• 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.
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...

The contrary evidence would be the entire premise for the meeting (to get hillary, recall that ?), and the background of the people involved.


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...

"Notes from former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort on a meeting he attended last year with a Russian lobbyist and Donald Trump Jr. are not seen as damaging to the Trump family or campaign officials, according to government officials and others who have looked at the notes."

Sorry, but EC, being a true skeptictm, does not accept sources like "according to government officials and others " from evil news media out to get trump.
 
TheL8Elvis said:
The contrary evidence would be the entire premise for the meeting (to get hillary, recall that ?), and the background of the people involved.




"Notes from former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort on a meeting he attended last year with a Russian lobbyist and Donald Trump Jr. are not seen as damaging to the Trump family or campaign officials, according to government officials and others who have looked at the notes."

Sorry, but EC, being a true skeptictm, does not accept sources like "according to government officials and others " from evil news media out to get trump.
Click to expand...
Fair enough, though she wasn't the only audience I had in mind.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
 
CNN now has a copy of the Letter of Intent Trump signed in October 2015 for a deal to licence a Trump Tower in Moscow; $4m upfront fee plus % of hotel gross revenue, plus % of hotel profit, plus % of apartment sales, plus marketing costs, plus...
 
phiwum said:
She has been invited to talk to Mueller's investigation. Of course she got a lawyer! I'm sure that Spicer, Priebus and the other three aides recently invited also are getting or have lawyers.
Click to expand...

That is true; one would have to be utterly stupid not to get a lawyer, even if completely innocent.
 
Octavo said:
Gee whiz, with all these people lawyering up, it's almost like they're taking the whole Russia thing seriously. Funny, because I've been assured by other posters that these are all nothing burgers.
Click to expand...

The facts to date are nothingburgers, as are even the plausibly alleged actions.

Talking to a prosecutor under oath is never a nothingburger, and it would be idiotic to do so without retaining a lawyer for advice. Which just goes to show that these witch hunts really do impose serious burdens/penalties on all of the innocent people involve (which includes pretty much everybody, is my guess, except for Manafort and Flynn possibly committing some unrelated financial crimes). Most of these lawyers are probably billing at $700 per hour or higher, and that money comes out of the client's pocket in cases like this.

Somebody posted a fantastic video recently (I don't remember which thread) about why you should never talk to the police (and especially without a lawyer). It was a very interesting catalog of some of the ways you can get into trouble even if you are completely innocent. In fact, you can run into trouble even if you are completely innocent and only give true statements to the authorities.

One example of the latter is that you say you were at A at time X (which is completely true) and so you couldn't have been at B at time X, but somebody else erroneously claims to have seen you at B at time X. All of a sudden, you look like you lied, even though it was the other person who misremembered. Having a lawyer by your side can prevent you from giving too much information that might conflict with other people's recollections, or answering questions that are designed to trip you up.
 
Last edited:
NPR have looked at the adoption organisation that Veselnitskaya
and Akhmetshin represented
http://www.npr.org/2017/09/07/54888...option-a-web-of-clandestine-russian-advocates

There aren't any case workers manning the phones at the offices of the Human Rights Accountability Global Initiative Foundation on a tree-lined street in Wilmington, Del. In fact, there isn't anyone there at all.

The foundation exists on paper as an institution dedicated to making it possible for American families to adopt Russian children, but in the world of international advocacy, things sometimes mean more than they seem.

In this case, sanctions.
Click to expand...

"The people who met Donald Trump Jr. are close to the Russian power structures," said Louise Shelley, an expert in Russian organized crime and corruption at George Mason University. They are part of a network of people working to advance Putin's interests one way or another.
Click to expand...
 
Who woulda thunk? There's one poster who assures us that Trump et al are being smeared by the press simply because of contacts with ordinary Russians, and even ordinary Americans of Russian descent.

And yet said poster can't point to one lonely example. At the risk of again being labeled a zealot (merely for requesting evidence!) I'll ask one more time... Emily's Cat, evidence please?
 
jimbob said:
That is true; one would have to be utterly stupid not to get a lawyer, even if completely innocent.
Click to expand...

Well, Hicks is utterly stupid - one of Trump's brain-dead flying monkeys, who will re-spout and defend anything he says, no matter how hateful, absurd, or demonstrably, obviously false - but there are evidently a few neurons dedicated to self-preservation.
 
jimbob said:
Maybe, just maybe the subject of the meeting was as discussed in the email?
Click to expand...

Maybe. But so far, nobody has alleged that to be the case, other than people on the internet who have no evidence at all, and merely have a speculation.

Maybe you had a meeting with your parents to discuss your desire to explode watermelons. I don't have any evidence that this is the case, and nobody with any remote credibility has claimed it as the case... but it's possible, right?
 
d4m10n said:
Because Mueller is running a tight ship, staffed by professionals who know what they are doing.
Click to expand...

Given the number of anonymous leaks, I'm not so sure that ship is tight.

Also... again... if it's so darned obvious and blatant and any idiot should be able to see the massive conspiracy going on... ????
 
NoahFence said:
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.
Click to expand...

It's not complete enough to release any solid information... but it's complete enough for you and several others to have already concluded (based on the not-released information) that there is guilt present... :confused:
 
TheL8Elvis said:
The contrary evidence would be the entire premise for the meeting (to get hillary, recall that ?), and the background of the people involved.
Click to expand...
And we're back to the difference between the expectation and the actuality.

The premise of the meeting was to get Clinton. I haven't forgotten it, I've never forgotten it.

The actual discussion during the meeting is unknown. There have been no claims made that it was about something other than the Magnitsky thing. In the absence of any contrary claim made by any even remotely credible source, I tentatively accept the story as put forth and agreed to by those involved. It might be invented out of whole cloth... but at present I have no competing claim.


TheL8Elvis said:
"Notes from former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort on a meeting he attended last year with a Russian lobbyist and Donald Trump Jr. are not seen as damaging to the Trump family or campaign officials, according to government officials and others who have looked at the notes."

Sorry, but EC, being a true skeptictm, does not accept sources like "according to government officials and others " from evil news media out to get trump.
Click to expand...
I don't accept that as sufficient evidence. We also, however, have several named sources who are all in agreement about the topic of discussion and (most importantly) we have nobody at all claiming that the topic was anything else.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom