Todays other indictment DOES show Trumps team sought dirt on Hillary from Kremlin

originally posted by: matafuchs
If anything, I feel this guy exonerates Trump.

Which is exactly my point and the reference to North.

originally posted by: Grambler
Firther more, Trump is tweeting today in regards to the manafort news and about Hillary connetions and there is no collusion.

Well what about his official directly contacting what he thought were Kremlin officlas for dirt on Hillary.

Now perhaps they didnt actually get the dirt.

But come on trump.

Dont be so sanctimonious; your advisor just admitted to trying to set up off the record meetings to get dirt from russia on Hillary.

Surely that may show you why people have questions.

Like I said in your other longish thread, $1.1million dollars paid to Trump lawyers in the last quarter, including $50.000 to Trump Corp, a quarter $million to his son's, all from re-elction funds.
All they got from the source at the meeting in Trump House was about one line regarding Hillary.
The Russian lawyer was there to try and shut down Browder. That meeting was the same day as the lawyer was defending a fusion member in the US...that trial was abruptly settled for a pittance, and of course we know that a short while ago Browder has been barred from entering the US by Trump on the same day the Russians finally managed to get an Interpol warrant against him...Trump does not want Browder back for any intel session on Capitol hill.
Of course Russia wants rid of the Magnitsky act on the face of it, but there has to be much more to it, never mind the chaos...this is about money, and I pretty sure that the meeting in Trump House was also about the Russians knowledge of Trump's dealings...entrapment if you like, and since that meeting Trump's actions are those of someone who has ol' Damocles watching from above.
So, whatever it is, it stinks.

a reply to: windword

What advantage? HRC lost on her own not because of anything else. Saying otherwise is insane at this point.

WikiLeaks won the election? Nope. Brad Parscale won the election for Trump and no one even knows his name.

Apparently, higher ups in Trumps campaign had concrens about George here and his meetings. One of the people against it, Manafort himself.

The adviser, George Papadopoulos, offered to set up “a meeting between us and the Russian leadership to discuss US-Russia ties under President Trump,” telling them his Russian contacts welcomed the opportunity, according to internal campaign emails read to The Washington Post.

The proposal sent a ripple of concern through campaign headquarters in Trump Tower. Campaign co-chairman Sam Clovis wrote that he thought NATO allies should be consulted before any plans were made. Another Trump adviser, retired Navy Rear Adm. Charles Kubic, cited legal concerns, including a possible violation of U.S. sanctions against Russia and of the Logan Act, which prohibits U.S. citizens from unauthorized negotiation with foreign governments.

But Papadopoulos, a campaign volunteer with scant foreign policy experience, persisted. Between March and September, the self-described energy consultant sent at least a half-dozen requests for Trump, as he turned from primary candidate to party nominee, or for members of his team to meet with Russian officials. Among those to express concern about the effort was then-campaign chairman Paul Manafort, who rejected in May 2016 a proposal from Papadopoulos for Trump to do so.

www.washingtonpost.com... -5bd5460f0d7e_story.html?utm_term=.2976d379300d

I can not find if any of the emails to trumps team from george specifically mentions russia having emails on hillary, or having any dirt.

If not, then parhaps the trump team thought this was just a guy trying to set up a foreign policy meeting with russia.

But still worth looking into.

WOKE up this morning. Saw headline on my phone...

Went straight to FOX to see what the "official talking points for ATS" would be.

Not disappointed.

FoxBots out in full force this AM.

a reply to: matafuchs


That's your opinion. I don't agree. And, I never said WikiLeaks "won the election" for Trump. I said the stolen and leaked information gave him an advantage.

originally posted by: DanteGaland
WOKE up this morning. Saw headline on my phone...

Went straight to FOX to see what the "official talking points for ATS" would be.

Not disappointed.

FoxBots out in full force this AM.

Funny thing, I've been seeing the same things independently on Twitter and I haven't visited a fox website in years.

