It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Trump-Russia Narrative is Dying. Why?

page: 43
40
<< 40  41  42    44 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 7 2017 @ 05:51 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

I'm not reaching for anything; if Sessions hadn't been compromised, he wouldn't have had to recuse himself (ask President Trump.)

"UK" if I may be allowed a personal comment just this once ... you waste so much time simply reversing what someone else says. You're not proving anything by saying "No they didn't."

Now, granted, I don't have "the evidence" that would prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that there was criminal activity conducted between Manafort, Flynn and Russian agents. What we do know, however, is that they both have Russian connections, they have both long after the fact registered as foreign agents (after being questioned by the FBI coincidentally), and that both of them lied about their connections and conversations to the Russians during and after the campaign. Flynn got canned over those lies.

So, while that evidence is, at this point, circumstantial, it is still far, far more substantive than simply saying "No they didn't."

As to Donnie Jr. your point and the continual denials from Trump apologists, is simply patently absurd. He admitted that he colluded with Russian agents, he had a "secret meeting" (that was denied by Trump and his Administration right down to the second when they had to decide to "get out in front" of a story that was about to break, at which point, Trump himself concocted the cockamamie story about the meeting being about "adoption."

And finally, for the humpteeth time, this discussion is not about "proving" that there was a Trump-Russia Scandal (or that there were crimes, unethical behavior, treason, etc.) as you desperately keep trying to twist it to.

There is and has been and will be for the foreseeable further a "Trump-Russia Scandal" in the Press, it's not going away, and you guys can't deny it out of existence.
edit on 7-8-2017 by Gryphon66 because: Noted




posted on Aug, 7 2017 @ 09:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Sessions was not compromised. I have no idea where you are getting that from.
He recused himself because he was part of Trump's campaign team.

As for wasting time - you continually post the same inaccuracies. Perhaps if you would not jump to conclusions and stretch facts to fit what you want them to mean then there would be no need to refute them.

A case in point is your argument about Flynn and Manafort - neither were unregistered Russian agents and the last I checked having ties to Russia is no crime. I am, at least, pleased that you admit you have no evidence they did anything wrong.

Trump Jr is more complicated. Collusion has a specific meaning, but the media have generalised it to the point where the mere word is associated to things that simply do not rise to the level of collusion.


secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy in order to deceive others.


Who exactly was Trump Jr trying to deceive, and where is the conspiracy?
The meeting may have been secret (although given that it was declared as having occurred and that is why we know about it, even calling it secret is a stretch).. and it certainly was not illegal.

What Trump Jr did was meet with someone who had Russian ties because they said they had information on Clinton.
No crime and no collusion. Just a meeting for opposition research.

As for the Trump-Russia narrative, I am seeing less and less each day. The fact there are still some stories about Russia doesn't change that.. it's the volume and intensity that is waning. I hear almost nothing claiming the President colluded with Russia these days.
edit on 7/8/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 7 2017 @ 09:46 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

Then we have different opinions about why Sessions recused himself.

Also, we have different opinions about most topics, and about what the words "facts, evidence, and true" mean.

That I hold a different opinion from you does not mean that I am mistaken. I have weighed the evidence just as you have (presumably.)

Ties to Russia are not necessarily a crime (and I've never said that it was, as usual, you're tossing strawmen and red herring at will).

It is, however, a crime to work for a foreign power in this country without declaring one's self an agent of that power. It is also a considerable breach of the public's trust to lie about one's connections to foreign powers, especially when one is working for a Presidential campaign.

If it turns out that the collusion actually involved the receipt of stolen materials from the Russians, that is most certainly also a crime.

As to the rest, from my perspective you are ridiculously mistaken, and apparently from your perspective, I am.

I will continue to state the facts as I know them, and I'm sure you will do the same.


edit on 7-8-2017 by Gryphon66 because: Spelling



posted on Aug, 7 2017 @ 10:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66


If it turns out that the collusion actually involved the receipt of stolen materials from the Russians, that is most certainly also a crime.


What kind of stolen materials could jr have gotten from the russians? You think the trump campaign got the emails from russia then leaked them to wikileaks? That would be a new allegation altogether.
edit on 7-8-2017 by Dfairlite because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 7 2017 @ 10:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: Gryphon66


If it turns out that the collusion actually involved the receipt of stolen materials from the Russians, that is most certainly also a crime.


What kind of stolen materials could jr have gotten from the russians? You think the trump campaign got the emails from russia then leaked them to wikileaks? That would be a new allegation altogether.


If you go to a meeting with Russians to get dirt on Hillary Clinton ... who knows where it came from?

Chances are it would be illicit at best.



posted on Aug, 7 2017 @ 10:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Well, if the email was accurate, then it came from the Russian government. Is that illicit? My understanding is that the info he thought he would be receiving was details of Hillary laundering money or other unsavory deals with the Russian government or other Russian insiders.

However, none of this really matters as the first amendment would trump anything short of a conspiracy to illegally obtain information (e.g. Jr. conspiring with russia to steal the podesta emails and publish them). If Russia obtained them illegally, then handed them over to jr, that would not be illegal. That would be protected by the first amendment (unless they told jr. that they stole them).



posted on Aug, 8 2017 @ 03:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: Gryphon66

Well, if the email was accurate, then it came from the Russian government. Is that illicit? My understanding is that the info he thought he would be receiving was details of Hillary laundering money or other unsavory deals with the Russian government or other Russian insiders.

However, none of this really matters as the first amendment would trump anything short of a conspiracy to illegally obtain information (e.g. Jr. conspiring with russia to steal the podesta emails and publish them). If Russia obtained them illegally, then handed them over to jr, that would not be illegal. That would be protected by the first amendment (unless they told jr. that they stole them).


Your understanding? Do you have any backup for that understanding? Or is it just a wild guess?

IF Russia obtained the information legally is merely an assumption of course. Further, opinions vary about the legality of receiving information from a foreign power that may damage the United States.

I admit I'm intrigued. How does the First Amendment come into play in your mind?



posted on Aug, 8 2017 @ 06:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: Gryphon66

Well, if the email was accurate, then it came from the Russian government. Is that illicit? My understanding is that the info he thought he would be receiving was details of Hillary laundering money or other unsavory deals with the Russian government or other Russian insiders.

However, none of this really matters as the first amendment would trump anything short of a conspiracy to illegally obtain information (e.g. Jr. conspiring with russia to steal the podesta emails and publish them). If Russia obtained them illegally, then handed them over to jr, that would not be illegal. That would be protected by the first amendment (unless they told jr. that they stole them).


Agree with this...
Pretty sure that Trump Jr would have had to have known information was obtained illegally and/or helped obtain it illegally for there to be any crime. I can't see anything to suggest that either of those two things are the case.

I suspect that is what Mueller is looking into - the possibility that there was more to the meeting than we know... i.e. normal investigative work where the majority of enquiries are to rule things out.



posted on Aug, 8 2017 @ 06:46 AM
link   
Donald Jr. (and Manafort and Kushner) met with Russians with full knowledge that he was meeting with Russian agents.

He did so in the belief that he would be given documents and other valuable information that were damaging to the Clinton campaign.



posted on Aug, 8 2017 @ 06:49 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Yes we know that.
It's what happens when you are trying to get opposition research on an opponent.
Why the repeat?

edit on 8/8/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 8 2017 @ 06:49 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Damaging hillary clinton =/= damaging the united states. But the fact that you couldn't separate the two speaks volumes.



posted on Aug, 8 2017 @ 06:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: Gryphon66

Damaging hillary clinton =/= damaging the united states. But the fact that you couldn't separate the two speaks volumes.


Contaminating the electoral process of the United States through collaborative conspiracy with a foreign power certainly damages the United States.

That you can't see that because of your obsession with Hillary Clinton which also speaks volumes.
edit on 8-8-2017 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Aug, 8 2017 @ 06:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: Gryphon66

Yes we know that.
It's what happens when you are trying to get opposition research on an opponent.
Why the repeat?


Oh it's "opposition research" now? Well, at least you can admit he colluded with the Russians to get "opposition research" as you're trying to spin it.

Problem is, of course, it's illegal to take contributions of valuable material from a foreign power to assist any candidate in a US Election.

But you're making progress toward the truth, and that's good.



posted on Aug, 8 2017 @ 07:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: Gryphon66

Damaging hillary clinton =/= damaging the united states. But the fact that you couldn't separate the two speaks volumes.


Contaminating the electoral process of the United States through collaborative conspiracy with a foreign power certainly damages the United States.

That you can't see that because of your obsession with Hillary Clinton also speaks volumes.


Why would the truth about an opponent, obtained legally, contaminate the electoral process?
More importantly why would a meeting, held legally, in which no information was even provided contaminate the electoral process?

Sounds like a stretch and strange point of focus, given the multitude of issues that DO contaminate the election process.

This is another reason for the Trump-Russia collusion narrative diminishing. There are much bigger issues to deal with than a Trump Jr meeting to gather dirt on Hillary Clinton. I bet that most people would prefer to be updated on other things. I suspect that is what the news station and Democrat party research revealed - hence "a better deal" as opposed to "not Trump" being the DNC strategy now.



posted on Aug, 8 2017 @ 07:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: Gryphon66

Yes we know that.
It's what happens when you are trying to get opposition research on an opponent.
Why the repeat?


Oh it's "opposition research" now? Well, at least you can admit he colluded with the Russians to get "opposition research" as you're trying to spin it.

Problem is, of course, it's illegal to take contributions of valuable material from a foreign power to assist any candidate in a US Election.

But you're making progress toward the truth, and that's good.


No, "Collusion" has specific meaning which I explained to you.
And yes, it was always about opposition research, quite obviously.

...and no it is not illegal to take information from a foreign power.
On another thread you've already been shown that there is zero precedent for interpreting campaign finance laws that way, while there is precedent for NOT interpreting them that way.

Unfortunately you don't seem to be making any progress towards the very simple truth.



posted on Aug, 8 2017 @ 07:13 AM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

So now, you know that the information was not only damaging but also true?

If there were no issues with this meeting, why did Donnie deny it for months?

Why did the story change so many times?

Why did Trump Sr. personally dictate the response to the public crafted with lies and BS.

We learned this in the last couple of weeks. Where did we learn it?

From the continual media coverage of the Trump-Russia Scandal.

You may want to check that "media coverage" you pretend to know so much about ... more Americans than EVER don't trust Trump and the Trump Administration.

Most people would love to move on to other things, indeed. Sadly, they are burdened with an incompetent, self-centered boob in the White House who can't get over his obsessions with his crappy numbers.



posted on Aug, 8 2017 @ 07:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: Gryphon66

Yes we know that.
It's what happens when you are trying to get opposition research on an opponent.
Why the repeat?


Oh it's "opposition research" now? Well, at least you can admit he colluded with the Russians to get "opposition research" as you're trying to spin it.

Problem is, of course, it's illegal to take contributions of valuable material from a foreign power to assist any candidate in a US Election.

But you're making progress toward the truth, and that's good.


No, "Collusion" has specific meaning which I explained to you.
And yes, it was always about opposition research, quite obviously.

...and no it is not illegal to take information from a foreign power.
On another thread you've already been shown that there is zero precedent for interpreting campaign finance laws that way, while there is precedent for NOT interpreting them that way.

Unfortunately you don't seem to be making any progress towards the very simple truth.


You haven't explained anything. You've tried to twist the facts around.

Yes, it is illegal to accept donations of valuable information from a foreign power.

You haven't shown me anything anywhere to the contrary, and now you're citing arguments from some other discussion?

Pfft. What is it closet authoritarians always say? The law is the law, if you break it, you pay for it.

Meanwhile ... why did Donald Trump Jr. LIE FOR MONTHS about meeting with Russians during the campaign ... surely that's not a hard question, right?
edit on 8-8-2017 by Gryphon66 because: You're to you've



posted on Aug, 8 2017 @ 07:25 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Ok, so you are just going to persist with inaccuracies.

You know you are unable to justify a statement says Trump Jr broke campaign finance laws, yet you make the statement anyway. You know there is no precedent for that interpretation. Pretty poor form to just cling on to a losing hand like that. I think you know very well that Trump Jr is not going to be charged with breaching any campaign finance laws. You are reaching.

I asked you specific questions about how Trump Jr's meeting met the definition of collusion and you dodged those questions. It's because you know a substantive discussion would leave you having to admit it was not any form of collusion. But, hey I get it... the word is powerful and has been drummed into people's minds by the media so to keep the propaganda going the word must be maintained.
edit on 8/8/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 8 2017 @ 07:28 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Well, your arguments are now just descending into childish rants.
So hey, you crack on in your ever shrinking echo chamber.



posted on Aug, 8 2017 @ 07:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: Gryphon66

Ok, so you are just going to persist with inaccuracies.

You know you are unable to justify a statement says Trump Jr broke campaign finance laws, yet you make the statement anyway. You know there is no precedent for that interpretation. Pretty poor form to just cling on to a losing hand like that. I think you know very well that Trump Jr is not going to be charged with breaching any campaign finance laws. You are reaching.

I asked you specific questions about how Trump Jr's meeting met the definition of collusion and you dodged those questions. It's because you know a substantive discussion would leave you having to admit it was not any form of collusion. But, hey I get it... the word is powerful and has been drummed into people's minds by the media so to keep the propaganda going the word must be maintained.


"Inaccuracies"? Not at all.

One of the tactics used here is to make an unsubstantiated claim, and then pretend like it's true ... like you've done anything other than state an opinion. There are some varying opinions about the legality of the Trump Jr./Russian meeting ... but what there is ZERO doubt of is that Don Jr. and the Trump camp LIED about it for months.

You guys remind me of Bill Clinton ... "define collusion" ... which has been done multiple times.

Have you all been reduced to nothing more than pallid semantics arguments by the lies of the Trumps?




top topics



 
40
<< 40  41  42    44 >>

log in

join