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.

 

Trump Jr. Told Russian Lawyer 'If We Come to Power' an Anti-Russia Law Would Be Reconsidered

page: 1
11
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 12:47 PM
link   
The famous "Russian" lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya that was "present" at the now famous Trump Tower meeting did a long interview in Moscow.

Her claim is that Donald Trump Jr asked for proof that Russian had dirt on Democrats and Hillary Clinton.

After no proof, Trump Jr and Kushner apparently walked out!!

He threw out some bait about somehow getting rid of some anti-Russian law or policy.

Gasp.

Sounds like the meeting was an implant failure.

DONALD TRUMP JR. TOLD RUSSIAN LAWYER 'IF WE COME TO POWER' AN ANTI-RUSSIA LAW WOULD BE RECONSIDERED


The Russian lawyer who met with Donald Trump Jr. to provide political dirt on Democrats during the 2016 election said the president's son offered a change in U.S. law "if we come to power," but the Trump team promptly lost interest when the lawyer could not provide information incriminating Hillary Clinton.

Kremlin-linked lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya broke her silence Monday in an interview reported by Bloomberg, saying she sent a four-page memo to the Trump team before the June 9 meeting revealing that the Ziff brothers, wealthy Democratic donors, allegedly evaded paying U.S. taxes on Russian investments. Trump Jr. was very interested in that detail, but only if it related to Clinton, his father's 2016 rival.




"“I made up my mind a long time ago:
My testimony must be honest, full and public,” she said."



+13 more 
posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 12:49 PM
link   
I understand how you can find what she said funny, because youve never been honest once in all you propaganda thread.

edit on 6-11-2017 by dukeofjive696969 because: (no reason given)


+5 more 
posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 12:56 PM
link   
The lengths people go to concoct #alternativefacts for a partisan slant is pretty sad honestly


+3 more 
posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 01:13 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

So there was actual collusion with Russian representatives. I think we all new that.

And now with this Wilbur Ross deal....lookin kinda funky!!! Russkies everywhere you look eh?


www.rawstory.com...



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 01:21 PM
link   
What's the difference between the op and the LEFT paying a British Spy for 'dirt' on Trump ?



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 01:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
What's the difference between the op and the LEFT paying a British Spy for 'dirt' on Trump ?



Nothing and everything....




All depends who you ask







posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 01:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
What's the difference between the op and the LEFT paying a British Spy for 'dirt' on Trump ?



Answer:

"The color of the money actually paid"





posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 01:27 PM
link   
Looks like Mueller has some fresh meat to investigate.

Not that he needs any more now that Jared K. is spilling his guts.



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 01:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
What's the difference between the op and the LEFT paying a British Spy for 'dirt' on Trump ?



Nothing. As long as said spy is representing a foreign government.



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 01:30 PM
link   
Then the next question is what's the difference between the op and marching out illegal immigrants on stage at a national convention to effect the outcome of a presidential election?

edit on 6-11-2017 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 01:34 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

the dems paid money that didn't come from the gov't...
the right might actually have made a deal to change gov't policies for favors...the dropping of sanctions.... "russian adoptions"...
and, it's possible that by dropping those sanctions all those that they are finding to have connections with russia might have been in position, or placed themselves in positions where they could have been some big financial gains.



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 01:35 PM
link   
Doesn't sound good no matter how you spin it.



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 01:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
Then the next question is what's the difference between the op and marching out illegal immigrants on stage at a national convention to effect the outcome of a presidential election?


Answer:

"The color of the money actually paid"





posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 01:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Taggart
Doesn't sound good no matter how you spin it.


No one spinning anything.

But in this case like every other day in American politics it's the pot calling the kettle.

So excuse us for not being 'outraged'.



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 01:41 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96




What's the difference between the op and the LEFT paying a British Spy for 'dirt' on Trump ?
The amount of $$$$


(post by Gothmog removed for a manners violation)

posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 01:50 PM
link   
If I had accurate dirt on the opposition, no matter where it came from, I would use it. The key word is accurate, true, not a lie. A man would be a fool not to.
It is our duty as citizens to expose the dirt of our leaders.



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 01:53 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 01:56 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

According to the people we have absolutely no reason to trust, and have already lied repeatedly about the meeting in question, CLAIMS nothing happened..

Suprise, suprise someone who is likely in legal trouble says they didn’t do it..



I guess we should just drop charges on everyone who says they didn’t do it..

BWAHAHAHA



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 01:56 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



new topics

top topics



 
11
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join