Donald Trump is the President Mark IV (Read Mod Warning in OP)

everlast75 · 30-07-2018 3:35pm

The pro-Trump view is always not the findings of any detail, but moreover attack the basis of the delivery of the detail.

We can disagree all day about whether the FISA warrant was phony or not - they can take a cause of action in Court if they want, but the fact remains that by his own admission in writing Page admitted to be a Russian advisor.

Michael Cohen's tape indicates strongly that Trump said to pay in cash to buy McDougal's story. Pro-Trumpers complain about how the tape got out rather than admit the implications are that Trump tried to cover up the transaction, or accept that he lied when he said he knew nothing about her or the story.

You cannot rationalise with someone who would rather believe the lie than face the truth.

Professor Moriarty · 30-07-2018 3:37pm

notobtuse wrote: »

I disagree. Even though much of the FISA warrants were heavily redacted, it’s pretty clear the FBI used the politically motivated Steele dossier as the primary basis for their applications. Yes it seems the FBI disagrees and claims a Yahoo News article being the primary tool to convince the FISA court to authorize a surveillance warrant for Page. But court records show that it was Steele himself who briefed Yahoo News and other reporters in the fall of 2016 at the direction of Fusion GPS, which was the opposition research firm hired by Hillary Clinton and the DNC who was behind the dossier. Remember that James Comey admitted under oath that in January 2017 that when was briefing President-elect Trump on the sensational parts of the dossier he described the document to Trump as salacious and unverified.

The court were advised of the possible motive??? A stretch if I ever saw one -- The FBI speculates that the identified U.S. person was likely looking for information that could be used to discredit (Trump being Candidate 1) the campaign.

The FBI identified Trump. So why didn’t they identify and make clear that the source of the dossier was paid by Hillary Clinton and the DNC? Probably because they never would have gotten approval to spy on the Trump team, IMO.

I look forward to The Donald synopsising this explanation in a tweet that his followers will understand.

everlast75 · 30-07-2018 3:40pm

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

I look forward to The Donald synopsising this explanation in a tweet that his followers will understand.

Well it is interesting to note that the narrative being put forward by Rudy is now that "there was no collusion" to "collusion is not a crime".

Professor Moriarty · 30-07-2018 3:49pm

everlast75 wrote: »

Well it is interesting to note that the narrative being put forward by Rudy is now that "there was no collusion" to "collusion is not a crime".

From the show that gave you 'alternative facts'. Increasingly shrill and desperate. Oh happy day.

Leroy42 · 30-07-2018 3:50pm

everlast75 wrote: »

Well it is interesting to note that the narrative being put forward by Rudy is now that "there was no collusion" to "collusion is not a crime".

I do wonder where the collusion narrative came from. I can't recall when it was first floated as an idea.

But it is telling that Trump and Guiliani are very heavily stating that collusion is not a crime, but never get into conspiracy (which it is more likely to be) and campaign finance violations.

everlast75 · 30-07-2018 3:53pm

Leroy42 wrote: »

I do wonder where the collusion narrative came from. I can't recall when it was first floated as an idea.

But it is telling that Trump and Guiliani are very heavily stating that collusion is not a crime, but never get into conspiracy (which it is more likely to be) and campaign finance violations.

Tbf Rudy has admitted that they are only rubbishing the investigation as the end game is impeachment and they want the public to apply pressure on their reps not to impeach, so I don't know why the networks keep giving him airtime

Stallingrad · 30-07-2018 3:54pm

I'm beginning to wonder are witnessing the beginning of the end of American democracy. To everyone who says he has achieved nothing and is an idiot and bluffer you've been watching the ball not the player. He has pitted the country against itself, torn the Rupublican party apart and made it a party of 1, neutered the EPA, defunded Planned Parenthood, discredited the media, attacked the judiciary, re-aligned the supreme court, given the wealthy tax breaks, eroded all the markers for what we deem to be acceptable (caged kids?), exposed the myth of a robust democracy, now he's trying to take down the investigation into collusion, I don't need to go on, you all know the score.

He's done little or nothing for the US, but done an astonishing amount in 2 years to achieve what he wants for himself.

notobtuse · 30-07-2018 3:56pm

At this point who will the Democrats put up against Trump in 2020? To me it’s looking like the top 3 choices appear to be Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden.

Biden has stayed low key for the most part. Even so, he’s old and has never gained much support in his prior runs for president. And the other two are far too progressive to appeal to moderate voters.

If the Democrats go with any of these three I foresee a Trump reelection.

mcmoustache · 30-07-2018 3:56pm

everlast75 wrote: »

Well it is interesting to note that the narrative being put forward by Rudy is now that "there was no collusion" to "collusion is not a crime".

He's been crazier than usual today. I wonder if he was made aware of something coming out soon, other than the Manafort trial, that would indicate actual collusion?

I mean, "Collusion isn't a crime anyway" is the talking point that one would use AFTER the "there was no collusion" talking point gets debunked. I don't see why he would push this line just yet unless he knows something we don't.

Oh, I almost forgot something. Giulliani also said that Trump wasn't physically at the meeting. Not physically at the meeting. That's a bit of a weird phrase to use, in my opinion. It opens up all sorts of possibilities.

everlast75 · 30-07-2018 4:00pm

mcmoustache wrote: »

He's been crazier than usual today. I wonder if he was made aware of something coming out soon, other than the Manafort trial, that would indicate actual collusion?

I mean, "Collusion isn't a crime anyway" is the talking point that one would use AFTER the "there was no collusion" talking point gets debunked. I don't see why he would push this line just yet unless he knows something we don't.

Oh, I almost forgot something. Giulliani also said that Trump wasn't physically at the meeting. Not physically at the meeting. That's a bit of a weird phrase to use, in my opinion. It opens up all sorts of possibilities.

The idea was floated at the weekend that he was on speaker phone.. so i wonder is that why he was careful of how he phrased that

Professor Moriarty · 30-07-2018 4:03pm

mcmoustache wrote: »

He's been crazier than usual today. I wonder if he was made aware of something coming out soon, other than the Manafort trial, that would indicate actual collusion?

I mean, "Collusion isn't a crime anyway" is the talking point that one would use AFTER the "there was no collusion" talking point gets debunked. I don't see why he would push this line just yet unless he knows something we don't.

Oh, I almost forgot something. Giulliani also said that Trump wasn't physically at the meeting. Not physically at the meeting. That's a bit of a weird phrase to use, in my opinion. It opens up all sorts of possibilities.

Hmmm. Telephone conferencing? Telephone conversations can be taped. Apparently.

Leroy42 · 30-07-2018 4:10pm

This is following the exact same path as all the other stories.

Its a complete fabrication, fake news, anonymous sources.
He didn't do it/know anything about it.
He only knew about it after when he read the papers - fake news etc.
He knew about it but only after it happened.
He knew about it but wasn't involved.
He was involved but not actually there.

It is actually quite amazing that the same trick works every time.

We can be pretty sure, given Guiliani's wording, that Trump was involved in the meeting. Probably by speaker phone, but at the very least he was informed by Trump Jr about it, probably before and certainly afterwards.

Which goes directly against the official WH statement, signed off by POTUS, at the time the story broke.

So now we have the reality that, even if he wasn't involved with the Russians, when the CIA/FBI told him about the Russians attempts to interfere, and knowing what he knew about the Trump Tower meeting, and as such had direct evidence, he choose not only not to tell them about it but to actively try to tell the public that the FBI were in fact wrong.

That is pretty serious stuff.

notobtuse · 30-07-2018 4:11pm

mcmoustache wrote: »

everlast75 wrote: »

Well it is interesting to note that the narrative being put forward by Rudy is now that "there was no collusion" to "collusion is not a crime".

He's been crazier than usual today. I wonder if he was made aware of something coming out soon, other than the Manafort trial, that would indicate actual collusion?

I mean, "Collusion isn't a crime anyway" is the talking point that one would use AFTER the "there was no collusion" talking point gets debunked. I don't see why he would push this line just yet unless he knows something we don't.

Oh, I almost forgot something. Giulliani also said that Trump wasn't physically at the meeting. Not physically at the meeting. That's a bit of a weird phrase to use, in my opinion. It opens up all sorts of possibilities.

