Merged All things Trump + Russia

[WilliamSeger]

Trump's lawyers have known of Fredo's emails since at least June.


IANAL but it seems like malpractice not to have informed their client of this. Although, Propublica has reported that Kasowitz may be back on the sauce so that ma be affecting his judgement.

Rachel Maddow predicted last week, before this story broke, that something was in the wind because the narrative being pushed by Trump apologists was shifting from "no collusion" to "nothing wrong with collusion."

 

[Stacko]

.@NBCNews reports on the Russian-American lobbyist—a former Soviet counter-intelligence officer—was also in Don Jr.-Russian lawyer meeting.​

 

[Belz...]

Wait, what?

Former Soviet counter-intelligence officer? Pfft! That doesn't mean that he's connected in any way to the Russian government and its ex-KGB dictator. Nope. Fake news!

 

[Stacko]

Wait, what?

Former Soviet counter-intelligence officer? Pfft! That doesn't mean that he's connected in any way to the Russian government and its ex-KGB dictator. Nope. Fake news!

One thing is for sure: If Obama had wiretapped Trump Tower, he being sitting on a goldmine of dirt. For now Stupid Watergate lumbers on.

 

[Childlike Empress]

That doesn't really help much though, does it? Manafort and Kushner, in his own way, realized quickly this wasn't valuable to Trump Sr. It actually reinforces the idea that they wanted/expected Veselnitskaya to offer dirt about Hillary and bailed when it wasn't forthcoming. It may takes Russia off the hook in regards to government-sponsored meddling, but Manafort and Kushner? No. They lost interest when they realized the lawyer did not have dirt on Hillary. But they were certainly willing to hear what she had to say.

Yes, and there's no scandal there. It's called politics. Ask Killary.

 

[Belz...]

Yes, and there's no scandal there. It's called politics.

Yes, officials of an election campaign in the US meeting with foreign agents to discuss obtaining hacked information to smear a candidate for favours isn't illegal or wrong at all. Just every day normal politics. Nothing to see, here!

And you accuse me of playing games. Pathetic.

 

[Ziggurat]

Yes, officials of an election campaign in the US meeting with foreign agents to discuss obtaining hacked information to smear a candidate for favours isn't illegal or wrong at all. Just every day normal politics. Nothing to see, here!

And you accuse me of playing games. Pathetic.

Why do people keep claiming it was hacked info? The DNC hack wasn't public, AND it didn't contain anything about Hillary's deals with Russia. So what hack are you claiming here? Unless it's from Hillary's personal server (but supposedly that was never hacked), the claim makes no sense.

 

[NoahFence]

Why do people keep claiming it was hacked info? The DNC hack wasn't public, AND it didn't contain anything about Hillary's deals with Russia. So what hack are you claiming here? Unless it's from Hillary's personal server (but supposedly that was never hacked), the claim makes no sense.

You know what makes no sense? So-called "Americans" who are defending this orange menace at every turn.

 

[Belz...]

Why do people keep claiming it was hacked info?

Well, because the info that was hacked was then dumped onto Wikileaks, and we know that the Russians made the hack, so it's reasonable to assume that the two are one and the same.

The DNC hack wasn't public, AND it didn't contain anything about Hillary's deals with Russia.

Hillary's deals with Russia? Did I miss something, here?

 

[varwoche]

Wait, what?

Former Soviet counter-intelligence officer? Pfft! That doesn't mean that he's connected in any way to the Russian government and its ex-KGB dictator. Nope. Fake news!

Yeah don't you hate it when everyone freaks out over ordinary Russian citizens, Kevin Bacon, blah blah blah.

By the way Emily's Cat, I welcome you to specifically point out the random non-entities who you refer to who have been swept up into this frenzy... "Pretty much, any person who was born in Russia, or has friends in Russia..."

 

[Ziggurat]

Well, because the info that was hacked was then dumped onto Wikileaks, and we know that the Russians made the hack, so it's reasonable to assume that the two are one and the same.

Except that Trump Jr. was told that the information was about Hillary's dealings with Russia, which was NOT in the DNC Wikileaks dump (which, again, wasn't even public). So even assuming (with no evidence) that this lawyer had the DNC hack info, and even assuming (with no evidence) that Trump Jr. knew about the DNC hack, we're still left with no reason to believe that Trump Jr. thought that the Russian lawyer was going to give him the DNC hack info.

Hillary's deals with Russia? Did I miss something, here?