The history here is deep and if it takes a combination of lefties and righties to get everyone, so be it.

a reply to: windword

An advantage to win..otherwise why would you say advantage?

a reply to: Grambler

I bet it didn't take a subpoena to get that information out. Pin everything on one guy and if he won't willingly jump under the bus(a la North), throw him under. It worked 30 years ago. Why not use a tried and true method?

a reply to: Grambler

A traitor huh? From those on the left?

Seems a bit harsh, doesn't it?

a reply to: windword

It didn't give him an advantage at all. The never Trumpers had their minds already made up, just like the never Hillarys.

Oh my. Let it play out Gambler is right.

They are all guilty so may as well start somewhere.

Probably not a single person that isn't guilty in politics.

For everyone crying about hillary not being charged and deflecting

1. Hopefully she does and the crumbs don't blow away

2 why doesn't the doj bring up charges?

All of the uranium stuff,...why doesn't the doj act if it's so obvious.

Again 2 reasons.

1. Many people are guilty across the aisle

Or

2. It's B.S.

As far as indictments any one they get is a win for me.

a reply to: Wide-Eyes


Well, Trump sure stumped the WikiLeaks documents on the Campaign trail. I think it did give him an advantage. It's my opinion that those leaks were part of of quid pro quo deals, and so, when Trump gained the nomination, the GOP platform was changed to benefit Russian, at the behest of the Trump Campaign. Quid pro quo.

a reply to: Grambler

Given Ante’s sardonic, satirical take in an earlier thread, I was waiting for the ‘punchline’ to be delivered in closing your OP...absent some soon-to-be ‘gotcha’ take, I have to hand it to you, you are swimming upstream and have bravely moved against partainship in (what appears genuine rhetoric) the name of the truth. That’s commendable. And far from traitorous.

So divided we are as a nation, it is difficult to not put the cart before the horse, but this OP seems to suggest that no matter your (not Grambler, in particular, Americans who participate) political affiliation, there’s hope that we still believe in, “the whole is greater than the sum of its parts”.

Good job, Grambler!

originally posted by: DanteGaland
WOKE up this morning. Saw headline on my phone...

Went straight to FOX to see what the "official talking points for ATS" would be.

Not disappointed.

FoxBots out in full force this AM.

I think all the level headed members have agreed Manafort is scum before he was asked to turn himself in.

Plenty of us are willing to say that BOTH SIDES have been breaking the rules for a long time.

Super pacs have just made the waters muddied.

Speaking of bots and or shills, we all see members not call out their side of the isle

originally posted by: Painterz
It's a critical moment for American democracy too. The courts and the judicial process must be seen to be respected by all sides.

Otherwise the already seriously damaged faith in the entire system will be destroyed.

It's so important that Trump and the alt-right stop the attacks and deflections and maintain faith in the legal system. Without the rule of law.... anarchy.

Why should we maintain faith in a faithless institution that treats society as a whole with such contempt? The judicial system believes itself outside the rule of law, and particularly outside the the Constitutionally authorized matrix of responsibility and authority. The courts can shove their head in the pool and breathe deeply as far as I am concerned.

lolll one question.... how was it possible that it came so far that Russia elects an US president ?

guess:
fbi failed
cia failed
nsa failed
homeland failed
all intelligense failed ...now they are working on there image...far to late !
proberly to buizzy to interfear in other nation elections....
and hillary's mails ? so clumsy as you can exspect from her..

a reply to: Grambler

A meeting with no dirt. So... theres no evidence except the words fo a known Liar? The defense would rip this guy a new one massively on the stand.

I want the truth but when all they have is hearsay(because they didnt get any dirt on clinton) we have th eproblem of proving a crime on Trumps part. papa on th eother hand DID commit a crime though by purgery,and is trying to save his own arse. I want to see him on the stand with gowdy as cross examianer.

originally posted by: burnsE
Political opposition research. Nothing illegal about it. Hillary and Russia dealings go back many years before the 2016 election.

Hillary-Podesta-DNC crossed the line. Paying someone to create lies about your rival is illegal.

It looks like a lot of people around Trump were doing some shady things, mostly money laundering and acting as a foreign agent without registering, and meeting with Russian officials. Who knows if Trump himself did anything illegal, I'm guessing Mueller will get to that last.