NY Times: Trump’s Son Met With Russian Lawyer, Expected Damaging Information on Clinton

a reply to: Sublimecraft

It all depends. You aren't supposed to accept anything from foreigners during a campaign, including information.

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: Sublimecraft

Sure. It's not at all illegal to obtain information gained from foreign spying.

Foreign spying!?

FFS is every Russian a #ing agent to you folks??
I'm so sick of the obvious hyperbole.


FYI Americans, only ever speak to fellow Americans, everyone from another country is most likely a foreign spy. Smh

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: Sublimecraft

It all depends. You aren't supposed to accept anything from foreigners during a campaign, including information.

2 questions

1. Who?.......exactly is not supposed to accept anything from foreigners during a campaign, including information.
2. Which foreigners are on the list - Australia, UK, Canada, NZ? Did Obama or Hillary accept anything from 'foreigners' during the campaign.

YES - The UK's GCHQ was in contact with the US government about the election during the campaign.

^^That's accepting information from a foreigner.

a reply to: Kali74

Or perhaps it's the other way around: This article was released to distract from the Tweets that put Pedesta back in the spotlight.

a reply to: Sublimecraft

Anyone involved in a political campaign.

The British government sharing information with the US government about the election is not a campaign accepting information. That's silly.

a reply to: AndyFromMichigan

And why is Podesta back in the spotlight? Because the idiot in chief thinks (and apparently isn't alone) that Podesta somehow had the power to turn over the DNC servers to the FBI. How could Podesta do that? Maybe you can answer that question for us all.

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: Sublimecraft

The British government sharing information with the US government about the election is not a campaign accepting information. That's silly.

Sorry - you can't have it both ways because it suits your narrative - GCHQ is a foreign spying agency passing secrets and lies to the US government during the campaign - about the campaign (bed pissing).

Oh - I see your logic - good foreigner = good. Bad foreigner = bad. How convenient for you - woefully flawed but convenient.

ETA: LOL - and you can't conveniently separate Obama from Hillary either - he was flying around on taxpayers dime campaigning for her.

a reply to: Boadicea

According to Wikipedia, this is how the Steele dossier came into existence.

en.wikipedia.org...–Russia_dossier

According to reports, the dossier was created as part of opposition research on Trump. The investigation into Trump was initially funded by "Never Trump" Republicans and later by Democrats.[5][6][7] In September 2015, a wealthy Republican donor who opposed Trump's candidacy in the Republican primary hired Fusion GPS, an American research firm, to do opposition research on Trump. For months, Fusion GPS gathered information about Trump, focusing on his business and entertainment activities. When Trump became the presumptive nominee in May 2016, the Republican donor withdrew and the investigation contract was taken over by an unidentified Democratic client.[7][8]

In June 2016 it was revealed that the Democratic National Committee website had been hacked by Russian sources, so Fusion GPS hired Orbis Business Intelligence, a private British intelligence firm, to look into any Russian connections.[7] The investigation was undertaken by Orbis co-founder Christopher Steele, a retired British MI6 officer with expertise in Russian matters. Steele delivered his report as a series of two- or three-page memos, starting in June 2016 and continuing through December. He continued his investigation even after the Democratic client stopped paying for it following Trump's election.[7]

The Kremlin does not know Russian lawyer Natalya Veselnitskaya and was not aware of her reported meeting with US President Donald Trump’s eldest son, Donald Trump Jr., which he said occurred during the 2016 election campaign.

“No, we don’t know who [Natalya Veselnitskaya] is, and obviously we can’t track the meetings of all Russian lawyers at home or abroad,” Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said on Monday.

^^There's a name to go with this RT article posted just now

It appears the games have only just begun on this latest saga especially coupled with the allegations of FusionGPS being involved.

ETA: Here is another sentiment I fully agree with...

a reply to: Sublimecraft

Your logic is broken. GCHQ did not give intelligence to the Clinton or Trump campaign. They gave it to the US government. Why would I separate Obama from Hillary, he's not a foreigner.

a reply to: Sublimecraft
So, Russia is officially saying they don't know who this woman is?

