Trump acknowledges purpose of meeting with Russian lawyer

a reply to: Annee

Are you saying the trump campaign wasn't earth shattering enough?

Here's an article where assange talks about trump dirt

originally posted by: underpass61


So, let's say in a perfect lib world

"Lib" has nothing to do with it unless you want to concede that truth, facts, justice, sovereignty, free elections, the law etc. are values only liberals advocate for.

Trump Jr. is tried and found guilty of something related to this. What's the penalty? Will he be going to the gallows or just paying some meaningless fine and be on his way?

Guilty or not.
A slap on the wrist, exonerated, jail time?

Whatever the facts, evidence and justice system decide.

It is the disease of obstructing justice that has spread from Trump to Trumpites that is intolerable, whatever the outcome.

The constant attack and desperate effort to end or derail a legitimate investigation being conducted by honorable and patriotic people, before congress or the justice system can even consider the evidence.

It's disgusting. It is 3rd world dictator tactics. It is un-American to it's core.

originally posted by: Annee
a reply to: soberbacchus

Always interesting that WikiLeaks didn't have info on Hillary's opponent.

As I've been told on ATS - - WikiLeaks is completely unbiased.

Here is Assange strategizing with Russian FSB on when and what to release to maximize damage to the Clinton Campaign and help Trump:

Around July 6, Wikileaks corresponded with the Russian intelligence officers, saying, “if you have anything hillary related we want it in the next tweo [sic] days prefable [sic] because the DNC is approaching and she will solidify bernie supporters behind her after.”

“ok ... i see,” the Russians responded.

Then, Wikileaks explained their motives for wanting information that would reveal the tension between the Sanders and Hillary camps.

“we think trump has only a 25% chance of winning against hillary ... so conflict between bernie and hillary is interesting,” Wikileaks responded.

www.vox.com...

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: Annee

Are you saying the trump campaign wasn't earth shattering enough?

Here's an article where assange talks about trump dirt

Which says what?

Assange giving excuses on why he doesn't release any dirt on Trump.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: Annee

Are you saying the trump campaign wasn't earth shattering enough?

Here's an article where assange talks about trump dirt

Which says what?

Assange giving excuses on why he doesn't release any dirt on Trump.

Bottom line is that Assange wants the Edward Snowden ex-pat package from Russia and has been their pet for years now.

a reply to: soberbacchus

No info was gotten. so no crime was the result. All trump jr got out of the meeting was hot air.

a reply to: conscientiousobserver

Hmmm seems I misspoke they made it difficult for him to any sanctions.

link

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: soberbacchus

No info was gotten. so no crime was the result. All trump jr got out of the meeting was hot air.

You take a gun to a crime scene.

Whether you use it or not - - still a crime.

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: soberbacchus

But hillary was deep in bed with government officials in ukraine trying to secure her election, so there's no false equivalence really

NOPE.

That argument pre-supposes that the Ukrainian Government would hide and cover up Manafort's illegal payments and name in their deposed leaders corruption investigation. Why? Would they just naturally cover-up manaforts illicit dealings uncovered in their investigation into the former Presidents corruption?

Should they just stay mum, cuz he was brought on to lead lead the Trump Campaign?

One was a criminal act offered by the Russian Government to assist the Trump Campaign and apparently received enthusiastically "I love it!" as Junior said.

The other was evidence revealed in a criminal investigation (Manafort taking illicit payments from the former Ukrainian Putin Puppet).

Your false equivalence only works if you start with the assumption that Ukraine was obligated to cover up Manaforts involvement in Criminal activity and Corruption in their country.

originally posted by: conscientiousobserver
a reply to: conscientiousobserver

Hmmm seems I misspoke they made it difficult for him to any sanctions.

link

Congress is beginning to step up and do their job?

Could it be - - they've allowed Trump to go so far - - and now have had enough of his "Wild Card" antics?

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: soberbacchus

No info was gotten. so no crime was the result. All trump jr got out of the meeting was hot air.

"No info was gotten"??

Says who?

Kushner smelled future congressional investigations the minute he got there and bolted soon after. I give him points for being the smartest jack ass in the room.

Trump Junior (according to Trump's personal attorney) lied to congress under oath about the meeting.

Manafort would be the one naturally suited to follow up and make things happen, and he refuses to sing.

In the Meanwhile Daddy Trump wrote a ridiculous public release that was a Huuuuge lie.

I will wait for the Special Counsel's conclusion about that Trump Tower meeting before deciding that no quid pro quo took place and to comment on what information or offers were extended or received.

a reply to: soberbacchus

Oh please. There's nothing patriotic about the Mueller probe. The very probe itself is the textbook example of 3rd world dictator tactics.

A corrupt FBI uses propaganda, paid for by the opposing campaign, to apply for a fisa warrant to spy on carter page, a former campaign member and a person that they knew was not a russian spy because he was working with the FBI just a couple months prior. They launder the opposition research through the media then use that circular and manufactured cycle as evidence to obtain that warrant. All while concealing the ties to the opposing candidates campaign.

Then they plant informants (or whatever you want to call them) into the campaign who attempt to entrap trump campaign officials (unsuccessfully).

