Trump acknowledges purpose of meeting with Russian lawyer

a reply to: Swills

I thought you chaps had moved on from "collusion" as it is not illegal and were now using "conspiracy"?
Trump just said what his son said months ago - and that is news?

You realise there is absolutely nothing illegal with receiving information about an opponent - no matter who is providing it - right? Now if they knew they were receiving illegally obtained information that might be different, but there is no suggestion of that either now or in the emails that were produced.

What you have here is a meeting with a Russian lawyer who said she had dirt on Hillary and a campaign interested in receiving it... i.e. nothing for Trump (or his son) to be even slightly worried about.

Liberals could criminalise waking up in the morning if it suited their cause. Pathetic.

a reply to: Whereismypassword

True, he would look more presidential. However, I have seen a variety of videos of him in his ''rallies'' and conferences and meetings with foreign leaders and such and honestly, those that I have seen do not demonstrate to me what I consider to be presidential qualities. But at least he would not have this legacy of almost random thoughts from the top of his head spilling out into his infosphere.

a reply to: UKTruth


SHHHHHH!


HUSH!


If the left is going to make "taking a meeting" as collusion and treason, let them!

Like most everything else, it'll bite them in the ass.

And it'll be funny.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: UKTruth


SHHHHHH!


HUSH!


If the left is going to make "taking a meeting" as collusion and treason, let them!

Like most everything else, it'll bite them in the ass.

And it'll be funny.

Oh yeah, I forgot... a President meeting with the Russia leader is classed as treason now... so yeah I guess any meeting with a foreigner is treason.

I think that means quite a few heads in Washington are going to roll. A good thing!

a reply to: UKTruth

The mental gymnastics is working overtime today, eh?

TBH, I'm not putting all my eggs in the Collusion basket and never have, but as time goes on the evidence continues to mount that there was indeed collusion and today Trump admitted it himself but thinks the excuse he didn't know will keep him out of trouble. As if I'm ever gonna believe that.

So this is all legal you say? Looks to me you've been drinking way too much conservative media to think that's at all legal. Imagine if Obama's campaign was found to be working with Russia over the same thing, dirt on Hillary, do you really think you wouldn't attack him, calling everything totally legal and move on?

originally posted by: MiddleInsite
a reply to: MiddleInsite

Oppps. Took me too long to write my comment. Someone already beat me to "but Hillary"

HDS is strong with this group.

Wish I could come up with such “original” content! Almost forgot...get out of your bubble, get some fresh air, and breathe!

a reply to: Swills

You are engaging in conjecture on what others would have said if Obama held such a meeting. I don't think your argument is going to be very effective in laying out a criminal case, do you?

Prosecution : "your honour, conservatives would have been all over twitter if this was Obama, so there"
Judge "please remove this idiot from the courtroom and charge him for wasting the courts time"

Please explain as clearly as you can what crime has been committed. Given that you say I am drinking 'way too much conservative media' because I am saying there is no crime, you must surely have the specifics of the crime in question.
Let us all know... whilst you are at it, maybe you could let us know what new information we have today that we didn't have months ago.

originally posted by: Swills
a reply to: UKTruth

The mental gymnastics is working overtime today, eh?

TBH, I'm not putting all my eggs in the Collusion basket and never have, but as time goes on the evidence continues to mount that there was indeed collusion and today Trump admitted it himself but thinks the excuse he didn't know will keep him out of trouble. As if I'm ever gonna believe that.

So this is all legal you say? Looks to me you've been drinking way too much conservative media to think that's at all legal. Imagine if Obama's campaign was found to be working with Russia over the same, dirt on Hillary, do you really think you wouldn't attack him, calling everything totally legal and move on?

Ah, I see you binge on leftist kool-aid yourself, not that you'll ever believe anything outside of liberal media.

What mounting evidence of collusion? Lol, that leftist spin again.

Don't need to imagine Obummer for anything, he spied on the Trump campaign.

You and your ilk vomit old news, an one we'vs stated many times before.

Sucks, I know, you got all excited, as usual for leftist hit peices 😌

originally posted by: TonyS
a reply to: Kharron

Assuming the opponent refered to was HRC, would information gathering be illegal? What if the information sought had to do with the Uranium 1 deal?

Learn the FACTS on the Uranium thing.

I keep saying this,

This guy just keeps digging his grave doesn't he.

Even if we want to say that there is nothing wrong with this, even if we go as far to say that yup, nothing wrong with the shady stuffy that went on that culminated in that meeting its just good political sense that he would distance himself from it. Saying he didn't know about it at the time means squat because he is saying he knows his son met with these people to get information on his opposition. I guess the only question is when he knew.

Regardless however, he has just admitted that he knows his own son met with individuals to get information on his opposition, those individuals who it is believed may have been part of a Russian campaign to interfere with the 2016 election and he has just landed himself right in the Sheet with yet another stupid tweet.

I don't care if you think that what went down was perfectly legal or was 100% wrong but I think everyone should at least be able to find some common ground in this in saying that this guy needs to stop tweeting about anything to do with Russia because with each tweet he risks incriminating himself.

Idiot!

originally posted by: angeldoll
To say "I did not know about it", only serves to confirm that he did.

I caught that too.

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Where is your information that the Russian lawyer was involved in trying to interfere with the 2016 election?
You just made that up - a complete lie - for effect.

Trump 'admitted' nothing - he just confirmed what his son had already said months ago - or has that escaped you in your rush to react?

There is not a thing in any of his tweets that will get him into trouble. If you think there is then name it... and to help you, frustrated and exploding liberal heads is not trouble - only funny (and I suspect the purpose of the tweets in the first place).

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: TonyS
a reply to: Kharron

Assuming the opponent refered to was HRC, would information gathering be illegal? What if the information sought had to do with the Uranium 1 deal?

Learn the FACTS on the Uranium thing.

Enlighten us then.

a reply to: Kharron

This is all part of Trump's 4d chess y'all. He trolling y'all. Benghazi, Podesta, Obama.

originally posted by: Muninn

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: TonyS
a reply to: Kharron

Assuming the opponent refered to was HRC, would information gathering be illegal? What if the information sought had to do with the Uranium 1 deal?

Learn the FACTS on the Uranium thing.

Enlighten us then.

There are threads on ATS. You can research yourself.

Do not use wrong/mis-information to try to make a point.

a reply to: UKTruth

Where is your information that the Russian lawyer was involved in trying to interfere with the 2016 election?
You just made that up - a complete lie - for effect.

I normally don't even bother replying to your posts anymore but I just think I need to clear this up.

Look at what I said, I never actually said it was a fact that the Russian lawyer was interfering with the election I said it is believed that individuals at that meeting were. That is to say, its a matter that is still being looked into as some believe that individuals at that meeting were connected to the Russian government I am not making a statement of fact hence I am not lying.

nice try though at misrepresenting what I am saying, something you seem rather good at.

All I am saying is that each time Trump tweets on Russia he risks incriminating himself.

a reply to: Southern Guardian

Hillary and her camp put forth Russian bought propaganda that was lies, Trump Jr. was interested in actual wrongdoing that was offered to him. Why do you have a problem with exposing actual crimes?

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Muninn

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: TonyS
a reply to: Kharron

Assuming the opponent refered to was HRC, would information gathering be illegal? What if the information sought had to do with the Uranium 1 deal?

Learn the FACTS on the Uranium thing.

Enlighten us then.

Do not use wrong/mis-information to try to make a point.

Word salad.

🥗

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Anyone on either side who broke the law should be exposed. As of yet, including this tweet, there is zero evidence Trump or his son are in that group.

originally posted by: Southern Guardian
a reply to: Kharron

This is all part of Trump's 4d chess y'all. He trolling y'all. Benghazi, Podesta, Obama.

Of course and has been duping you poor souls with diagnosed TAD, its been hilarious to see you people wrong at every turn.

#2020 😏