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.

 

Help me understand the Russian Collusion angle.

page: 12
30
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 7 2017 @ 04:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: Flatfish

And.....there was no "special relationship" between Natalia and the Obama administration or the DNC.

Why in the hell would she have a special relationship with the very people who enacted the very law, (the Magnitsky Act) that she is trying to get rid of?

That relationship is just a figment of your special little mind's hopeful imagination.


It sounds like the Magnitsky Act and the dirt on Hillary was all a scam for Trump Jr to go to the meeting. Now who would want Trump Jr. to go to this meeting that lasted a whole 10 or 15 mins. Do you honestly think Natalia intent was to talk to Trump Jr about Magnitsky Act? Why the hell would she do that? Why would she say she was a Government rep when she wasn't and so on....

She was a guest of former Obama administration Russian Ambassador Michael McFaul in Washington DC for a House of Representatives hearing on U.S. Policy Toward Putin’s Russia five days after her meeting with Trump Jr. She was denied a visa and then received a parole from who knows...wasn't the USCIS


Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles Grassley on Tuesday demanded to know how Veselnitskaya was able to stay in the U.S. after her parole expired. “This raises serious questions about whether the Obama administration authorized her to remain in the country, and if so, why?”


Was here illegally and even left and came back in illegally,unless she had other means, like state department support.




posted on Aug, 7 2017 @ 04:44 PM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

Once again, that is not comparable to what happened here.



posted on Aug, 7 2017 @ 04:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Flatfish

And.....there was no "special relationship" between Natalia and the Obama administration or the DNC.

Why in the hell would she have a special relationship with the very people who enacted the very law, (the Magnitsky Act) that she is trying to get rid of?

That relationship is just a figment of your special little mind's hopeful imagination.


It sounds like the Magnitsky Act and the dirt on Hillary was all a scam for Trump Jr to go to the meeting. Now who would want Trump Jr. to go to this meeting that lasted a whole 10 or 15 mins. Do you honestly think Natalia intent was to talk to Trump Jr about Magnitsky Act? Why the hell would she do that? Why would she say she was a Government rep when she wasn't and so on....

She was a guest of former Obama administration Russian Ambassador Michael McFaul in Washington DC for a House of Representatives hearing on U.S. Policy Toward Putin’s Russia five days after her meeting with Trump Jr. She was denied a visa and then received a parole from who knows...wasn't the USCIS


Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles Grassley on Tuesday demanded to know how Veselnitskaya was able to stay in the U.S. after her parole expired. “This raises serious questions about whether the Obama administration authorized her to remain in the country, and if so, why?”


Was here illegally and even left and came back in illegally,unless she had other means, like state department support.



Indeed - here we have the Obama administration working to keep a Russian agent in the country. How odd.



posted on Aug, 7 2017 @ 04:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: network dude



Again, there was a degree of separation. FusionGPS was hired by a US law firm. The identity of whom the US law firm was working for would probably not have been mentioned to FusionGPS due to attorney-client privilege. OR so that is how I understand it. I could be wrong.



Browder testified that Fusion GPS knew exactly who they were working for. From the transcript of his testimony.


Veselnitskaya, through Baker Hostetler, hired Glenn Simpson of the firm Fusion GPS to conduct a smear campaign against me and Sergei Magnitsky in advance of congressional hearings on the Global Magnitsky Act. He contacted a number of major newspapers and other publications to spread false information that Sergei Magnitsky was not murdered, was not a whistle-blower, and was instead a criminal. They also spread false information that my presentations to lawmakers around the world were untrue.


www.theatlantic.com...

Or do you think when they were fighting on behalf getting the Magnitsky act repealed they didn't know who that was helping?

And keep in mind, this testimony directly links Fusion and Veselnitskya. Do you have proof she was working for the Kremlin, or was she seperated as a lawyer.

Again, I find the double standard to be confusing. There is exactly as much evidence that the russian lawyer was working for the Kremlin as there was that Fusion GPS was. But you say there is a differnce because of degrees of seperation.



posted on Aug, 7 2017 @ 04:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: shooterbrody

Once again, that is not comparable to what happened here.


No, it's worse.
The Democrats worked with an agency who had previously lobbied for Russia, and then to provide service to the democrats worked with an ex British intelligence guy who got all his info directly from Russian agents and never even met them. To top it all off, they never even declared the input from foreign nationals, British and Russian, for their smears against a political opponent.
Meanwhile they were also busy working with the Ukrainian govt to get information on Trump's campaign team.

edit on 7/8/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 7 2017 @ 04:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Grambler




They were working on behalf of a US law firm. That is an important distinction.


Why is that destinction important? It makes no sense.

So your argument would be that if Vesel (the russian lawyer) was working for a russian law firm that was working for Putin, then Trump jr. is absolutely in the clear because she was just working for a law firm?



posted on Aug, 7 2017 @ 04:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Grambler




They were working on behalf of a US law firm. That is an important distinction.


Why is that destinction important? It makes no sense.

So your argument would be that if Vesel (the russian lawyer) was working for a russian law firm that was working for Putin, then Trump jr. is absolutely in the clear because she was just working for a law firm?


It's like I said - apparently if you are devious enough, then all is well.



posted on Aug, 7 2017 @ 04:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Jonjonj
a reply to: Dudemo5




I personally don't know if there was a good reason for the DNC not to hand over the physical server. I'd have to hear the reason before I could judge it. 


This isn't the point at all.

The point is...****drum roll****...

Why the actual F*** were they allowed to not hand them over?

What????



An excellent point - and with the news today that Comey lied in his testimony when he said there was no documentation regarding the Clinton/Lynch meeting, one has to wonder if he has been hiding some truths and what did and has come out is the tip of the iceberg that he couldn't hold back.

The fact that he allowed the DNC to dictate the terms of his investigation is troubling to say the least.


Nah, it isn't troubling at all. It is blatant and illegal. But 'cos we are on a website that dictates the terms of our terminology, or rather we say what we mean in between the lines...

Facts speak for themselves dude.

Not one person has really got down and dirty with the OP. It is an attempted coup is what it is. Pure and simple.




posted on Aug, 7 2017 @ 04:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler



Browder testified that Fusion GPS knew exactly who they were working for. From the transcript of his testimony.


That is correct. Browder is the man that filed the complain against FusionGPS last year because FusionGPS was hired to collect info on Browder.



Or do you think when they were fighting on behalf getting the Magnitsky act repealed they didn't know who that was helping?


I'm not sure.



And keep in mind, this testimony directly links Fusion and Veselnitskya. Do you have proof she was working for the Kremlin, or was she seperated as a lawyer.


Separated as a lawyer? I'm not sure what you mean.



Again, I find the double standard to be confusing. There is exactly as much evidence that the russian lawyer was working for the Kremlin as there was that Fusion GPS was. But you say there is a differnce because of degrees of seperation.


Yes, there is a degree of separation. FusionGPS was hired by a US law firm.

Trump Jr and Trump campaign folks met directly with Veselnitskya under the notion they were going to receive information about their political opponent from Russia.

What that means in the end, I cannot say. I am not a lawyer, but I can say that it is different than what the DNC is alleged to have done.



posted on Aug, 7 2017 @ 04:58 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert




I am not a lawyer...


You could have just left it at that, really.

What the hell are you going through all the possible legalities for if you end up saying that?

Oh... I get it.




edit on 7-8-2017 by Jonjonj because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 7 2017 @ 05:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler



Why is that destinction important? It makes no sense.


In the eyes of the law, it may make a world of difference.

They were not directly tied to the Russian players, as far as I know.

Trump Jr and staff are.



So your argument would be that if Vesel (the russian lawyer) was working for a russian law firm that was working for Putin, then Trump jr. is absolutely in the clear because she was just working for a law firm?


No, because he would be working for a Russian law firm, not a US law firm.



posted on Aug, 7 2017 @ 05:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Grambler



Yes, there is a degree of separation. FusionGPS was hired by a US law firm.

Trump Jr and Trump campaign folks met directly with Veselnitskya under the notion they were going to receive information about their political opponent from Russia.