Then, after the election they begin unmasking american citizens, violating their civil liberties, and leaking classified information to the press to damage the incoming administration. The outgoing admin instructs career bureaucrats to resist the incoming administrations attempts to change the broken bureaucracy.

Then the FBI begins leaking damaging, classified information about the president and his team to the press, for money and other favors. They also lay traps for officials and decide to prosecute even when it was thought they hadn't actually fallen into the traps (see flynn).

The outgoing FBI director then takes classified information out of the custody of the FBI, leaks it to a friend, with the intent of getting a special counsel appointed as revenge for his firing (which was just and fair based on any reasonable interpretation of his tenure). Said FBI director then proceeds to perjure himself about what information was used to obtain the previously discussed FISA warrant.

A special counsel is appointed and the person picked to lead it is a good friend and mentor to the FBI director who perjured himself, stole classified info and leaked it with the express purpose of having a special counsel appointed.

The special counsel proceeds to dredge up old crimes (which had been investigated and dropped) and process crimes for people involved in the Trump campaign. They also indict some russians (using information gathered by reporters years before and ham fistedly stealing from other indictments which had been dismissed) with the expectation that they would never appear in court and in fact try to prevent those russians from appearing in court when one group has counsel show up to defend them.

Banana republic indeed. See, if trump were to use 3rd world dictator tactics, he'd have all of these officials rounded up and hung. Or shot. Or put in the electric chair. That's what a 3rd world dictator would do. You know it. I know it. Everyone knows it. Instead trump is allowing them to continue with their banana republic investigation meant to nullify a fair and free election.

I can back up 95% of that with fact based reports.

a reply to: Dfairlite

I give you a 4% accuracy rating on that post.

It is an amazing summary of false claims and debunked BS.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: soberbacchus

No info was gotten. so no crime was the result. All trump jr got out of the meeting was hot air.

You take a gun to a crime scene.

Whether you use it or not - - still a crime.

Not according to the Laws on getting information from foreign nationals. your comparison is stupid.

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: soberbacchus

No info was gotten. so no crime was the result. All trump jr got out of the meeting was hot air.

"No info was gotten"??

Says who?

Kushner smelled future congressional investigations the minute he got there and bolted soon after. I give him points for being the smartest jack ass in the room.

Trump Junior (according to Trump's personal attorney) lied to congress under oath about the meeting.

Manafort would be the one naturally suited to follow up and make things happen, and he refuses to sing.

In the Meanwhile Daddy Trump wrote a ridiculous public release that was a Huuuuge lie.

I will wait for the Special Counsel's conclusion about that Trump Tower meeting before deciding that no quid pro quo took place and to comment on what information or offers were extended or received.

COHEN said BEFORE he was arrested that Trump Sr. didnt know of trump Jrs meeting. I remember the tweet. But NOW...COhen is saying he did. SO now you use evidence from a LIAR to support your assertion. Give me a break. Cohens made a deal to save his Arse and lying at the direction of prosecutors(who btw have a history of this)

Sneaky how you didnt say COHEN though.

a reply to: soberbacchus

Before we go any further, would you admit that if my post is accurate it would be very damning to the current situation with the probe?

After you answer that, what would you say is inaccurate? Did comey not take classified info and leak it to get a special counsel? Did the FBI not spy on trump officials? Were many of those with the incoming administration not unmasked? Was the FBI not leaking info for money and favors? Are the crimes the special counsel is pursuing not in the categories I listed?

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: soberbacchus

No info was gotten. so no crime was the result. All trump jr got out of the meeting was hot air.

Let me post a definition for you:

so·lic·it
səˈlisit/
verb
verb: solicit; 3rd person present: solicits; past tense: solicited; past participle: solicited; gerund or present participle: soliciting
ask for or try to obtain (something) from someone.
"he called a meeting to solicit their views"

now the reason why I felt it incumbent on me to provide that definition:

(a)Prohibition
It shall be unlawful for—
(1)a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make—
(A)a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election;
(B)a contribution or donation to a committee of a political party; or
(C)an expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication (within the meaning of section 30104(f)(3) of this title); or
(2)a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) from a foreign national.

Per the above, even if you attempt to get information from a foreign national (SOLICIT), it is unlawful (a CRIME)
In case you need help unpacking that US Code I'll rewrite it in a way that makes sense

It shall be unlawful for (down to section 2) a person to solicit (back up to section 1a) a other thing of value (back up to section 1) from a foreign national.

Written this way, has a crime been committed simply by the act of trying to obtain information, irrespective of whether or not anything of value was actually obtained?

a reply to: alphabetaone

Incorrect. Soliciting information is not a violation. Soliciting donations is.

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: alphabetaone

Incorrect. Soliciting information is not a violation. Soliciting donations is.

Show me where it makes any such distinction.

(ETA) I never said information in any of that, I said (written within that law) thing of value, so unless you do NOT consider information as a thing of value (which im actually beginning to believe that you don't), then it isn't wrong, and you are.

a reply to: alphabetaone

Information is speech not a "thing of value"

And yes you did say information, maybe you need to reread what you wrote.

You: Per the above, even if you attempt to get information from a foreign national (SOLICIT), it is unlawful (a CRIME) 
In case you need help unpacking that US Code I'll rewrite it in a way that makes sense