This Russian lawyer lady...

[CowboyJD]

It's interesting to me that you make a decla

It's interesting to me that you make a declarative statement, "We understand quite a bit more than that," but you are reluctant to expound on what more we know.

It is interesting to me that you profess complete ignorance on the topic when you have the means to not be ignorant.

There is a whole wide world out there that you can use figure out what we the informed know beyond "that".

I encourage you to use it.

 

[Ponca Dan]

It is interesting to me that you profess complete ignorance on the topic when you have the means to not be ignorant.

There is a whole wide world out there that you can use figure out what we the informed know beyond "that".

I encourage you to use it.

Of course it is beneath you to be a resource for an uneducated person like me.

 

[CowboyJD]

Of course it is beneath you to be a resource for an uneducated person like me.

Didn't say that it was beneath me. Though I certainly don't owe it to you to be such a resource as you have requested.

I'm just not interested in doing the heavy lifting when there are other resources so incredibly readily available to you. That's not why I'm here.

 

[Ponca Dan]

Didn't say that it was beneath me. Though I certainly don't owe it to you to be such a resource as you have requested.

I'm just not interested in doing the heavy lifting when there are other resources so incredibly readily available to you. That's not why I'm here.

We certainly wouldn't want to have a discussion on a message board!

 

[JohnVoight]

It is interesting to me that you profess complete ignorance on the topic when you have the means to not be ignorant.

There is a whole wide world out there that you can use figure out what we the informed know beyond "that".

I encourage you to use it.

Of course it is beneath you to be a resource for an uneducated person like me.

Just wanted to say that you two seem like oil and water on the politics boards (but not in a left vs. right spectrum way, more personality maybe?) but I respect both of your opinions.

 

[CowboyJD]

We certainly wouldn't want to have a discussion on a message board!

I love having discussions....

With people who are informed on the subject matter being discussed.

With those admittedly (and seemingly willfully) ignorant on the topic?

Not so much.

 

[Ponca Dan]

I love having discussions....

With people who are informed on the subject matter being discussed.

With those admittedly (and seemingly willfully) ignorant on the topic?

Not so much.

OK, let's try it this way: It is my opinion that Trump, Jr., and the Trump election team are completely innocent of all the Russian collusion charges. I understand that you disagree. Show me where I am in error. And try to do it without subtle insults. Just the facts. Can we have a civil discussion now?

 

[Been Jammin]

Serious question: Where is the "collusion"? Doesn't collusion require some form of quid pro quo? Was DJT Jr's mere act of meeting with a Russian lawyer sufficient enough evidence for collusion? I just don't see what was illegal about it. Naïve, sure. But not illegal.

.

As recently as a week ago, the narrative was... "This Trump/Russia collusion story was created by the Dems and the MSM and is a hoax/fake news. There is absolutely nothing to it. There is no evidence that anything close to it happened. This investigation is a total waste of time."

Today, the narrative is..."OK, so DJT JR, actually did meet with a Russian, in an attempt to get help with his dad's chances of winning the presidency. But, he claims that nothing came of it, so there is nothing there and the investigation is still a waste of time".

Now, ask yourself this, and answer honestly....

1). Is it possible that Jr isn't being honest about what happened in the meeting and after the meeting?

2). If the narrative changed from last week to this week, is it possible that the narrative will change again in the coming weeks?

You said, Serious question: Where is the "collusion"? My response would be. "Maybe there is no current proof of collusion, but that doesn't mean it did not happen. Let's see what comes from the ongoing investigations into the matter."

 

[Headhunter]

Crack legal analysis there.

Cite the statutes that Don Jr. has broken. I'd actually like to see the statute that specifically states that colluding is illegal. Most are trying to argue that information = monetary donation by a foreign entity to a campaign but I haven't actually seen anything that shows anyone received anything.

I take that back, the only person I've seen receive monetary value from Russia is one Mr. Billy Clinton.

 

[Been Jammin]

Cite the statutes that Don Jr. has broken. I'd actually like to see the statute that specifically states that colluding is illegal. Most are trying to argue that information = monetary donation by a foreign entity to a campaign but I haven't actually seen anything that shows anyone received anything.

I take that back, the only person I've seen receive monetary value from Russia is one Mr. Billy Clinton.

Actually it doesn't have to be monetary. If he met with her and received information that helped the campaign, or received any kind of assistance from the Russian government, it would be illegal.

 

[JohnVoight]

Now, ask yourself this, and answer honestly....

1). Is it possible that Jr isn't being honest about what happened in the meeting and after the meeting?
Yes, anything is possible.
2). If the narrative changed from last week to this week, is it possible that the narrative will change again in the coming weeks?
It is not only possible, it is likely. That seems to be how anything Russia related has gone down so far. Narrative changes as facts roll in: 1) A leak occurs, 2) MSM freakout, 3) will this be the end of Drump?, and finally 4) Nothing Burgers everywhere.

You said, Serious question: Where is the "collusion"? My response would be. "Maybe there is no current proof of collusion, but that doesn't mean it did not happen. Let's see what comes from the ongoing investigations into the matter."

Thank you for the reasoned response, please see my answers above. The bolded part of your sentence, after 10 months now, I think many independents interpret this as "We haven't found anything yet but anything is possible BECAUSE DRUMPF!!!".

 

[CowboyJD]

Cite the statutes that Don Jr. has broken. I'd actually like to see the statute that specifically states that colluding is illegal. Most are trying to argue that information = monetary donation by a foreign entity to a campaign but I haven't actually seen anything that shows anyone received anything.

I take that back, the only person I've seen receive monetary value from Russia is one Mr. Billy Clinton.

We don't have all the facts of exactly what he did we have some of them.

On going investigation and all that.

More crack legal analysis...demanding a statute that specifically states that colluding is illegal. Lulz.

 

[CowboyJD]

Thank you for the reasoned response, please see my answers above. The bolded part of your sentence, after 10 months now, I think many independents interpret this as "We haven't found anything yet but anything is possible BECAUSE DRUMPF!!!".

10 months is a fairy short time for an investigation of this type....and independent counsel has only recently been appointed (by the Trump administration, btw).

How long did Kenneth Starr's investigation of Clinton last?

I'm an independent and I understand all that.

 

[JohnVoight]

10 months is a fairy short time for an investigation of this type....and independent counsel has only recently been appointed (by the Trump administration, btw).

How long did Kenneth Starr's investigation of Clinton last?

I'm an independent and I understand all that.

I'm not arguing otherwise. Just the circumstances of the independent counsel are a little dubious given we now know that Swamp Creature Comey (i) refused to let the American people know Trump wasn't under investigation for the purpose of continuing to fan the Muh Russia! flames and (ii) potentially illegally leaked an email to his friend for the specific purpose of getting his swamp creature buddy Mueller appointed.

 

[Been Jammin]

Thank you for the reasoned response, please see my answers above. The bolded part of your sentence, after 10 months now, I think many independents interpret this as "We haven't found anything yet but anything is possible BECAUSE DRUMPF!!!".

As to your last sentence in red....

Seems like we should wait and see before calling it a "nothing burger". This week it morphed from "nothing burger" to "possible something burger".

 

[Been Jammin]

I'm not arguing otherwise. Just the circumstances of the independent counsel are a little dubious given we now know that Swamp Creature Comey (i) refused to let the American people know Trump wasn't under investigation for the purpose of continuing to fan the Muh Russia! flames and (ii) potentially illegally leaked an email to his friend for the specific purpose of getting his swamp creature buddy Mueller appointed.

Comey picked Mueller? Interesting revelation.

 

[JohnVoight]

Comey picked Mueller? Interesting revelation.

You're right, thanks for keeping me honest. Rosenstein picked Mueller. Comey leaked to get a special counsel appointed, but not necessarily Mueller.

 

[purkey]

it's the same ole shit sandwich everyday. Nothing new but the sos. Hey, maybe we got something....no....they got more to. With this many crooks no one is guilty.

 

[Medic007]

Actually it doesn't have to be monetary. If he met with her and received information that helped the campaign, or received any kind of assistance from the Russian government, it would be illegal.

Would this apply to the dossier as well? If so, why is this subject not getting the same traction? Because she isn't president? If it's possible that it was illegal and the law was violated, why is there not a special counsel to investigate it? I realize that's probably rhetorical question for you. More of a venting on my part.

 

[TPOKE]

No doubt. That's politics.

Politics is also meeting with somebody who says they have dirt on your opponent.

 

[Headhunter]

We don't have all the facts of exactly what he did we have some of them.

On going investigation and all that.

More crack legal analysis...demanding a statute that specifically states that colluding is illegal. Lulz.

So in other words you can't produce one.

 

[anon_xl72qcu5isp39]

"There's no actual evidence" is a false narrative and right wing fake-out. First, there is lots of circumstantial evidence. Second, he acts guilty, he's crazy, amoral and has no intrinsic morality. Colluding with a foreign enemy wouldn't appear objectionable to him if was useful. Third, why would the media know about the facts of a confidential investigation? Fourth, the opposite is more true: If there's no evidence, why is Mueller hiring lawyers instead of concluding the investigation?

 

[JohnVoight]

"Third, why would the media know about the facts of a confidential investigation?

Fourth, the opposite is more true: If there's no evidence, why is Mueller hiring lawyers instead of concluding the investigation?

Why would a swamp-connected lawyer hire more swamp-connected lawyers? Seriously?

 

[osu_orangestreak]

52 USC 30121, 36 USC 510

A foreign national shall not, directly or indirectly, make a contribution or a donation of money or other thing of value, or expressly or impliedly promise to make a contribution or a donation, in connection with any Federal, State, or local election

 

[Headhunter]

52 USC 30121, 36 USC 510

A foreign national shall not, directly or indirectly, make a contribution or a donation of money or other thing of value, or expressly or impliedly promise to make a contribution or a donation, in connection with any Federal, State, or local election

So giving information is considered a thing of value. How do you quantify that? Is only certain kinds of information forbidden?
That would seem to be something that could open up a whole can of worms for all kinds of politicians.

 

[JimmyBob]

That is some 5-D ish right there.

Amen! Next level is 6-D ish which gets us into Rod Serling land.

 

[anon_xl72qcu5isp39]

Why would a swamp-connected lawyer hire more swamp-connected lawyers? Seriously?

To drain the swamp.

 

[NZ Poke]

The plot thickens...


"The Russian lawyer who penetrated Donald Trump's inner circle was initially cleared into the United States by the Justice Department under "extraordinary circumstances" before she embarked on a lobbying campaign last year that ensnared the president's eldest son, members of Congress, journalists and State Department officials, according to court and Justice Department documents and interviews."

 

[NZ Poke]

 

[ctdub]

Interesting subject matter for this Russian lawyer to be posting, who wants to collude with Trump:

The weaponized autistics at /pol/ archived her Facebook page. LOL


http://archive.is/mdSre

Is this real or a troll?

 

[NZ Poke]

Is this real or a troll?

Real.

She apparently got a special visa from Loretta Lynch's DOJ.

 

[ThorOdinson13]

Just saw that Alan Dershowitz doesn't believe anything illegal was done based on what we know. This lady's background is a bit odd to say the least.

 

[anon_xl72qcu5isp39]

Just saw that Alan Dershowitz doesn't believe anything illegal was done based on what we know. This lady's background is a bit odd to say the least.

Have you came down on Biff's side during all this?

 

[cableok]

Have you simply considered that perhaps, just perhaps, there is no grand conspiracy and the Trumps may have colluded with the Russians to influence the election?

I don't think anyone who thinks independently believes that.

Trump Jr did something that he shouldn't have.

Honestly, I love politics. Normally watch a lot and read a lot of news. But this "Russian" conspiracy thing is just being dragged because the 24/7 news cycle needs something and our current media is very anti-Trump and they believe the Russia angle has legs. News bites sound like something bad is happpening and that excites libs and anti-Trumpers.

Personally, I am not paying attention anymore to the Russia story. If something actually happens then I will resume getting involved, but the stuff over the last 7-months is just silly.

 

[Ponca Dan]

I don't think anyone who thinks independently believes that.

