Presidential Elections

NEW -> Contingent Buyer Assistance Program
nosuchreality said:
the big Ifs are

if the information is from foreign government operations
if she is actually a government operative
if she actually provides information
if the campaign then doesn't turn it over or file appropriate forms
if...
Click to expand...

Did you read the Email?

"The Crown prosecutor of Russia 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"
"I can also send this info to your father via Rhona, but it is ultra sensitive so wanted to send to you first."

Actually providing information doesn't matter the same way as it doesn't matter whether you succeed if you try to murder someone. The sole promise of Russian documents and information is what hooked Jr. in. He didn't shrug it off but rather embraced the possibility of getting a hold on that material and ended up setting up and going to that meeting.

 
peppy said:
nosuchreality said:
the big Ifs are

if the information is from foreign government operations
if she is actually a government operative
if she actually provides information
if the campaign then doesn't turn it over or file appropriate forms
if...
Click to expand...

Did you read the Email?

"The Crown prosecutor of Russia 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"
"I can also send this info to your father via Rhona, but it is ultra sensitive so wanted to send to you first."

Actually providing information doesn't matter the same way as it doesn't matter whether you succeed if you try to murder someone. The sole promise of Russian documents and information is what hooked Jr. in. He didn't shrug it off but rather embraced the possibility of getting a hold on that material and ended up setting up and going to that meeting.
Click to expand...

Also sounds like a lot of buzzwords that would be convenient for a certain FISA request that was also submitted in June 2016...hmmm....
 
Kings said:
peppy said:
nosuchreality said:
the big Ifs are

if the information is from foreign government operations
if she is actually a government operative
if she actually provides information
if the campaign then doesn't turn it over or file appropriate forms
if...
Click to expand...

Did you read the Email?

"The Crown prosecutor of Russia 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"
"I can also send this info to your father via Rhona, but it is ultra sensitive so wanted to send to you first."

Actually providing information doesn't matter the same way as it doesn't matter whether you succeed if you try to murder someone. The sole promise of Russian documents and information is what hooked Jr. in. He didn't shrug it off but rather embraced the possibility of getting a hold on that material and ended up setting up and going to that meeting.
Click to expand...

Also sounds like a lot of buzzwords that would be convenient for a certain FISA request that was also submitted in June 2016...hmmm....
Click to expand...

It's been hinted by the IC that they had "ears" on some of the foreign participants.
 
My guess is nothing going to happen again.

Democrats are just as bad as Republicans.
 
jmoney74 said:
My guess is nothing going to happen again.

Democrats are just as bad as Republicans.
Click to expand...

LOL. You mean like that time when the Gore team got handed Bush's debate prep tapes and transcripts?

But you are right. Most likely nothing of substance will come to from this until the Rs want to put Pence in charge.
 
peppy said:
Did you read the Email?

"The Crown prosecutor of Russia 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"
"I can also send this info to your father via Rhona, but it is ultra sensitive so wanted to send to you first."

Actually providing information doesn't matter the same way as it doesn't matter whether you succeed if you try to murder someone. The sole promise of Russian documents and information is what hooked Jr. in. He didn't shrug it off but rather embraced the possibility of getting a hold on that material and ended up setting up and going to that meeting.
Click to expand...

And which law are you referring?

Comparing it to attempted murder?  A touch hyperbolic. 

Here's an article in the Washington Post saying the people thinking 'anything of value' even being hinted at is a stretch. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...gners-for-information/?utm_term=.2e158d57f0ee

 
Some excellent points in this article:

Trump Jr. Emails Prove ?Russia Collusion? Is Even Dumber Than You Thought

Here?s why this whole ordeal calls into question the veracity of any allegation of actual ?collusion.?

First, when ?collusion? between the Trump campaign and Russia was originally discussed it had always been within the context of the Trump campaign assisting the Russians with hacking the DNC. But with these emails, that theory immediately falls apart. As I wrote on Monday, the DNC knew in May that Russia hacked its network. Don Jr. met with the Russian lawyer in June, the month after the hack?meaning that Don Jr. could not collude to do something that had already happened.

Second, speaking of the timeline, it is important to remember that this meeting occurred before the DNC publicly disclosed that Russian hackers penetrated their computer network and stole a trove of their emails. Don Jr. met with the Russian lawyer on June 9th. The DNC publicly disclosed the Russian hack five days later on June 14th. So meeting with a Russian national then would not have evoked the same type of hysterical response that it does now, nor would such a meeting necessarily carry the treasonous connotation it does today.

Third, if this were really a meeting with a high-level Russian official, then that official would already know that they (the Russian government) stole emails from the DNC. So the fact that emails were admittedly not discussed strongly suggests that the lawyer was not actually an official of the Russian government. Or, if she was, then she was not a high-level official. Veselnitskaya told NBC News that she is not connected at all to the Russian government.
http://dailycaller.com/2017/07/12/t...lusion-story-is-even-dumber-than-you-thought/
 
Since we are being lazy and just copypasta opinion pieces, here's another one ... I'll guess we have to see how it plays out.

The revelation that Donald Trump Jr. enthusiastically accepted an offer to meet with an individual described as a ?Russian government attorney? bringing ?official documents and information? to help the Trump campaign and injure the Clinton campaign is a bombshell.

It raises a host of potential criminal and other legal violations for Donald Jr. and others involved, including his brother-in-law Jared Kushner; Paul Manafort, the campaign chairman at the time; and perhaps the president himself. These new facts are a critical inflection point in the Trump-Russia matter. But they should not be exaggerated: The investigation has much further to go before Donald Jr.?s liability, or that of others, can be finally assessed.

The defense that this was a routine meeting to hear about opposition research is nonsense. As ethics lawyers, we have worked on political campaigns for decades and have never heard of an offer like this one. If we had, we would have insisted upon immediate notification of the F.B.I., and so would any normal campaign lawyer, official or even senior volunteer.

That is because of the enormous potential legal liability, both individually and for the campaign. The potential offenses committed by Donald Jr., his colleagues and brother-in-law who attended the meeting, and the campaign itself, include criminal or civil violations of campaign finance laws. These laws prohibit accepting anything of value from a foreign government or a foreign national. The promised Russian ?documents and information? would have been an illegal campaign contribution from a foreign government ? and a priceless one.
Sign Up for the Opinion Today Newsletter

 
Another thing I've been wondering about..

There were only four people on the e-mail chain:  Donald Jr., Jared Kushner, Paul Manafort, and the person that initiated it, Rob Goldstone.

So how did the NY Times get a copy of the e-mail prior to Don Jr. tweeting it out?  Was it intelligence gathering, an outside hack, a coordinated leak, or something else?
 
peppy said:
morekaos said:
Either way why did dumb-dumb Loretta Lynch take the extraordinary step of letting her in in the first place?  Things that make you go hmmm.
Click to expand...

LOL. Of course it had to be Obama's fault. Do you know why she was in the country? To defend a Russian company from charges of money laundering. And do you know how those charges came up? From a whistleblower that was murdered in Russia (does the Magnitsky Act ring a bell?). And do you happen to know how was pressing charges? The US Attorney that was abruptly fired by Trump (Preet Bhahara).

Things that make you go hmmmm indeed ...
Click to expand...

Trump fired 100% of the US Attorney's after taking office, not just Preet Bhahara.  Got anything else?
 
Why Trump's Dismissal of Preet Bharara Matters


The greatest surprise in the ousters wasn?t that they happened, but that Bharara was among them. He had reportedly been assured by both Trump and Attorney General Jeff Sessions in November that he could stay on as U.S. attorney in the new administration. Bharara, whose jurisdiction includes Trump Tower, was overseeing multiple high-profile cases at the time, including an investigation into New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio?s campaign-finance practices. Bharara was also probing Fox News? response to a sexual-harassment scandal that led to the resignation of longtime CEO Roger Ailes.

Why Trump changed his mind is unclear. The Times reported that the president tried to call Bharara on Thursday only to be rebuffed, with Bharara citing Justice Department protocols barring contact between federal prosecutors and the White House. After the Justice Department asked for the 46 U.S. attorneys to resign on Friday, Bharara did not submit his resignation. Finally, on Saturday, Boente called Bharara and told him to leave.

?I did not resign,? he then wrote on Twitter. ?Moments ago I was fired.?
Click to expand...
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/03/trump-bharara/519318/
 
peppy said:
some official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia
Click to expand...
Doesn't sound like anything that's been made public.  Doesn't sound like something that was illegally obtained.

I really don't see why he shouldn't have met with them to see what they wanted to show him.  I would think any campaign would want to see such official documents, if they exist. 
 
peppy said:
Since we are being lazy and just copypasta opinion pieces, here's another one ... I'll guess we have to see how it plays out.

The revelation that Donald Trump Jr. enthusiastically accepted an offer to meet with an individual described as a ?Russian government attorney? bringing ?official documents and information? to help the Trump campaign and injure the Clinton campaign is a bombshell.

It raises a host of potential criminal and other legal violations for Donald Jr. and others involved, including his brother-in-law Jared Kushner; Paul Manafort, the campaign chairman at the time; and perhaps the president himself. These new facts are a critical inflection point in the Trump-Russia matter. But they should not be exaggerated: The investigation has much further to go before Donald Jr.?s liability, or that of others, can be finally assessed.

The defense that this was a routine meeting to hear about opposition research is nonsense. As ethics lawyers, we have worked on political campaigns for decades and have never heard of an offer like this one. If we had, we would have insisted upon immediate notification of the F.B.I., and so would any normal campaign lawyer, official or even senior volunteer.

That is because of the enormous potential legal liability, both individually and for the campaign. The potential offenses committed by Donald Jr., his colleagues and brother-in-law who attended the meeting, and the campaign itself, include criminal or civil violations of campaign finance laws. These laws prohibit accepting anything of value from a foreign government or a foreign national. The promised Russian ?documents and information? would have been an illegal campaign contribution from a foreign government ? and a priceless one.
Sign Up for the Opinion Today Newsletter
Click to expand...

I see your posts and links. I still don't see what was illegal. I know you said something was illegal but has anyone actually provided what law was broken and what could actually be charged?
 
The news shows will usually have two lawyers on with similar credentials. One will say what he did was illegal and the other one won't. I guess the law is subjective, like we know you killed someone, but we will give you the benefit of the doubt and call it self-defense.

Fromhttp://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40585149

Section 30121 of Title 52 of federal campaign law, which deals with "contributions and donations by foreign nationals".
"It is illegal for a foreign government or a foreign national to give something of value to a candidate or campaign," says Nathaniel Persily, an election law expert and professor at Stanford Law School.
"It is also illegal for a foreign national and a foreign government to spend money in connection with a federal election."
Click to expand...

The media doesn't talk about the last part, but I have a feeling there was a lot of foreign money involved in their data-analytics opporation via the Mercers and Cambridge Analytics.

Personally, I don't care because I would rather have Trump be president than Pence because I would be freightened of someone who was actually able to get his agenda done. At least with Trump, there are hours of endless entertainment.
 
Loco_local said:
The news shows will usually have two lawyers on with similar credentials. One will say what he did was illegal and the other one won't. I guess the law is subjective, like we know you killed someone, but we will give you the benefit of the doubt and call it self-defense.

Fromhttp://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40585149

Section 30121 of Title 52 of federal campaign law, which deals with "contributions and donations by foreign nationals".
"It is illegal for a foreign government or a foreign national to give something of value to a candidate or campaign," says Nathaniel Persily, an election law expert and professor at Stanford Law School.
"It is also illegal for a foreign national and a foreign government to spend money in connection with a federal election."
Click to expand...

The media doesn't talk about the last part, but I have a feeling there was a lot of foreign money involved in their data-analytics opporation via the Mercers and Cambridge Analytics.

Personally, I don't care because I would rather have Trump be president than Pence because I would be freightened of someone who was actually able to get his agenda done. At least with Trump, there are hours of endless entertainment.
Click to expand...

It's still extremely gray.  Just like the last Trump collution news.
 
This story adds to the suspicion
https://apnews.com/dceed1008d8f45afb314aca65797762a

WASHINGTON (AP) ? A Russian-American lobbyist says he attended a June 2016 meeting with President Donald Trump?s son, marking another shift in the account of a discussion that was billed as part of a Russian government effort to help the Republican?s White House campaign.

Rinat Akhmetshin confirmed his participation to The Associated Press on Friday. Akhmetshin has been reported to have ties to Russian intelligence agencies, a characterization he dismisses as a ?smear campaign.? He told the AP he served in the Soviet military in a unit that was part of counterintelligence but was never formally trained as a spy.
Click to expand...
 
Loco_local said:
eyephone said:
Russian-American lobbyist ? a former Soviet counterintelligence officer also attended the meeting.
Click to expand...

Rinat Akhmetshin, the "Fifth man" in has a long history of hacking and running negative PR campaigns
https://m.dailykos.com/stories/2017...-of-hacking-and-running-negative-PR-campaigns
Click to expand...

"He was drafted as a Soviet counterintelligence officer but denied any ongoing affiliation with the Russian state.?

And at first they had to lie about him saying the 5th person was just an interpreter.

Things that make you go hmmmmm

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top