• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Cont: All things Trump + Russia Part 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
TheL8Elvis said:
I see you accept Don Jr's self-serving statement regarding what took place in the meeting, despite all the contrary evidence.
Click to expand...

What contrary evidence?

While it's entirely possible that I've missed something, so far as I'm aware, nobody at all has contested his claim regarding the topic of discussion that actually took place. There has been plenty of speculation that he could have been lying about the discussion (along with everyone else in the meeting who has been asked), but there has been no evidence presented by anyone that anything else was actually discussed.
 
varwoche said:
As has been explained ad nauseum, you're taking the words of a Donny Jr -- a person in the hot seat, a person who lied about the events at every turn -- and repeating them here as fact, never mind even an "according to " qualifier.
Click to expand...

Just to be clear... you're expecting me to reject the topic of discussion as it has been presented by several people, and to assume that it is a lie. But there has not actually been any evidence allegation that different topic was actually discussed.

I'm supposed to just reject it in favor of... nothing at all? Fill in the blank? Whatever makes me happiest to imagine?
 
jimbob said:
Opposition research has been considered a thing of value.
Click to expand...

There is no evidence that what was being offered was opposition research. Information is not necessarily the result of research.

Also, and I'm pretty sure this article has been linked to here before (and of course jimbob et al ignore all arguments to the contrary as if they were never made, so it wouldn't matter anyway), but it does go into some detail about why there are serious 1st Amendment concerns with interpreting "thing of value" so broadly.

Just because stolen emails can't legally be sold, it doesn't mean that they have no value.
Click to expand...

Who said anything about stolen emails? Don Jr. was told the Russians had evidence of illegal activity done on behalf of the Clinton campaign. Jr. probably thought it had to do with the Clinton Foundation, or perhaps the Clinton campaign taking donations from Russian nationals.
 
Emily's Cat said:
Just to be clear... you're expecting me to reject the topic of discussion as it has been presented by several people, and to assume that it is a lie. But there has not actually been any evidence allegation that different topic was actually discussed.

I'm supposed to just reject it in favor of... nothing at all? Fill in the blank? Whatever makes me happiest to imagine?
Click to expand...

Maybe, just maybe the subject of the meeting was as discussed in the email?
 
NoahFence said:
The highlighted is illegal.

/thread
Click to expand...

Show me the statute that proscribes expecting something. I'll note, by way of comparison, that in the Hillary email thread I quoted several federal statutes, as well as regulations promulgated pursuant to some of those statutes, that demonstrated quite clearly that Hillary broke the law. Over and over again (both her criminal activity and my demonstration of same). People like Noah and TheL8Elvis basically did the message board equivalent of putting their fingers in their ears and shouting "Nyah, nyah, I can't hear you." It was all very mature.
 
Emily's Cat said:
What contrary evidence?

While it's entirely possible that I've missed something, so far as I'm aware, nobody at all has contested his claim regarding the topic of discussion that actually took place. There has been plenty of speculation that he could have been lying about the discussion (along with everyone else in the meeting who has been asked), but there has been no evidence presented by anyone that anything else was actually discussed.
Click to expand...

Manafort's notes seem to suggest that the meeting was indeed mostly about adoption, according to Politico.

Of course, he might not have written down everything discussed, but at least these notes seem to suggest that the meeting isn't a smoking gun, even if Jr's emails are very troubling.
 
phiwum said:
Manafort's notes seem to suggest that the meeting was indeed mostly about adoption, according to Politico.

Of course, he might not have written down everything discussed, but at least these notes seem to suggest that the meeting isn't a smoking gun, even if Jr's emails are very troubling.
Click to expand...

Unless Manafort edited his notes after the fact, before turning them over to anyone.
 
Emily's Cat said:
Okay. Let's provisionally accept this as true. If they are so obviously guilty... why has solid evidence of that guilt not been released? Why have charges not been brought forth? Why has nothing been done? Why hasn't something more concrete been leaked?
Click to expand...

The investigation is not complete. Believe me, I wish it were.

But it's not. So you need to wait with the rest of us.
 
sunmaster14 said:
Show me the statute that proscribes expecting something. I'll note, by way of comparison, that in the Hillary email thread I quoted several federal statutes, as well as regulations promulgated pursuant to some of those statutes, that demonstrated quite clearly that Hillary broke the law. Over and over again (both her criminal activity and my demonstration of same). People like Noah and TheL8Elvis basically did the message board equivalent of putting their fingers in their ears and shouting "Nyah, nyah, I can't hear you." It was all very mature.
Click to expand...

Completely and utterly false. My feelings when referring to the Clinton E-Mail scandal are simple. It wasn't the massive criminal enterprise you people pretend it was. It wasn't near as bad as colluding with a foreign government.

As evidence of that, I'm using the fact that the republican congress did not pursue the matter any further.

Do I wish we had a choice between Sanders and Kasich? Absolutely.
 
NoahFence said:
Completely and utterly false.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, which of my claims are you disputing? That you and TheL8Elvis were very mature, perhaps?

My feelings when referring to the Clinton E-Mail scandal are simple. It wasn't the massive criminal enterprise you people pretend it was. It wasn't near as bad as colluding with a foreign government.
Click to expand...

If the shoe was on the other foot you would be pooh-poohing the alleged collusion and going ballistic about [Trump] risking the exposure of classified information just so [he] could illegally avoid compliance with the Freedom of Information Act and any potential congressional investigations. What Hillary did is beyond even the area beyond the pale. I think its amazing that we have even become inured to it. It was absolutely despicable and criminal behavior, and it demonstrated quite clearly that she couldn't be trusted to obey the law. Of course that was no surprise to me. She has been flouting the law since she took an interest in cattle futures trading in 1979.

As evidence of that, I'm using the fact that the republican congress did not pursue the matter any further.
Click to expand...

First, Hillary is a nobody now so they don't really care. In a cosmic justice sense, she has already been punished very severely. Losing to a clown like Trump will haunt her to the grave and beyond. Second, Obama's DOJ handed out immunity to virtually every important person connected to the private email server. It is probably impossible to get any witnesses to go against whatever bs story Hillary's lawyers concoct.

Do I wish we had a choice between Sanders and Kasich? Absolutely.
Click to expand...

Irrelevant. I'm referring to your double standards regarding evidence of criminal activity. We're discussing potential crimes here, not which politicians you prefer.
 
sunmaster14 said:
Show me the statute that proscribes expecting something. I'll note, by way of comparison, that in the Hillary email thread I quoted several federal statutes, as well as regulations promulgated pursuant to some of those statutes, that demonstrated quite clearly that Hillary broke the law. Over and over again (both her criminal activity and my demonstration of same). People like Noah and TheL8Elvis basically did the message board equivalent of putting their fingers in their ears and shouting "Nyah, nyah, I can't hear you." It was all very mature.
Click to expand...

Wrong thread.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom