Trump

[jdshock]

I want to make sure I understand the controversy.

Trump's crime is that his campaign manager accepted a meeting to determine whether there was credible evidence of Hillary committing illegal activity in collusion with the Russians? Is that correct?

"Crime" isn't the right word. It's just not clear what the legality of everything is at this point. Kushner is the only one we can be absolutely confident broke the law in failing to disclose the meeting (and apparently 100 others).

What I think people should be unhappy about is the constant denial of ANY Russian involvement from the Trump campaign: Russia wanted Clinton to win, they never met with the Russians, they'd never met anyone from Russia, etc. It's all lies. Until they admit they lied, we're not going to know why they lied or the full breadth of the lie.

Edit to add: Obviously this is all on top of the loyalty stuff. The emails make it look like Jr took a meeting set up for the purpose of getting dirt which directly furthered Russia's goal of getting Trump elected. That intention, whether legal or illegal, is a big deal to lots of folks. If he accepted the meeting to protect America because he thought Clinton had colluded with Russia, he should've passed on the information to the intelligence agencies.

[wufan]

"Crime" isn't the right word. It's just not clear what the legality of everything is at this point. Kushner is the only one we can be absolutely confident broke the law in failing to disclose the meeting (and apparently 100 others).

What I think people should be unhappy about is the constant denial of ANY Russian involvement from the Trump campaign: Russia wanted Clinton to win, they never met with the Russians, they'd never met anyone from Russia, etc. It's all lies. Until they admit they lied, we're not going to know why they lied or the full breadth of the lie.

Edit to add: Obviously this is all on top of the loyalty stuff. The emails make it look like Jr took a meeting set up for the purpose of getting dirt which directly furthered Russia's goal of getting Trump elected. That intention, whether legal or illegal, is a big deal to lots of folks. If he accepted the meeting to protect America because he thought Clinton had colluded with Russia, he should've passed on the information to the intelligence agencies.

It's sleazy.

[shockfan89_]

"Crime" isn't the right word. It's just not clear what the legality of everything is at this point. Kushner is the only one we can be absolutely confident broke the law in failing to disclose the meeting (and apparently 100 others).

What I think people should be unhappy about is the constant denial of ANY Russian involvement from the Trump campaign: Russia wanted Clinton to win, they never met with the Russians, they'd never met anyone from Russia, etc. It's all lies. Until they admit they lied, we're not going to know why they lied or the full breadth of the lie.

Edit to add: Obviously this is all on top of the loyalty stuff. The emails make it look like Jr took a meeting set up for the purpose of getting dirt which directly furthered Russia's goal of getting Trump elected. That intention, whether legal or illegal, is a big deal to lots of folks. If he accepted the meeting to protect America because he thought Clinton had colluded with Russia, he should've passed on the information to the intelligence agencies.

And just to clarify, most of the Trump people have made a point to say I never met with anyone in the Russian government or with the Russian government, not just Russians. While it may be splitting hairs and/or sleazy (as wufan said), they is still no evidence pointing to meeting with the Russian government. Even the question posed to Sessions was worded like: Did you, or anyone else from the Trump campaign meet with anyone from the Russian government. He clearly met with a Russian official as part of his duties as a Senator, but he was not lying when he answered the question "No". He did not meet with Russian officials as part of the Trump campaign.

Now if they are just being careful to make sure they answer the specific question posed, and nothing more than that, they are doing the minimum required of them. As an American citizen that is VERY skeptical of everything coming out of DC I wish they would give more context to their answers. I think if Sessions would have taken 10 seconds to explain the answer in more detail it could have saved hours and hours of questioning and accusations of wrongdoing.

[jdshock]

And just to clarify, most of the Trump people have made a point to say I never met with anyone in the Russian government or with the Russian government, not just Russians. While it may be splitting hairs and/or sleazy (as wufan said), they is still no evidence pointing to meeting with the Russian government. Even the question posed to Sessions was worded like: Did you, or anyone else from the Trump campaign meet with anyone from the Russian government. He clearly met with a Russian official as part of his duties as a Senator, but he was not lying when he answered the question "No". He did not meet with Russian officials as part of the Trump campaign.

Now if they are just being careful to make sure they answer the specific question posed, and nothing more than that, they are doing the minimum required of them. As an American citizen that is VERY skeptical of everything coming out of DC I wish they would give more context to their answers. I think if Sessions would have taken 10 seconds to explain the answer in more detail it could have saved hours and hours of questioning and accusations of wrongdoing.

I think if you truly still feel that way, you're stuck behind some thick rose-colored glasses. It's just not true, on both accounts.

First, the Trump administration has not been so careful as to constantly make it clear they're talking only about Russian government officials. Trump says Russia-Trump collusion is hoax. Jr says "Did I meet with people that were Russian? ... I'm sure I did. But none that were set up." In the Lester Holt interview, Trump says he has sold a house to a wealthy Russian and he had the Miss Universe pageant in Russia, and other than that he has "nothing to do" with Russia. Trump says "I have nothing to do with Russia folks, I'll give you a written statement." Sessions says "I have never met with any Russians." And the documents filled out for security clearance--where Kushner says no contacts--don't specify only government involvement. I mean, they have made blanket statement after blanket statement.

Second, it even looks like they met (or at least intended to meet) with Russian officials. The emails Jr released show that it was all part of "Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump." They were going to supply "official documents." They wanted to meet with "the Russian government attorney." I mean, even if the woman turns out to be completely unknown in Russia, you're talking about an attempt to meet with someone that was involved in the Russian government.

And again, if it's legal, it's fine if you don't have a problem with it. But be honest about what you're supporting.

[Play Angry]

Don Jr. was a world class retard to take the meeting in light of the initial email approaching him:

Good morning

Emin just called and asked me to contact you with something very interesting.
The Crown prosecutor of Russia met with his father Aras this morning and in their meeting offered to provide the Trump campaign with some official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father.
This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump - helped along by Aras and Emin.
What do you think is the best way to handle this information and would you be able to speak to Emin about it directly?
I can also send this info to your father via Rhona, but it is ultra sensitive so wanted to send to you first.

Best

Rob Goldstone

To then respond with:

Thanks Rob I appreciate that. I am on the road at the moment but perhaps I just speak to Emin first. Seems we have some time and if it's what you say I love it especially later in the summer. Could we do a call first thing next week when I am back?
Best,
Don

...and release it during an investigation into Russian involvement while sending your surrogates into hyperdrive to spin it as a nothing burger is pretty bold.

At best, an impressive judgment and ethics fail.

[shockfan89_]

I don't disagree with you. I should have said at times they have made a point to say Russian Government. I have clearly heard Russians and Russian Government used interchangeably and the Trump team should be very aware of that and obviously they aren't.

The intent was to meet with a Russian government attorney, there can be no denying that. But as you point out, that is not illegal. My point is the media tries to use a lighter around smoke to say there is a fire. Just follow the smoke trail and call it smoke until it is more.

[jdshock]

I don't disagree with you. I should have said at times they have made a point to say Russian Government. I have clearly heard Russians and Russian Government used interchangeably and the Trump team should be very aware of that and obviously they aren't.

The intent was to meet with a Russian government attorney, there can be no denying that. But as you point out, that is not illegal. My point is the media tries to use a lighter around smoke to say there is a fire. Just follow the smoke trail and call it smoke until it is more.

To be clear, I have never pointed out that it is legal. I have pointed out that it may or may not be illegal. I'm just saying it's not worth arguing about the legality of it at this point.

But understood.

[ShockCrazy]

I think perhaps the biggest issue with the entire situation is the trickle truthing. You don't trickle truth everything that is on the up and up. Now we learn a Russian-American lobbyist was there, which I would kind of expect, but why are we just finding out now? Why do we have to keep digging into the details? If Donald Jr had just disclosed this up front and everything that went on and who was there, it wouldn't be as big of a story. It just makes it looks like there is something to hide, maybe there is and maybe there's not.

[Play Angry]

It's business as usual in Washington. Repeatedly claim there is no relevant information and that any claims to the contrary are outlandish, then, and only when faced with imminent release of contradictory information, try to get out ahead of it by releasing (part of) it yourself and maintaining the same original narrative. Rinse and repeat. The opposition will jump to conclusions, assume you are lying, and claim this is conclusive evidence of a crime (DJT; Lynch/Clinton tarmac; etc.). Allies will eat up whatever load of **** you feed them because they want to believe you did nothing wrong. This situation is a little more interesting because, unlike Flynn, DJT's image and career cannot be allowed by higher-ups to be set on fire like a sack of poop on a porch.

Political parties have become the new identity markers in America, sadly (replacing religious denomination, ethnicity, race, tribes, etc.). The loyalty on both sides is unflinching and it is an unending battle of us vs. them.

[ShockCrazy]

It's business as usual in Washington. Repeatedly claim there is no relevant information and that any claims to the contrary are outlandish, then, and only when faced with imminent release of contradictory information, try to get out ahead of it by releasing (part of) it yourself and maintaining the same original narrative. Rinse and repeat. The opposition will jump to conclusions, assume you are lying, and claim this is conclusive evidence of a crime (DJT; Lynch/Clinton tarmac; etc.). Allies will eat up whatever load of **** you feed them because they want to believe you did nothing wrong. This situation is a little more interesting because, unlike Flynn, DJT's image and career cannot be allowed by higher-ups to be set on fire like a sack of poop on a porch.

Political parties have become the new identity markers in America, sadly (replacing religious denomination, ethnicity, race, tribes, etc.). The loyalty on both sides is unflinching and it is an unending battle of us vs. them.

Indeed. It's astounding how team like it's become. I just don't understand it. I don't get the attachment to an elected official because I voted for him or he's in my party. Are people aware you personally don't gain anything for your vote being right if they are good? Or lose anything if they are bad?

[Kung Wu]

If he accepted the meeting to protect America because he thought Clinton had colluded with Russia, he should've passed on the information to the intelligence agencies.

Don't ya have to have something credible to share first?

[jdshock]

Don't ya have to have something credible to share first?

If the emails were credible enough to warrant an altruistic, vigilante investigation by the Trump family--as you're apparently claiming happened--then they would have warranted an investigation by the CIA.

I don't get how you can end up on the other side of this. Jr saw a chance to help out his campaign (which, by the way, is all he's ever claimed. He has not claimed that he did it to protect America) and took it, with no fear of the possible repercussions.

[Dave Stalwart]

Breaking news: Apparently Trump told the French first lady she looked nice. That A**hole!

[shockmonster]

Breaking news: Apparently Trump told the French first lady she looked nice. That A**hole!

CNN and MSNBC will spend 90% of tonight's coverage on this breaking news. ABC, NBC, and CBS will only spend 80% of their news coverage on this story.

[Dave Stalwart]

Personally, I disagree with President Trump on this one. I looked at some photos, and I think she looks closer to anorexic than "great shape." I would say she looks nice, but may need to see a doctor. Not that it's any of my business. Just saying...

I do not support President Trump on this important issue regarding the shape of the French First Lady.