It's not illegal to meet with someone to find out what they have to offer. And nothing came out of the meeting that was utilized by the campaign.

everlast75 · 30-07-2018 4:12pm

notobtuse wrote: »

It's not illegal to meet with someone to find out what they have to offer. And nothing came out of the meeting that was utilized by the campaign.

I'll engage with you, but only if you accept the facts when they are presented to you.

If you continue to ignore facts and shift the discussion away rather than make an admission, then I for one, am not interested.

mcmoustache · 30-07-2018 4:14pm

everlast75 wrote: »

The idea was floated at the weekend that he was on speaker phone.. so i wonder is that why he was careful of how he phrased that

Another possibility is that he knew about it in advance, sent his crew instead of himself and had Junior fill him in immediately afterwards.

Then again, these theories aren't mutually exclusive.

Leroy42 · 30-07-2018 4:14pm

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Hmmm. Telephone conferencing? Telephone conversations can be taped. Apparently.

Come to think about it, it all starts to make sense why he had such a blowout in terms of Obama wiretapping Trump Tower (which was of course false).

If he heard that the possibility of his conference call being recorded he would have known he was rightly snookered.

Leroy42 · 30-07-2018 4:16pm

notobtuse wrote: »

It's not illegal to meet with someone to find out what they have to offer. And nothing came out of the meeting that was utilized by the campaign.

You don't think it is illegal to try to buy drugs from a drug dealer? Or go out trying to find a prostitute on the street?

You don't think it is legal to meet a hitman to discuss knocking off your other half?

really? So conspiracy to commit a crime is not an offence?

mcmoustache · 30-07-2018 4:20pm

notobtuse wrote: »

It's not illegal to meet with someone to find out what they have to offer. And nothing came out of the meeting that was utilized by the campaign.

You're either lying or you're so poorly informed that it may as well make no difference. It's getting ridiculous as this stage.

jooksavage · 30-07-2018 4:23pm

notobtuse wrote: »

It's not illegal to meet with someone to find out what they have to offer. And nothing came out of the meeting that was utilized by the campaign.

Quite a lot wrong with this. The "someone" in question is connected to the Kremlin, not some randomer who lucked upon some salacious gossip. Also, based on your qualifying criteria to make the meeting a crime, presumably we should empty the prisons of those folks who didn't manage to pull off their respective offenses successfully? As Sideshow Bob said "Attempted murder! What is that anyway?! They don't give a Nobel Prize for attempted physics!"

notobtuse · 30-07-2018 4:28pm

mcmoustache wrote: »

notobtuse wrote: »

It's not illegal to meet with someone to find out what they have to offer. And nothing came out of the meeting that was utilized by the campaign.

You're either lying or you're so poorly informed that it may as well make no difference. It's getting ridiculous as this stage.

It really doesn’t matter what I think. Here is what CNN thinks, and they believe the meeting was not illegal. And remember... CNN is absolutely no friend of Trump.

https://www.cnn.com/2017/07/11/opinions/trump-jr-russia-meeting-not-illegal-callan/index.html

Captain Obvious · 30-07-2018 4:28pm

notobtuse wrote: »

It's not illegal to meet with someone to find out what they have to offer. And nothing came out of the meeting that was utilized by the campaign.

A failed conspiracy is still a conspiracy.

notobtuse · 30-07-2018 4:34pm

Captain Obvious wrote: »

notobtuse wrote: »

It's not illegal to meet with someone to find out what they have to offer. And nothing came out of the meeting that was utilized by the campaign.

A failed conspiracy is still a conspiracy.

I'm curious, what do you consider Hillary Clinton and the DNC paying for a salacious dossier, with information seemingly coming from Russian operatives, and fed to Obama’s FBI, unverified and used to get a FISA warrant to spy on the Trump campaign?

mcmoustache · 30-07-2018 4:40pm

notobtuse wrote: »

https://www.cnn.com/2017/07/11/opinions/trump-jr-russia-meeting-not-illegal-callan/index.html

Oh, Christ on a stick. Paul Callan doesn't even work for CNN so for you to characterise this as what CNN thinks is incredibly dishonest. He's also a journalist without any obvious legal expertise. You may notice from the URL that this is from the Opinion section. That's where CNN let people write whatever crap that they want.

EDIT: Wrong Paul Callan.

Callan reached prominence as editor of the Londoner's Diary in the Evening Standard in the 1960s, and then with a Daily Mail diary column. He achieved a succession of scoops, and was responsible for training up a generation of young journalists, notably the gossip columnist, Nigel Dempster.

Callan later moved to the mass circulation the Daily Mirror where he wrote the "Inside World of Paul Callan" column which broke a number of major stories embarrassing to their subjects.

notobtuse · 30-07-2018 4:43pm

mcmoustache wrote: »

notobtuse wrote: »

It really doesn’t matter what I think. Here is what CNN thinks, and they believe the meeting was not illegal. And remember... CNN is absolutely no friend of Trump.

https://www.cnn.com/2017/07/11/opinions/trump-jr-russia-meeting-not-illegal-callan/index.html

Oh, Christ on a stick. Paul Callan doesn't even work for CNN so for you to characterise this as what CNN thinks is incredibly dishonest. He's also a journalist without any obvious legal expertise. You may notice from the URL that this is from the Opinion section. That's where CNN let people write whatever crap that they want.

Callan reached prominence as editor of the Londoner's Diary in the Evening Standard in the 1960s, and then with a Daily Mail diary column. He achieved a succession of scoops, and was responsible for training up a generation of young journalists, notably the gossip columnist, Nigel Dempster.

Callan later moved to the mass circulation the Daily Mirror where he wrote the "Inside World of Paul Callan" column which broke a number of major stories embarrassing to their subjects.

If you read the top of the article… The writer is a CNN legal analyst, a former New York homicide prosecutor and currently is of counsel at the New York law firm of Edelman & Edelman PC, focusing on wrongful conviction and civil rights cases. I’d say far more qualified than me, or most here, to give an opinion on the matter.

jooksavage · 30-07-2018 4:44pm

Stallingrad wrote: »

I'm beginning to wonder are witnessing the beginning of the end of American democracy. To everyone who says he has achieved nothing and is an idiot and bluffer you've been watching the ball not the player. He has pitted the country against itself, torn the Rupublican party apart and made it a party of 1, neutered the EPA, defunded Planned Parenthood, discredited the media, attacked the judiciary, re-aligned the supreme court, given the wealthy tax breaks, eroded all the markers for what we deem to be acceptable (caged kids?), exposed the myth of a robust democracy, now he's trying to take down the investigation into collusion, I don't need to go on, you all know the score.

He's done little or nothing for the US, but done an astonishing amount in 2 years to achieve what he wants for himself.

I was listening to the Slow Burn podcast about Watergate and people were making similar predictions about American democracy in the early 70's. It does feel like it depends a lot on how things ultimately pan out for Trump. The consequences were so dire for Nixon that even those high ranking Rs who backed him 'til the bitter end didn't attempt to follow his lead.

If the mid-terms fall apart for the Dems, the Mueller investigation will be in serious trouble and if the investigation is killed without open rebellion, the US itself has had it.

Even if the Dems take congress, Mueller's report destroys Trump, Senate R's rebel against their President and drum him out of the WH... it still feels like the genie is out of the bottle here. The US system is a lot flimsier than anyone would have thought 10 years ago and there's no guarantee the country we know now will outlive any of us.

mcmoustache · 30-07-2018 4:46pm

notobtuse wrote: »

If you read the top of the article… The writer is a CNN legal analyst, a former New York homicide prosecutor and currently is of counsel at the New York law firm of Edelman & Edelman PC, focusing on wrongful conviction and civil rights cases. I’d say far more qualified than me, or most here, to give an opinion on the matter.

Ah. Wrong Paul Callan. As an honest person, I shall correct the misleading post after being presented with this information.

Taytoland · 30-07-2018 4:47pm

notobtuse wrote: »

mcmoustache wrote: »

everlast75 wrote: »

Well it is interesting to note that the narrative being put forward by Rudy is now that "there was no collusion" to "collusion is not a crime".

He's been crazier than usual today. I wonder if he was made aware of something coming out soon, other than the Manafort trial, that would indicate actual collusion?

I mean, "Collusion isn't a crime anyway" is the talking point that one would use AFTER the "there was no collusion" talking point gets debunked. I don't see why he would push this line just yet unless he knows something we don't.

Oh, I almost forgot something. Giulliani also said that Trump wasn't physically at the meeting. Not physically at the meeting. That's a bit of a weird phrase to use, in my opinion. It opens up all sorts of possibilities.

It's not illegal to meet with someone to find out what they have to offer. And nothing came out of the meeting that was utilized by the campaign.

But he's a bloody idiot for agreeing to the meeting in the first place. The dogs on the street know Hillary Clinton is as corrupt as they come, he didn't need to meet anyone to know any of this, it's already well documented.

Leroy42 · 30-07-2018 4:49pm

notobtuse wrote: »

If you read the top of the article… The writer is a CNN legal analyst, a former New York homicide prosecutor and currently is of counsel at the New York law firm of Edelman & Edelman PC, focusing on wrongful conviction and civil rights cases. I’d say far more qualified than me, or most here, to give an opinion on the matter.

Its an opinion though, not a legal fact.

But even without that. Are you saying that you see nothing wrong with a potential candidate for POTUS having secret meetings with Kremlin backed operatives to try and solicit illegally gained information on another US citizen.

And that even he was told explicitly by the FBI that the Kremlin had been undertaking efforts to interfere in the campaign that he decided to claim the whole thing was a witch hunt rather than pass on this important information?

And that you see nothing wrong with the now POTUS doing nothing to deal with this obvious attempt by the Kremlin. He didn't need any further meetings with the FBI, he had first hand knowledge?

What is your opinion on it?

notobtuse · 30-07-2018 4:50pm

mcmoustache wrote: »

notobtuse wrote: »

If you read the top of the article… The writer is a CNN legal analyst, a former New York homicide prosecutor and currently is of counsel at the New York law firm of Edelman & Edelman PC, focusing on wrongful conviction and civil rights cases. I’d say far more qualified than me, or most here, to give an opinion on the matter.

Ah. Wrong Paul Callan. As an honest person, I shall correct the misleading post after being presented with this information.

No problem. We all make mistakes on occasion.

Leroy42 · 30-07-2018 4:51pm

Taytoland wrote: »

But he's a bloody idiot for agreeing to the meeting in the first place. The dogs on the street know Hillary Clinton is as corrupt as they come, he didn't need to meet anyone to know any of this, it's already well documented.

Great, can you give us a link to these documents? I am sure they will be court documents of course, since even subpenas and warrants and the filing of charges don't mean anything until a conviction.

BabyCheeses · 30-07-2018 4:51pm

notobtuse wrote: »

It's not illegal to meet with someone to find out what they have to offer. And nothing came out of the meeting that was utilized by the campaign.

Then why lie about it if nothing wrong was done?

They felt the need to hide something, what was it?

notobtuse · 30-07-2018 4:51pm

Taytoland wrote: »

notobtuse wrote: »

mcmoustache wrote: »

everlast75 wrote: »

Well it is interesting to note that the narrative being put forward by Rudy is now that "there was no collusion" to "collusion is not a crime".

He's been crazier than usual today. I wonder if he was made aware of something coming out soon, other than the Manafort trial, that would indicate actual collusion?

I mean, "Collusion isn't a crime anyway" is the talking point that one would use AFTER the "there was no collusion" talking point gets debunked. I don't see why he would push this line just yet unless he knows something we don't.

Oh, I almost forgot something. Giulliani also said that Trump wasn't physically at the meeting. Not physically at the meeting. That's a bit of a weird phrase to use, in my opinion. It opens up all sorts of possibilities.

It's not illegal to meet with someone to find out what they have to offer. And nothing came out of the meeting that was utilized by the campaign.

But he's a bloody idiot for agreeing to the meeting in the first place. The dogs on the street know Hillary Clinton is as corrupt as they come, he didn't need to meet anyone to know any of this, it's already well documented.

I agree it was an idiotic thing to do, but that doesn't make it collusion or illegal.

jooksavage · 30-07-2018 4:53pm

notobtuse wrote: »

If you read the top of the article… The writer is a CNN legal analyst, a former New York homicide prosecutor and currently is of counsel at the New York law firm of Edelman & Edelman PC, focusing on wrongful conviction and civil rights cases. I’d say far more qualified than me, or most here, to give an opinion on the matter.

And here he is here with a somewhat dimmer view of what the meeting amounts to

https://twitter.com/NewDay/status/1023193132077330437

Leroy42 · 30-07-2018 4:54pm

notobtuse wrote: »

I agree it was an idiotic thing to do, but that doesn't make it collusion or illegal.

Withholding evidence from a federal investigation is a crime. He knew of this and didn't inform the FBI about it. He lied an official WH statement from POTUS to lie about it.

He knew his son lied under oath to congress and said nothing.

Taytoland · 30-07-2018 4:56pm

notobtuse wrote: »

Taytoland wrote: »

notobtuse wrote: »

mcmoustache wrote: »

everlast75 wrote: »

Well it is interesting to note that the narrative being put forward by Rudy is now that "there was no collusion" to "collusion is not a crime".

He's been crazier than usual today. I wonder if he was made aware of something coming out soon, other than the Manafort trial, that would indicate actual collusion?

I mean, "Collusion isn't a crime anyway" is the talking point that one would use AFTER the "there was no collusion" talking point gets debunked. I don't see why he would push this line just yet unless he knows something we don't.

Oh, I almost forgot something. Giulliani also said that Trump wasn't physically at the meeting. Not physically at the meeting. That's a bit of a weird phrase to use, in my opinion. It opens up all sorts of possibilities.

It's not illegal to meet with someone to find out what they have to offer. And nothing came out of the meeting that was utilized by the campaign.

But he's a bloody idiot for agreeing to the meeting in the first place. The dogs on the street know Hillary Clinton is as corrupt as they come, he didn't need to meet anyone to know any of this, it's already well documented.

I agree it was an idiotic thing to do, but that doesn't make it collusion or illegal.

I think the collusion allegation with the Kremlin is nonsense myself but I accept Russia tried to influence the election. I don't think it ultimately matters as far as the result is concerned, Trump would have beat her anyway.

notobtuse · 30-07-2018 4:56pm

Leroy42 wrote: »

notobtuse wrote: »

If you read the top of the article… The writer is a CNN legal analyst, a former New York homicide prosecutor and currently is of counsel at the New York law firm of Edelman & Edelman PC, focusing on wrongful conviction and civil rights cases. I’d say far more qualified than me, or most here, to give an opinion on the matter.

Its an opinion though, not a legal fact.

But even without that. Are you saying that you see nothing wrong with a potential candidate for POTUS having secret meetings with Kremlin backed operatives to try and solicit illegally gained information on another US citizen.

And that even he was told explicitly by the FBI that the Kremlin had been undertaking efforts to interfere in the campaign that he decided to claim the whole thing was a witch hunt rather than pass on this important information?

And that you see nothing wrong with the now POTUS doing nothing to deal with this obvious attempt by the Kremlin. He didn't need any further meetings with the FBI, he had first hand knowledge?

What is your opinion on it?

Can you provide me information that Trump Jr knew beforehand that the meeting was with "Kremlin backed operatives?"

everlast75 · 30-07-2018 4:58pm

These are 2 tweets (sorry Mods - i can't copy and paste the text) but this in essence demostrates what Trump is like. He lives in an alternative reality

What Trump thought happened at the meeting

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1023546197129224192?s=19

What actually happened at the meeting

https://twitter.com/PhilipRucker/status/1023582239110651904?s=19

Leroy42 · 30-07-2018 4:59pm

Taytoland wrote: »

I think the collusion allegation with the Kremlin is nonsense myself but I accept Russia tried to influence the election. I don't think it ultimately matters as far as the result is concerned, Trump would have beat her anyway.

If you accept that Russia tried, then this meeting must surely be part of that attempt?

We have no way of ever knowing that if effected the result or not, only that Trump was adamant a few days before the election that it was rigged yet still somehow managed to win.

Quin_Dub · 30-07-2018 4:59pm

notobtuse wrote: »

It really doesn’t matter what I think. Here is what CNN thinks, and they believe the meeting was not illegal. And remember... CNN is absolutely no friend of Trump.

https://www.cnn.com/2017/07/11/opinions/trump-jr-russia-meeting-not-illegal-callan/index.html

From your own linked article -

Meeting with allegedly supportive Russians does not a criminal case make, as Yoda might say. On the other hand, just ask frequent CNN contributor (and Nixon-era White House counsel) John Dean about the notion that "it's not the crime but the cover-up" that you have to worry about.

The President and his supporters get very hot and bothered about the so-called "Russia Investigation" and the Don Jr. email chain adds to the growing body of evidence that a lot of people connected to the Trump campaign have been lying about connections to and meetings with supportive Russians.

If they lie to federal investigators, the Mueller grand jury or congressional committees about this, charges of perjury, lying to federal investigators and obstruction of justice will follow. Just ask John Dean. When the smoke clears and the Trump Jr. email coverage is over, remember the covering-up, because if there is criminality in the Trump administration, that is where it will be found.

If it is true that Trump was aware of the meeting , then Don Jr lied to a congressional committee and therefore is in Deep trouble. Others may also be caught up in the same lies.

jooksavage · 30-07-2018 5:01pm

notobtuse wrote: »

Can you provide me information that Trump Jr knew beforehand that the meeting was with "Kremlin backed operatives?"

A 30 second search would produce this pre-meeting email from Rob Goldstone to Don Jr.

"This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump - helped along by Aras and Emin."

To which Don Jr replies:

"Seems we have some time and if it's what you say I love it especially later in the summer."

Leroy42 · 30-07-2018 5:02pm

notobtuse wrote: »

Can you provide me information that Trump Jr knew beforehand that the meeting was with "Kremlin backed operatives?"

Trump Jr admitted to, and released the e-mails showing, that he was trying to get intel.

His line since has been that nothing came out of it.

It has been very extensively covered, do you really need me to actually provide you with a link?

If I prove that Trump Jr knew, what difference will that make to your position?

mcmoustache · 30-07-2018 5:03pm

notobtuse wrote: »

Can you provide me information that Trump Jr knew beforehand that the meeting was with "Kremlin backed operatives?"

According to his own emails that he released all by himself on his twitter, he was lead to believe that he was meeting with Kremlin backed operatives.

In his June 3 email to Trump Jr., Goldstone wrote:

Emin just called and asked me to contact you with something very interesting.

The Crown prosecutor of Russia[a] met with his father Aras this morning and in their meeting offered to provide the Trump campaign with some official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father.

This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump – helped along by Aras and Emin.[17]

Trump Jr. responded:

Thanks Rob I appreciate that. I am on the road at the moment but perhaps I just speak to Emin first. Seems we have some time and if it’s what you say I love it especially later in the summer. Could we do a call first thing next week when I am back?[17]

Captain Obvious · 30-07-2018 5:03pm

notobtuse wrote: »

I'm curious, what do you consider Hillary Clinton and the DNC paying for a salacious dossier, with information seemingly coming from Russian operatives, and fed to Obama’s FBI, unverified and used to get a FISA warrant to spy on the Trump campaign?

If she had colluded with Putin you'd have a point but she didn't. This is the point you are ignoring. Trump didn't just look for information from foreigners, he conspired with a hostile foreign government to influence the election.

Taytoland · 30-07-2018 5:15pm

Leroy42 wrote: »

Taytoland wrote: »

I think the collusion allegation with the Kremlin is nonsense myself but I accept Russia tried to influence the election. I don't think it ultimately matters as far as the result is concerned, Trump would have beat her anyway.

If you accept that Russia tried, then this meeting must surely be part of that attempt?

We have no way of ever knowing that if effected the result or not, only that Trump was adamant a few days before the election that it was rigged yet still somehow managed to win.

Was this person part of the Russian government? Did Trump order for the meeting to be held if that person was part of the Russian government? We need to see something showing this.

jooksavage · 30-07-2018 5:17pm

While we're actually back raking over this bloody meeting again, Rudy Giuliani was on CNN this morning, rambling on incoherently and dropped in something new. Members of the Trump team, including Don Jr. and Jared had a meeting two days before the Russian encounter to discuss how to approach that meeting. This suggests that they were taking it a lot more seriously than they've previously claimed. The interesting part of it though is that meeting included Rick Gates... The same Rick Gates who is now cooperating with Mueller. That's not good for Trump.

mcmoustache · 30-07-2018 5:18pm

Now that we're firmly in "Collusion is not a crime" territory, it's worth remembering that soundbytes such as that one are a bit meaningless.

If I collude with my neighbour to mow a lawn, that isn't illegal. On the other hand, if I collude with my neighbour to rob some guy's house, that would be very illegal and I would be charged if caught. It depends on what the collusion was for. Now, here's the important part - I still wouldn't be charged with collusion. That's because the charge is "conspiracy to commit X". The Collusion stuff is little more than some misdirection.

jooksavage · 30-07-2018 5:22pm

Taytoland wrote: »

Was this person part of the Russian government?

Why do some of you guys keep asking questions that a quick Google search would answer. The laywer, Veselnitskaya works for the Russian government, as thousands of articles like the one below attest:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/11/world/europe/natalia-veselnitskaya-donald-trump-jr-russian-lawyer.html

notobtuse · 30-07-2018 5:25pm

Quin_Dub wrote: »

notobtuse wrote: »

It really doesn’t matter what I think. Here is what CNN thinks, and they believe the meeting was not illegal. And remember... CNN is absolutely no friend of Trump.

https://www.cnn.com/2017/07/11/opinions/trump-jr-russia-meeting-not-illegal-callan/index.html

From your own linked article -

Meeting with allegedly supportive Russians does not a criminal case make, as Yoda might say. On the other hand, just ask frequent CNN contributor (and Nixon-era White House counsel) John Dean about the notion that "it's not the crime but the cover-up" that you have to worry about.

The President and his supporters get very hot and bothered about the so-called "Russia Investigation" and the Don Jr. email chain adds to the growing body of evidence that a lot of people connected to the Trump campaign have been lying about connections to and meetings with supportive Russians.

If they lie to federal investigators, the Mueller grand jury or congressional committees about this, charges of perjury, lying to federal investigators and obstruction of justice will follow. Just ask John Dean. When the smoke clears and the Trump Jr. email coverage is over, remember the covering-up, because if there is criminality in the Trump administration, that is where it will be found.

If it is true that Trump was aware of the meeting , then Don Jr lied to a congressional committee and therefore is in Deep trouble. Others may also be caught up in the same lies.

IF it is proven Trump Jr lied to a congressional committee then he probably is in trouble. Perhaps he should have been more politically savvy and followed Hillary Clinton and her operative’s play-book and either refuse to answer questions or state he ‘didn’t recall'… and turn over only things he wanted to and destroy the rest.

Leroy42 · 30-07-2018 5:28pm

jooksavage wrote: »

Why do some of you guys keep asking questions that a quick Google search would answer. The laywer, Veselnitskaya works for the Russian government, as thousands of articles like the one below attest:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/11/world/europe/natalia-veselnitskaya-donald-trump-jr-russian-lawyer.html

And Trump JR, as per the e-mails, was told that the meeting was part of the Russia attempt to help Trump.

The main issue is that Trump lied about knowing about this.
He, who swore to withhold the constituation, withheld this information from a federal investigation.
It is not up to Trump to decide if anybody was or wasn't working with the Kremlin. The clear signs was that they were, Trump was told officially about Russia trying to influence, and has spent the last 18 months claiming it is all a witch hunt rather than telling the investigators something they could actually work with.

To argue about collusion is a legal technicality which few will have the full story on here. But to have clear evidence, with further movement from Guiliani today, that Trump not only knew, but perhaps participated in, an attempt by a foreign government to use illegal intel to influence a US election, and not only not do anything about it but actively tried to cover it up should be the problem for ever single person that believes in democracy.

Quin_Dub · 30-07-2018 5:33pm

notobtuse wrote: »

IF it is proven Trump Jr lied to a congressional committee then he probably is in trouble. Perhaps he should have been more politically savvy and followed Hillary Clinton and her operative’s play-book and either refuse to answer questions or state he ‘didn’t recall'… and turn over only things he wanted to and destroy the rest.

Quin_Dub wrote: »

If it is true that Trump was aware of the meeting , then Don Jr lied to a congressional committee and therefore is in Deep trouble. Others may also be caught up in the same lies.

Yes , Exactly what I said..

If Don Snr is proven to have known about the meeting contemporaneously , then Don Jnr lied to a congressional committee and would be open to charges of Perjury at the least.

Donald Trump is the President Mark IV (Read Mod Warning in OP)

Comments