![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
by BadgerJelly on Tue Jul 11, 2017 6:54 am
Looking at this in a level-headed manner I don't really see anything of substance here.
In a traditional campaign, a foreign government's attempt to offer incriminating information about an opponent - or even the hint of such an overture - would set off all kinds of alarms. The FBI would have been notified. Senior staff would have insulated themselves from incrimination.
The Trump team was not a conventional campaign. And time and time again, they have made novice mistakes - or, more ominously, taken unprecedented risks.
Their candidate prevailed, but it has led to countless political headaches. Now it appears the president's own family, and his presidency itself, could be in peril. They have only themselves to blame.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
I do find it strange that we're presented with "female lawyer" rather than just "lawyer". This lawyer was obviously no ordinary lawyer, it was a "female lawyer". That is the only thing that stuck out for me as an obnoxiously pointless point.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Jnr. said she offered nothing and he heard nothing.
On Sunday, when the Times reported a second piece alleging that Trump Jr. had met with Veselnitskaya after receiving a promise that she possessed "damaging information" about Hillary Clinton, he changed his story.
"After pleasantries were exchanged, the woman stated that she had information that individuals connected to Russia were funding the Democratic National Committee and supporting Ms. Clinton," Trump Jr. said in a statement. "Her statements were vague, ambiguous and made no sense. No details or supporting information was provided or even offered. It quickly became clear that she had no meaningful information."
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
.“I am going to give a major speech on probably Monday of next week and we’re going to be discussing all of the things that have taken place with the Clintons. I think you’re going to find it very informative and very, very interesting”
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
BadgerJelly » Tue Jul 11, 2017 11:07 am wrote:From CNN site above:Jnr. said she offered nothing and he heard nothing.
On Sunday, when the Times reported a second piece alleging that Trump Jr. had met with Veselnitskaya after receiving a promise that she possessed "damaging information" about Hillary Clinton, he changed his story.
"After pleasantries were exchanged, the woman stated that she had information that individuals connected to Russia were funding the Democratic National Committee and supporting Ms. Clinton," Trump Jr. said in a statement. "Her statements were vague, ambiguous and made no sense. No details or supporting information was provided or even offered. It quickly became clear that she had no meaningful information."
So what? Am I missing something important here?
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
jocular » Tue Jul 11, 2017 11:35 am wrote:If you were to ask the public in the States whether knowing that a candidate for the post of President of the US was being briefed by representatives of a foreign government (esp Russia or China) in an attempt to gain electoral advantage via information provided by them to the candidate, would the American public find this acceptable?
We know many would not (and it would ,I believe) be illegal but would a significant section go along with this if they felt it favoured their preferred choice for the position.Would some (many?) even welcome it?
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Watson » July 12th, 2017, 12:42 am wrote:BadgerJelly » Tue Jul 11, 2017 11:07 am wrote:From CNN site above:Jnr. said she offered nothing and he heard nothing.
On Sunday, when the Times reported a second piece alleging that Trump Jr. had met with Veselnitskaya after receiving a promise that she possessed "damaging information" about Hillary Clinton, he changed his story.
"After pleasantries were exchanged, the woman stated that she had information that individuals connected to Russia were funding the Democratic National Committee and supporting Ms. Clinton," Trump Jr. said in a statement. "Her statements were vague, ambiguous and made no sense. No details or supporting information was provided or even offered. It quickly became clear that she had no meaningful information."
So what? Am I missing something important here?
The fact that he took the meeting? Just because "It quickly became clear that she had no meaningful information." doesn't negate little trumpster's intentions. His intentions were nefarious, regardless of the outcome.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
BadgerJelly wrote:
Says who? This is my point.
If you are running for government and someone suggests they have evidence showing that your opponents are being funded by Russia would you see this person? That is the point. If there was any substance you then expose it to the public.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
wolfhnd » July 12th, 2017, 11:29 pm wrote:I have one comment on this and I will let you figure out how it is relevant.
Why did the left allow social justice warriors to destroy the Occupy Wall Street movement.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Last summer, Donald Trump, Jr. met with a Kremlin-connected attorney in an attempt to obtain information “that would incriminate Hillary.” Earlier this year, on May 12, 2017, the Department of Justice made an abrupt decision to settle a money laundering case being handled by that same attorney in the Southern District of New York. We write with some concern that the two events may be connected—and that the Department may have settled the case at a loss for the United States in order to obscure the underlying facts.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Watson » July 11th, 2017, 8:28 am wrote:I do find it strange that we're presented with "female lawyer" rather than just "lawyer". This lawyer was obviously no ordinary lawyer, it was a "female lawyer". That is the only thing that stuck out for me as an obnoxiously pointless point.
Strange the emphasis on female, or strange the Russians sent a female. No doubt if it was a frumpy older female, it would have been 'a lawyer' but it is no surprise the Russians would send an attractive female to the meetings. The fact she was a lawyer is only secondary criteria. And if they get anything incriminating it would be a bonus. Actually, the junior trumpster was compromised just taking the meeting. This could have/would have been used to 'influence' trump down the road, had junior not let the worms out of the can prematurely.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Veselnitskaya brought with her a plastic folder with printed-out documents that detailed what she believed was the flow of illicit funds to the Democrats, Akhmetshin said. Veselnitskaya presented the contents of the documents to the Trump associates and suggested that making the information public could help the campaign, he said.
“This could be a good issue to expose how the DNC is accepting bad money,” Akhmetshin recalled her saying.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Return to General News and Politics
Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot] and 3 guests