Yes, Argumemnon, you obviously did. Go read the Trump Jr. emails. That's what was offered, in the very first one. This is really basic, fundamental information about this mess. Why do you not know it? Have your sources never mentioned that rather critical fact? Have you never bothered to look at the primary source?

 

[Belz...]

Except that Trump Jr. was told that the information was about Hillary's dealings with Russia, which was NOT in the DNC Wikileaks dump (which, again, wasn't even public). So even assuming (with no evidence) that this lawyer had the DNC hack info, and even assuming (with no evidence) that Trump Jr. knew about the DNC hack, we're still left with no reason to believe that Trump Jr. thought that the Russian lawyer was going to give him the DNC hack info.

I didn't claim that he thought that.

Yes, Argumemnon, you obviously did. Go read the Trump Jr. emails. That's what was offered, in the very first one. This is really basic, fundamental information about this mess. Why do you not know it? Have your sources never mentioned that rather critical fact? Have you never bothered to look at the primary source?

Chill out dude. Have a coffee or something.

 

[Ziggurat]

I didn't claim that he thought that.

Yes, actually, you pretty much did. Let me remind you:

Yes, officials of an election campaign in the US meeting with foreign agents to discuss obtaining hacked information to smear a candidate for favours isn't illegal or wrong at all.

If he didn't think it was hacked, then he wouldn't have been meeting "to discuss obtaining hacked information". That construction indicates intent. But the intent to discuss obtaining hacked information cannot exist if no knowledge of hacking existed.

Plus, of course, you also claimed the information was hacked, but can't back up that claim.

Chill out dude. Have a coffee or something.

You got schooled because you don't know the subject you're talking about. Take your lumps like a man.

 

[varwoche]

Except that Trump Jr. was told that the information was about Hillary's dealings with Russia, which was NOT in the DNC Wikileaks dump (which, again, wasn't even public).

I think you're assigning way too much weight to a few words emanating from a non principle.

 

[Belz...]

Yes, actually, you pretty much did. Let me remind you:

If he didn't think it was hacked, then he wouldn't have been meeting "to discuss obtaining hacked information".

What? Of course there would! The information is hacked regardless of what Junior thought.

Plus, of course, you also claimed the information was hacked, but can't back up that claim.

I've already explained why I think so.

You got schooled because you don't know the subject you're talking about. Take your lumps like a man.

I get to take my lumps like a man while you keep acting like a child. No fair!

 

[Ziggurat]

What? Of course there would! The information is hacked regardless of what Junior thought.

Again, what you wrote indicates intent. The intent can't be there if he didn't think it was hacked.

Plus, again, the information wasn't hacked. Hell, we don't know that she even had any information.

I've already explained why I think so.

And you're wrong. For reasons I've already explained, and for which you have no answer. Hell, you didn't even know what the information supposedly was.

 

[BobTheCoward]

What? Of course there would! The information is hacked regardless of what Junior thought.



I've already explained why I think so.



I get to take my lumps like a man while you keep acting like a child. No fair!

You said it would be wrong to attend a meeting to discuss hacked information. If you have no idea hacking was involved, then you are not culpable for attending a meeting that you didn't think was about hacking.

 

[Belz...]

Again, what you wrote indicates intent.

Ok, Zig, let me rephrase that for you for clarity:

Yes, officials of an election campaign in the US meeting with foreign agents to discuss obtaining information, which happened to be hacked, to smear a candidate for favours isn't illegal or wrong at all.

See? The "hacked" part was a quality of the information, not necessarily one known by junior at the time, though what we suspected is an entirely different matter.

Plus, again, the information wasn't hacked.

You know that for a fact, do you?

 

[Ziggurat]

I think you're assigning way too much weight to a few words emanating from a non principle.

As opposed to the purely imagined words of the principles?

That email is the only hard evidence we have about what the information supposedly was. It's the best we have. If you want to ignore the best information we have in favor of unfounded speculation, I can't stop you, but you don't actually have any justification for doing so.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Ok, Zig, let me rephrase that for you for clarity:

Yes, officials of an election campaign in the US meeting with foreign agents to discuss obtaining information, which happened to be hacked, to smear a candidate for favours isn't illegal or wrong at all.

See? The "hacked" part was a quality of the information, not necessarily one known by junior at the time, though what we suspected is an entirely different matter.



You know that for a fact, do you?

That is a much better way to phrase it. It removes the implication that the parties attending knew about it.

But now you have the problem that there isn't much supporting that was information discussed. Everyone is saying no dirt was discussed.