What that means in the end, I cannot say. I am not a lawyer, but I can say that it is different than what the DNC is alleged to have done.


Lets play this out then. Are you really telling me that if Russia contacted someone like say Podesta, and said we have info that Trump is colluding with us in an illegal or unethical way, it would have been improper for him to take that meeting?

That is ridiculous.

The fact is no matter what assumptions Trump jr. had going in, he did not receive information on Hillary, and there is no proof the lawyer was a russian agent.

But we know the DNC not only talked to a group that there is the EXACT same amount of proof was working for Russia as that lawyer, but they PAID them, and actually proceeded to receive negative information about their opponent.

You assume to know what the communications between Fusion GPS and the DNC people that hired them were.

How do you know those communications don't have Fusion telling the DNC that they have Russian state officials that want Hillary to win and have dirt on Donald?

You don't, yet you continue to act as if you do and discuss how different the situations are.



posted on Aug, 7 2017 @ 05:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Grambler



Why is that destinction important? It makes no sense.


In the eyes of the law, it may make a world of difference.

They were not directly tied to the Russian players, as far as I know.

Trump Jr and staff are.



So your argument would be that if Vesel (the russian lawyer) was working for a russian law firm that was working for Putin, then Trump jr. is absolutely in the clear because she was just working for a law firm?


No, because he would be working for a Russian law firm, not a US law firm.


And here is where your argument falls apart.

First, you have no proof at all the russian lawyer was working for the Kremlin, and therfore are wrong that Trump jr. was meeting russian players.

Second, you are no claiming that the location of the law firm you work for determines rather or not it is criminal to have a meeting. This is absurd.

So merely meeting with a Russian law firm is now a crime or unethical? Unbelievable.
edit on 7-8-2017 by Grambler because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 7 2017 @ 05:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Grambler



Why is that destinction important? It makes no sense.


In the eyes of the law, it may make a world of difference.

They were not directly tied to the Russian players, as far as I know.

Trump Jr and staff are.



So your argument would be that if Vesel (the russian lawyer) was working for a russian law firm that was working for Putin, then Trump jr. is absolutely in the clear because she was just working for a law firm?


No, because he would be working for a Russian law firm, not a US law firm.


You are arguing that as long as you use a cut out, it's ok.
Seriously?



posted on Aug, 7 2017 @ 05:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: Jonjonj
a reply to: introvert




I am not a lawyer...


You could have just left it at that, really.



The OP asked about laws that may apply and I simply added what I have read from a few legal sources.

I do not claim it is true or that anything will come of it. We're simply speculating and even though I highlight the differences that I see, it does not mean I am pushing against Trump or his team.

I actually hope all of this turns out to be nothing, Trump starts to lead this nation and we can put this behind us.



posted on Aug, 7 2017 @ 05:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler



Lets play this out then. Are you really telling me that if Russia contacted someone like say Podesta, and said we have info that Trump is colluding with us in an illegal or unethical way, it would have been improper for him to take that meeting?


Yes, it may have been improper. I'm not quite sure.



The fact is no matter what assumptions Trump jr. had going in, he did not receive information on Hillary, and there is no proof the lawyer was a russian agent.


It may not matter whether or not he got the information. From reading the statutes, the fact the promise was made and that Trump Jr met with them with the specific intent to receive that information may be damning.

May be. Again, I am not speaking in absolutes.



But we know the DNC not only talked to a group that there is the EXACT same amount of proof was working for Russia as that lawyer, but they PAID them, and actually proceeded to receive negative information about their opponent. You assume to know what the communications between Fusion GPS and the DNC people that hired them were.


I assume nothing. The only thing I have spoken about is the fact FusionGPS was hired by a US law firm. That provides a degree of separation that makes it different than the Trump Jr issue.

Surely you can admit that.



How do you know those communications don't have Fusion telling the DNC that they have Russian state officials that want Hillary to win and have dirt on Donald?


If those communications took place, let's get it out in the open.



You don't, yet you continue to act as if you do and discuss how different the situations are.


They are different and I don't know everything.