Trump Jr did something that he shouldn't have.

Honestly, I love politics. Normally watch a lot and read a lot of news. But this "Russian" conspiracy thing is just being dragged because the 24/7 news cycle needs something and our current media is very anti-Trump and they believe the Russia angle has legs. News bites sound like something bad is happpening and that excites libs and anti-Trumpers.

Personally, I am not paying attention anymore to the Russia story. If something actually happens then I will resume getting involved, but the stuff over the last 7-months is just silly.

You may not know this, but you just put yourself on JD's shit list!

 

[CowboyJD]

So in other words you can't produce one.

Nice strawman.

52 USC 30121, 36 USC 510

A foreign national shall not, directly or indirectly, make a contribution or a donation of money or other thing of value, or expressly or impliedly promise to make a contribution or a donation, in connection with any Federal, State, or local election

And there are others.....but I knew I would get more crack Headhunter legal analysis like this in response so I didn't feel the need to try to teach law to him.

So giving information is considered a thing of value. How do you quantify that? Is only certain kinds of information forbidden?
That would seem to be something that could open up a whole can of worms for all kinds of politicians.

Information absolutely a thing of value as are official records verifying the information.

I don't think anyone who thinks independently believes that.

Trump Jr did something that he shouldn't have.

Honestly, I love politics. Normally watch a lot and read a lot of news. But this "Russian" conspiracy thing is just being dragged because the 24/7 news cycle needs something and our current media is very anti-Trump and they believe the Russia angle has legs. News bites sound like something bad is happpening and that excites libs and anti-Trumpers.

Personally, I am not paying attention anymore to the Russia story. If something actually happens then I will resume getting involved, but the stuff over the last 7-months is just silly.

No one that thinks independently believes it is POSSIBLE that members of the Trump election campaign colluded or attempted to collude (attempt to commit a crime is a crime itself even if the attempt is unacceptable) with Russian foreign nationals to influence the election in Trump's favor? IMO someone that has concluded that it is impossible for such actions to have occurred are the ones that aren't thinking independently.

I'm neither a lib or an anti-Trumper. I have neither concluded that collusion absolutely did occur or absolutely didn't occur. The people one both ends of that spectrum are actually the ones that aren't thinking independently.

 

[CowboyJD]

You may not know this, but you just put yourself on JD's shit list!

Nah...he has taken the time to educate himself and has an actual take and opinion based upon his own research.

So we're good even if we disagree.

 

[aix_xpert]

In trying to get your head around it, I'd suggest referring to Occam's razor and all that.

Junior received e-mails directly advising him a Russian government representative had valuable oppo research on Hillary.

He jumped at the chance to meet. Did in fact meet.

That was incredibly ill advised and possibly illegal.

At a minimum, it is a helluva lot more smoke justifying the continued investigation.

This meeting may or may not have been a crime. I just wished we (as society) would expect to hold all our politicians accountable. Just think, if Dems had been this persistent in digging into the actions about Hillary, they would probably have Bernie running the White House.

 

[ThorOdinson13]

Have you came down on Biff's side during all this?

What do you mean? Are referencing just this Don Jr meeting stuff or do you mean since the election?

 

[cableok]

Nice strawman.



And there are others.....but I knew I would get more crack Headhunter legal analysis like this in response so I didn't feel the need to try to teach law to him.



Information absolutely a thing of value as are official records verifying the information.



No one that thinks independently believes it is POSSIBLE that members of the Trump election campaign colluded or attempted to collude (attempt to commit a crime is a crime itself even if the attempt is unacceptable) with Russian foreign nationals to influence the election in Trump's favor? IMO someone that has concluded that it is impossible for such actions to have occurred are the ones that aren't thinking independently.

I'm neither a lib or an anti-Trumper. I have neither concluded that collusion absolutely did occur or absolutely didn't occur. The people one both ends of that spectrum are actually the ones that aren't thinking independently.

So you are waiting on FACTS that are not there.
I put myself in same boat. I just choose to ignore all the non-news and fluffed up news to make it look like something is wrong or illegal. Why pay attention now when then is nothing there of substance now and hasn't been for the last seven months?