What Meeting? Donald Trump's lawyer seems confused.

[Dawg]

The inner circle of a US presidential campaign met with agents of a hostile foreign government in an attempt to procure valuable information for that campaign. That's illegal. We have not yet proven they succeeded, but succeeding in obtaining something of value is not an element of that crime, so that's immaterial in terms of proving wrongdoing.

Libs had no problem when Sow's campaign done the same, hell, Sow even got $$$Millions and her campaign chair got $35M

WE know, that's different

 

[Arkady]

Libs had no problem when Sow's campaign done the same, hell, Sow even got $$$Millions and her campaign chair got $35M

WE know, that's different

Since Clinton's campaign did the same only in the fevered imagination of delusional right-wingers, of course liberals had no problem with it.

 

[Dawg]

Since Clinton's campaign did the same only in the fevered imagination of delusional right-wingers, of course liberals had no problem with it.

https://pjmedia.com/trending/2017/03/29/russiagate-hillary-clinton-and-john-podestas-troubling-ties-to-russia/

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/mar/28/russia-scandal-also-may-touch-democrats/

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html?_r=0

 

[Arkady]

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html?_r=0

And? As a reminder, your false accusations were based on Clinton's campaign supposedly getting millions of dollars from the Russians, right? What you instead link to is something about people making donations to a humanitarian charity at a time when Clinton wasn't running for anything. Do you see your error?

 

[Dawg]

And? As a reminder, your false accusations were based on Clinton's campaign supposedly getting millions of dollars from the Russians, right? What you instead link to is something about people making donations to a humanitarian charity at a time when Clinton wasn't running for anything. Do you see your error?

http://nypost.com/2017/07/05/uncovering-the-russia-ties-of-hillarys-campaign-chief/


http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/mar/28/russia-scandal-also-may-touch-democrats/

Humanitarian-------ROTFLMAO

 

[Arkady]

Humanitarian

Exactly. Do you see the huge difference here? In the case of Trump, what we're talking about are the leaders of his political campaign illegally seeking valuable information from a hostile foreign government for his campaign. In the case of Clinton, what we're talking about are people donating funds to a humanitarian charity that Hillary Clinton held no position with and did not benefit in any way from, at a time when she wasn't running for office. The only connection here is that people in Russia were involved in both cases. It's essentially a giant non-sequitur.

If you now want to switch to discussing something besides that uranium matter, that's fine. I accept your concession of defeat. But if we're going to move to a new topic, let's start on firmer ground than the Moonie Cult's house paper, or a Rupert Murdoch tabloid. Start with a real news outlet.

 

[Dawg]

Exactly. Do you see the huge difference here? In the case of Trump, what we're talking about are the leaders of his political campaign illegally seeking valuable information from a hostile foreign government for his campaign. In the case of Clinton, what we're talking about are people donating funds to a humanitarian charity that Hillary Clinton held no position with and did not benefit in any way from, at a time when she wasn't running for office. The only connection here is that people in Russia were involved in both cases. It's essentially a giant non-sequitur.

If you now want to switch to discussing something besides that uranium matter, that's fine. I accept your concession of defeat. But if we're going to move to a new topic, let's start on firmer ground than the Moonie Cult's house paper, or a Rupert Murdoch tabloid. Start with a real news outlet.

No Problem:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2017/06/01/hypocritical-russian-ties-tellusatoday/102396330/

 

[Arkady]

No Problem:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2017/06/01/hypocritical-russian-ties-tellusatoday/102396330/

That's not a news story; it's a letter to the editor.

 

[Dawg]

That's not a news story; it's a letter to the editor.

it was reported

 

[Spamature]

What I find so adorable with your whimpering assed "billery just COULD'T have lost!!!", babble here is the way your words do a better job of portraying you as the spoiled little partisan hack that you are far better than I can do.

You actually stated, "What I don't understand is how anyone knows how long the meeting lasted...", did you not?

Obviously a bold faced lie, because if true you couldn't come on here and claim the meeting didn't last 20 minutes, or 15 minutes, for, as YOU said, you don't understand "how anyone knows how long the meeting lasted...". YOU are among the "anybody" you speak of but you act as if you somehow know the meeting wasn't 15 or 20 minutes, so how long WAS it dear?

Then we have THIS little li bby jewel, "and what kind of dirt they obtained during that meeting."

If you nor anyone ELSE actually does KNOW, "what kind of dirt they obtained during that meeting.", how do we even KNOW any dirt was there being discussed? I mean, YOU said we don't KNOW, did you not? So unless you are lying how do we know ANY dirt was discussed? If we are going on what each of us just "feels" happened I thing they were discussing which way the yellow brick road runs in China.

Prove me wrong.........

"SURELY he wouldn't lie."

I wouldn't say, "surely", of course it is possible. But why not, YOU most assuredly lie and act as if it perfectly acceptable so why the double standard, sweetie? Take later in your boo-fukin'-hooin' rant you posted here for example.

YOU posted, "If I had watched the whole clip, the meeting would have dwindled to no meeting at all."

A lie.

See, knowing how ticky-tacky you dems love to be in your never ending quest to try to belittle others using BS "gottcha!" moments you deserve to be treated the same. Now personally I know your intention when you wrote this but never the less when you chose to end that sentence with a period instead of a question mark you made your words a statement. A FALSE statement as it turns out.

Otherwise referred to as "a lie". Shall we give YOU time to perfect YOUR lies....are you too after all, just a KID?

You need only ask.

I love how you gopers keep kicking the football down the field. You have clear evidence of a conspiracy to join in with the Russian govt, through its proxies, to violate US election law. Right there you have the collusion each and every one of you demanded to see.


Now here you are trying to attack what ? The examination of the lies that have been told by the Trumpies since this incident became public. You act as if attacking the examination somehow erases the conspiracy. It doesn't. They did this. They worked with a foreign enemy and betrayed you and the nation. Someone who, I think, expects the person they support to obey the laws of the land.

Why are you defending a crime ?

 

[Dawg]

Laughing my ass off, made a top post whining about ratings and then Rated my post, you hypocrisy is shineing for all to see.......hypocrite much!

 

[Dawg]

I love how you gopers keep kicking the football down the field. You have clear evidence of a conspiracy to join in with the Russian govt through its proxies to violate US election law. Right there you have the collusion each and every one of you demanded to see.


Now here you are trying to attack what ? The examination of the lies that have been told by the Trumpies since this incident became public. You act as if attacking the examination some erases the conspiracy. It doesn't. They did this. They worked with a foreign enemy and betrayed you and the nation. Someone who, I think, expects the person they support to obey the laws of the land.

Why are you defend a crime ?

yet when libs do the same it's what, DIFFERENT---------lmao

 

[UPNYA2]

I love how you gopers keep kicking the football down the field. You have clear evidence of a conspiracy to join in with the Russian govt, through its proxies, to violate US election law. Right there you have the collusion each and every one of you demanded to see.


Now here you are trying to attack what ? The examination of the lies that have been told by the Trumpies since this incident became public. You act as if attacking the examination somehow erases the conspiracy. It doesn't. They did this. They worked with a foreign enemy and betrayed you and the nation. Someone who, I think, expects the person they support to obey the laws of the land.

Why are you defending a crime ?

"You have clear evidence of a conspiracy to join in with the Russian govt, through its proxies, to violate US election law. Right there you have the collusion each and every one of you demanded to see."

What is the "evidence" that tells us they met "to violate US election law"?

Did YOU read the minutes of the meeting while no one else did or what?

Tell, exactly what is it they did discussed in this meeting that makes it a crime?

"Clear evidence"?????

My achin' ass. Your insane lust for a crime means less that a tick turd to real US citizens.

Back to work, hossfly.

 

[Spamature]

"You have clear evidence of a conspiracy to join in with the Russian govt, through its proxies, to violate US election law. Right there you have the collusion each and every one of you demanded to see."

What is the "evidence" that tells us they met "to violate US election law"?

Did YOU read the minutes of the meeting while no one else did or what?

Tell, exactly what is it they did discussed in this meeting that makes it a crime?

"Clear evidence"?????

My achin' ass. Your insane lust for a crime means less that a tick turd to real US citizens.

Back to work, hossfly.