If that's true, then the Times is veering towards a potential libel lawsuit if they don't retract.

Let me get this straight.. A Russian Lawyer said that she had proof that Russia was funding the DNC, and after less than 20 mins it was clear she had nothing as stated below... end of story...

“After pleasantries were exchanged,” he said, “the woman stated that she had information that individuals connected to Russia were funding the Democratic National Committee and supporting Mrs. Clinton. Her statements were vague, ambiguous and made no sense. No details or supporting information was provided or even offered. It quickly became clear that she had no meaningful information.”

If Russia was funding the DNC like so many countries, good and bad, funded the Clinton foundation for what seem like a pay to play scenario wouldn't we all want to know?

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: Sublimecraft

Your logic is broken. GCHQ did not give intelligence to the Clinton or Trump campaign. They gave it to the US government. Why would I separate Obama from Hillary, he's not a foreigner.

And no less a source than James Comey has testified that said intelligence was phony, albeit after he made a fool of himself by relying on it.

a reply to: ipsedixit

According to reports, the dossier was created as part of opposition research on Trump. The investigation into Trump was initially funded by "Never Trump" Republicans and later by Democrats.[5][6][7] In September 2015, a wealthy Republican donor who opposed Trump's candidacy in the Republican primary hired Fusion GPS, an American research firm, to do opposition research on Trump. For months, Fusion GPS gathered information about Trump, focusing on his business and entertainment activities. When Trump became the presumptive nominee in May 2016, the Republican donor withdrew and the investigation contract was taken over by an unidentified Democratic client.[7][8]

Yes, thank you.

I'm glad you pointed out the initial Republican involvement. While the media and other talking heads love to frame everything in the left/right paradigm, the truth is that Trump is the epitome of the 'RINO" -- Republican In Name Only, and both Republicans and Democrats were and still are working against Trump. That's important. Even more important (but I don't know yet) is just how much they're working together to that end!

a reply to: ipsedixit

Doesn't that amount to an admission that the reason he attended the meeting was to get damaging information from a Russian source, about Hillary Clinton? I think it does.

And you'd be right. But you'd be wrong in implying this is something dubious, and not par for the course in politics.

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: Sublimecraft

......GCHQ did not give intelligence to the Clinton...campaign.

Correct - Obama did - Hillary said she was aware of Russian interference in US elections during the 2nd debate - how could she have possibly known this? AND to have remained so arrogant & brazen as to skirt US intelligence agencies formal announcements of such things - no, she feels it appropriate to blurt it out during a debate?

She was told by Obama - Obama was told by a foreigner spy.

originally posted by: ipsedixit
a reply to: shooterbrody

This is what Meuller's investigation is all about, or rather, "is this an impeachable offense?".

People don't seem to realize that a president doesn't have to commit a crime to be impeached. In Bill Clinton's case, sticking a cigar into someone's primordial palace of pleasure, among other things, was enough to get proceedings started.

Donald Trump Jr. together with people involved in his father's election campaign met a Russian lawyer, expecting to be given information detrimental to the Clinton campaign. It is prima facie evidence that the Trump campaign were colluding with at least one Russian. When Manafort, campaign honcho, saw that the meeting was going to be about adoptions and Magnitsky and not Clinton dirt, it is asserted that he left the meeting.

You clearly have no idea what you're talking shooting you think that's why he was impeached. Geesh.

if Russia mettled in the election, I didn't order it*
Russian nationalists could have hacked the elections*
ones from the POTUS, ones from Putin...

They got it backwards.

Clinton hired a shady Russian Lawyer to attempt to frame Trump, expecting the appearance of damaging information against Trump but failed miserably.

Great response from Donald Trump Jr.

Obviously I'm the first person on a campaign to ever take a meeting to hear info about an opponent... went nowhere but had to listen