Status
Not open for further replies.
It seems possible the email hacking could have been discussed at the infamous Trump Tower meeting. There doesn't seem to be any evidence that hacked emails were discussed but it's not like they were recording meeting minutes. None of the participants have been very forthcoming and they all have reasons to be less than candid. This is the timeline the Washington Post reported on last August.

It’s important to note the timeline here. This meeting was on June 9, 2016 — less than a week before The Washington Post first reported that hackers thought to be linked to the Russian government had hacked into the DNC and stolen communications, including emails. An indictment obtained by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III indicates that the intrusion began in mid-April, shortly before a Trump campaign adviser named George Papadopoulos is told by a Kremlin-linked professor that the Russians had “dirt” on Clinton. The day before the Trump Tower meeting, the Russians set up a website called “DCLeaks,” which was used later that month to begin publishing documents stolen from the DNC. Link

I don't think it's really possible to know one way or the other.
 
Maddow: "Now it all makes sense! It's all about the oranges!"

Not the strawberries.


(ETA: I guess I shouldn't leave it so obscure: there's a video of Trump saying we need to now look into the "oranges" of the investigation, i.e. how it got started. He says it three times.)
 
Last edited:
It seems possible the email hacking could have been discussed at the infamous Trump Tower meeting. There doesn't seem to be any evidence that hacked emails were discussed but it's not like they were recording meeting minutes. None of the participants have been very forthcoming and they all have reasons to be less than candid. This is the timeline the Washington Post reported on last August.



I don't think it's really possible to know one way or the other.

Conspiracy of the Gaps.
 
Yeah, it's a real stretch to believe the Trump Tower meeting was about collusion when all we have to go on is an email acknowledging that the meeting was about........collusion.

LOL!

Yep, its called "circumstantial evidence". Murderers have been (rightly) convicted on less circumstantial evidence than we have now.

With the GOP in full charge of the Senate and the House, and with Trump as POTUS, if they had as much evidence against Hilary as there is now in the public domain against Trump, she would have been tried, convicted and jailed by the end of 2018.

The thing with Trumptards is that they demand a smoking gun for conspiracy... and in the absence of a smoking gun, they declare Dear Leader to be innocent of all allegations. Of course, they know full well that you almost never have a smoking gun for a conspiracy, because the conspirators go to extraordinary lengths to make sure there isn't one, no documentation, no witnesses, no minutes of meetings, no phone calls, no surveillance, no translator's notes after a meeting with the leader of the enemy.
 
Last edited:
If you replaced "Trump Jr." with "Podesta" and described the Trump Tower meeting to a Republican for the first time, do you really think they wouldn't be convinced of collusion by the evidence we already have?
 
Yeah, it's a real stretch to believe the Trump Tower meeting was about collusion when all we have to go on is an email acknowledging that the meeting was about........collusion.

LOL!


Mqgy5DL.jpg
Mqgy5DL.jpg
 
There could be a number of reasons why.

I think the most likely thing is optics. He believes he's been unfairly targeted by the Special Counsel, so he does the Trumpian thing; block, misdirect, complain about anything to do with it. He just wants it gone and forgotten.
 
There could be a number of reasons why.

I think the most likely thing is optics. He believes he's been unfairly targeted by the Special Counsel, so he does the Trumpian thing; block, misdirect, complain about anything to do with it. He just wants it gone and forgotten.
Ha!

Trump will be talking about the treasonous Dems out to get him for as long as anyone reads his Tweets or puts a mic in front of his face.
 
I'm guessing Barr has told him what is actually in it.
He knows what's in it. I have images of OJ hearing the 'not guilty' verdict when Trump heard he wasn't likely to be prosecuted.

It's Trump's repeating pattern, there was never any doubt when the time came to release the report he'd have some reason he couldn't.
 
Trump has been lying about wanting to release the Mueller report just like he lied about releasing his taxes and is now lying about the alleged fabulous heath care plan the GOP is working on. Is it any wonder no one but a fool believes anything that comes out of Trump's lying mouth?
 
There could be a number of reasons why.

I think the most likely thing is optics. He believes he's been unfairly targeted by the Special Counsel, so he does the Trumpian thing; block, misdirect, complain about anything to do with it. He just wants it gone and forgotten.

This doesn't explain why he said he would be fine with it going public a week ago.
 
Conspiracy of the Gaps.

Except that there is no gap. We know why the meeting took place, as we have prior communication between the parties. What was actually discussed is irrelevant, as the stated goals of the Trump side are plainly stated, and they are to conspire to acquire illegal information on US soil.
 
It was posted here that the claim that the Russians had "dirt" on Hillary Clinton and were willing to provide it to the Trump campaign came only from one person, Rob Goldstone. It was also posted that Goldstone has admitted to making that up. But there were other people involved as well. This is from Rolling Stone:

October 5th, 2017
Trump foreign policy adviser George Papadopoulos pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about his communications with Kremlin-linked professor Joseph Mifsud, who told him the Russians had “dirt” on Hillary Clinton. Papadopoulos served 12 days in prison for the charge this past fall. Link
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom