applicable here.

He tried to obtain something of value for a foreign person. Why do you think he has not broken that law (I assume that neither of us are experts on US law so I am not arguing that he is guilty only that there is a case to answer)

Never once did I say there was no case to Answer.. my responses were to another poster who stated that he was categorically guilty and highlighted thus in bold. I'm simply saying it's easy to argue a different point of view and twist the meeting into something innocuous.

Billy86

seamus wrote: »

I'm not normally big into regurgitating Trump's sewer of consciousness, but I find this interesting in how he's trying to deflect.

We've gone from "no contact with Russia" to "some benign contact with Russia" to "OK, some intel contact with Russia, but we've fired that guy" to "yeah, we talked to Russia, but go nothing out of them" to "Hillary Clinton must be at least as bad as I am, why won't you investigate her?":

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/885128373441355777

Basically "Yes, I have done something wrong, but what about Hillary?". Incredible.

It's predictable, but which is the chicken and which is the egg?

Billy86 wrote: »

It's standard from Trump fans, try to shape reality to fit their needs - "fake news" becomes "it's a witch hunt" becomes "where is the proof?" becomes "that's not proof, he never admitted it" becomes "nobody cares about the proof or that he admitted it!" and on and on. They actually think nobody cares about this, such is the bubble they put themselves in - before that bubble group-thinks it's latest irrational response is the "but Hillary!" window of confusion we see every so often.

I did make an error though, "But Hillary!" also comes out when they're completely caught with their pants down and have no other answer, technically that 'window' never shutting.

Professor Moriarty

seamus wrote: »

I'm not normally big into regurgitating Trump's sewer of consciousness, but I find this interesting in how he's trying to deflect.

We've gone from "no contact with Russia" to "some benign contact with Russia" to "OK, some intel contact with Russia, but we've fired that guy" to "yeah, we talked to Russia, but go nothing out of them" to "Hillary Clinton must be at least as bad as I am, why won't you investigate her?":

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/885128373441355777

Basically "Yes, I have done something wrong, but what about Hillary?". Incredible.

Why aren't the same standards placed on the Democrats. Look what Hillary Clinton John F Kennedy Franklin D Roosevelt Woodrow Wilson may have gotten away with. Disgraceful!

InTheTrees

sReq | uTeK wrote: »

Leroy42 wrote: »

52 U.S. Code § 30121 - Contributions and donations by foreign nationals

Again though, no contribution was made as he clearly states, and it's been corroborated by all parties involved, including the russian lawyer, no contribution was made..

A contribution doesn't have to be money.

And who exactly is it that is stating there was no contribution?

DaniilKharms

spacecoyote wrote: »

Your answer is in no way addressing the point that Billy made. He was making a point in relation to the leaning of supporters in favour/against decisions made by their own/the opposition parties, showing a strong bias in opinions by (R) supporters versus that of (D) supporters.

Your point may generally speaking correct in relation to how the parties themselves behave, but is not an accurate rebuttal of Billy's point.

He said:

Billy86 wrote: »

There is a sizable difference between them though, likely in part from the GOPs ability to tap into and prey on the uneducated in combination with the mega rich who they're really serving. Just one example but it sums it up quite nicely - in 2013, 38% of Democrats supported Obama's plan for military action in Syria while in 2017 under Trump that number was 37%. Republicans by comparison in 2013 were only 22% in favour of Obama doing so yet under Trump 86% agree with it.

Can't find the link but I read a whole, long list of these a week or so back and it's pretty stunning - you can pretty much just invert the number for support of something by Republican based on the letter beside the persons name doing it. Democrat support tends to be considerably closer to the middle and with a much, much smaller shift. We're talking a difference of typically 10-20% (Dems) vs a difference of typically 50-60% here (Reps). It's truly remarkable stuff, will see if I can dig it up in my browser history later.

He then went on to describe A difference, but that difference is hardly consequential; while Dems voters are less uniform - and I'm accepting stats that don't come with a link, as are you - the outcome is exactly the same.

And of course, his post is glaringly false in a few respects - both parties are serving the mega rich. That's not a difference. And BOTH parties prey on the ignorance of voters. So again, not a difference.

I'd also point out that the GOP isn't passing healthcare with ease BECAUSE their membership isn't uniform in their beliefs. I find ALL of their beliefs re: healthcare abhorrent, yet I can't deny that within their own caucus there's disagreement and factions of belief.

So if that is a selling point, the GOP also has it.