I think your snarkiness is coming out and you need to relax. We're just throwing this around to discuss it. We don't have to aggressive or snippy.



posted on Aug, 7 2017 @ 05:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler



First, you have no proof at all the russian lawyer was working for the Kremlin, and therfore are wrong that Trump jr. was meeting russian players.


True. I do not have that proof. I am talking about the legal aspects, which the OP asked for, in regards to this issue if the lawyer was working on Russia's behalf. Considering that they were lobbying against the Malinsky act, that is a good possibility.

Again, I am not speaking in absolutes.



Second, you are no claiming that the location of the law firm you work for determines rather or not it is criminal to have a meeting. This is absurd.


Depending on the reason for the meeting and if it's in regards to info of a political opponent that could be considered a thing "of value", it may have been against election laws.



So merely meeting with a Russian law firm is now a crime or unethical? Unbelievable.


Again, I'm not sure. That is for lawyers and courts to figure out. I make no claims.

We're just speculating.



posted on Aug, 7 2017 @ 05:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Flatfish

And.....there was no "special relationship" between Natalia and the Obama administration or the DNC.

Why in the hell would she have a special relationship with the very people who enacted the very law, (the Magnitsky Act) that she is trying to get rid of?

That relationship is just a figment of your special little mind's hopeful imagination.


It sounds like the Magnitsky Act and the dirt on Hillary was all a scam for Trump Jr to go to the meeting. Now who would want Trump Jr. to go to this meeting that lasted a whole 10 or 15 mins. Do you honestly think Natalia intent was to talk to Trump Jr about Magnitsky Act? Why the hell would she do that? Why would she say she was a Government rep when she wasn't and so on....

She was a guest of former Obama administration Russian Ambassador Michael McFaul in Washington DC for a House of Representatives hearing on U.S. Policy Toward Putin’s Russia five days after her meeting with Trump Jr. She was denied a visa and then received a parole from who knows...wasn't the USCIS


Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles Grassley on Tuesday demanded to know how Veselnitskaya was able to stay in the U.S. after her parole expired. “This raises serious questions about whether the Obama administration authorized her to remain in the country, and if so, why?”


Was here illegally and even left and came back in illegally,unless she had other means, like state department support.



I don't think the Magnitsky Act was the primary concern either, but the Russians may have been smart enough to use it as a cover topic in case the room was bugged.

I do believe the $230 million dollar Prevezon Holdings money laundering case was the primary concern and I believe it could have been part of a deal laid out in the package that Natalia delivered to Don Jr..

As in; The Russians deliver the dirt they have acquired on Hillary in exchange for making the Prevezon Holdings case disappear.

And....10 or 15 minutes is plenty of time to drop off a package.

With respect to Natalia overstaying her visa, I have no idea what happened. What are you proposing? Are you saying that Obama and the DNC went to all this effort just to frame Trump at a time when no one even thought he had a fart's chance in a hurricane of winning the election?

You're gonna have to do better than that. Whatever your theory is, it at least has to make sense.



posted on Aug, 7 2017 @ 05:24 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert




I do not claim it is true or that anything will come of it. We're simply speculating and even though I highlight the differences that I see, it does not mean I am pushing against Trump or his team. 


I don't mind playing games but this? This is an absolute lie according to your behaviour on these boards.

Sorry, deleted or not, you lied here.




posted on Aug, 7 2017 @ 05:32 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

I don't feel I am being snarky at all. I am merely pointing out your inconsistencies.

You are claiming that rather or not Vesel was working for the Russian government may not matter, its only what Trump jr. thought he was going to meet based on the email.

Yet you admit you have no idea what Fusion GPS said in their communications with the DNC people that hired them. So how are you so sure the situations are different?

As far as the location of a law frim, this is an absurd argument. I will bet f I looked I could find a list of at least 50 politicians that met with a Russian lawyer in the last year, if not more.

The geography doesn't matter, its who these lawyers are working for that matters.

So meeting with an anti Putin Russian lawyer would be ok.

But meeting with a US based law firm working on the behalf of the Kremlin may be more problematic. (again, I don't think just a meeting matters at all, as long as no imporpriety happened, but at the very least geography doesn't matter).



new topics

top topics



 
30
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join