It was illegal to accept Russian govt opposition research. It doesn't matter if it was useful or not what was said or not. It is no different than seeking out a hit man. Whether it's a real hit man or a cop pretending to be a hit man or a bullshite artist who just wants to fool you. You meet seeking that hit man. it is a conspiracy to commit murder. Murder is a violation of the law. So is engaging in espionage with the Russians to win an election.

 

[georgephillip]

"What to expect -- and not -- in Russia investigations this week..."

http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/17/politics/russia-investigation-donald-trump-jr-testify-paul-manafort/index.html

"1. When will Manafort, Trump Jr. and Kushner testify?

"It's unlikely that any of the three major players from the Russia meeting -- Manafort, Kushner or Trump Jr. -- will testify this week, despite at least one urgent request. No such hearings have been scheduled as of Monday afternoon.

"The Senate judiciary committee is considering delaying a hearing this week where Grassley had initially hoped that Manafort would testify, a committee spokesperson told CNN.

"Now, the committee may delay its Wednesday hearing on the Foreign Agents Registration Act until July 26.
Grassley and the top Democrat on the panel, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, had reached out to special counsel Robert Mueller to see if there were any conflicts with hearing from Manafort, as well as Trump Jr., whom the two leaders want to hear from as well.

"They so far have not heard back from Mueller's office, the staffer told CNN..."

 

[Raoul_Luke]

The inner circle of a US presidential campaign met with agents of a hostile foreign government in an attempt to procure valuable information for that campaign. That's illegal. We have not yet proven they succeeded, but succeeding in obtaining something of value is not an element of that crime, so that's immaterial in terms of proving wrongdoing.

No they met with someone who purported to be "agents of a 'hostile' foreign government" (but weren't) to look at evidence they claimed to have that Clinton had broken the law (which they, you know, didn't actually have). That's not illegal.

 

[Raoul_Luke]

It was illegal to accept Russian govt opposition research. It doesn't matter if it was useful or not what was said or not. It is no different than seeking out a hit man. Whether it's a real hit man or a cop pretending to be a hit man or a bullshite artist who just wants to fool you. You meet seeking that hit man. it is a conspiracy to commit murder. Murder is a violation of the law. So is engaging in espionage with the Russians to win an election.

Not if the "opposition research" pertained to criminal acts purported to have been committed by your opponent. Are you suggesting that US law should shield political candidates from having their "collusion" exposed? Remember, the information was supposed to show Hillary had "colluded" with "Russians" to obtain illegal campaign contributions. Your analogy sucked. It's more like meeting with the hit man because he said he wants to turn himself in for killing someone else...

 

[Arkady]

No they met with someone who purported to be "agents of a 'hostile' foreign government" (but weren't) to look at evidence they claimed to have that Clinton had broken the law (which they, you know, didn't actually have). That's not illegal.

No. They met with agents of a hostile foreign government. But, even if that weren't the case, to satisfy the elements of the crime they merely would need to have solicited something of value for the campaign from a foreign national, which they did. I understand the reflexive need by right-wingers to rewrite the law to try to shelter their culture heroes from responsibility for their acts, but the law is on the books and can be read by anyone. Team Trump broke the law. The only question now is whether they'll get away with it.

 

[Dawg]

No they met with someone who purported to be "agents of a 'hostile' foreign government" (but weren't) to look at evidence they claimed to have that Clinton had broken the law (which they, you know, didn't actually have). That's not illegal.

If it was a meeting for collusion, they damn sure wouldn't have met with 8 people............

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/eighth-person-in-trump-tower-meeting-is-identified/ar-BBEGyxc?ocid=spartandhp

 

[Dawg]

No. They met with agents of a hostile foreign government. But, even if that weren't the case, to satisfy the elements of the crime they merely would need to have solicited something of value for the campaign from a foreign national, which they did. I understand the reflexive need by right-wingers to rewrite the law to try to shelter their culture heroes from responsibility for their acts, but the law is on the books and can be read by anyone. Team Trump broke the law. The only question now is whether they'll get away with it.

LIE

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/eighth-person-in-trump-tower-meeting-is-identified/ar-BBEGyxc?ocid=spartandhp