THE TRIGGERING: Donald Trump Jr Destroys the "Russian Narrative" Narrative, Triggers Trumpkins

a reply to: AndyFromMichigan

It is conspiracy to commit... also a crime.

originally posted by: AndyFromMichigan

originally posted by: growler

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: UKTruth

If the Clinton camp is also guilty of this then they should be subject to the same scrutiny as Trump, only differences is that with Trump as POTUS the political ramifications are much more severe.

You seem to have this idea that those of us who oppose Trump are pro-hillary, nothing could be further from the truth.

Neither are guilty of anything in these cases other than using non American sources for opposition research - a common practice.
I guess the closest to a real issue is the Democrats actually paying a Russian agent to do their opposition research.

so why has trump spent over a year denying any russian collusion and why have his supporters spent over a year denying russian collusion?

Because there is no Russian collusion. A Russian said she had evidence of criminal wrongdoing by the DNC. Trump Jr. met with her, and it turned out to be a bait-and-switch, with no such evidence being offered. The meeting ended.

That's not collusion.

They don't know what collusion means - they just heard it on CNN and think it's an impeachable thing so everything gets labelled that way - even a meeting.

a reply to: DanteGaland

I kept saying that the dossier was being verified and not just bit by bit but whole big chunks. Especially the Deutsche Bank stuff. Certainly the real estate stuff.
They kept throwing memes at me.

originally posted by: pthena
a reply to: GuidedKill

Getting political dirt on an opponent is illegal how??

52 U.S. Code § 30121 - Contributions and donations by foreign nationals

(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.

The entire statute you quote is talking about monetary or something of value type contributions....not information.
Stop perpetuating the bull# story.
However, Hillary did accept monetary contributions from foreign nationals.


sunlightfoundation.com...

Where is your outrage now?

a reply to: GuidedKill

What position did this person/attorney hold in the Russian Gov. and what monetary thing of value was offered?

You're reading along in the same thread I am. Re-read this post:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

The Russian lawyer you're so sure isn't in any way representing Russia was in fact one of the freaking people named in the Magnitsky act!

The contribution law forbids accepting solicitations from foreign nationals / not just foreign national office holders.

The rats are coming home to roost. Bannon is leaking....

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: RazorV66

Nope it's called campaign contributions by a foreign nation from a foreign government which also proves they all knew Russia was trying to help them very very early in the game. Before the wiki leaks release. And they've been denying it since last year.

Mr trump sure has a hard time getting mad at them or being stern with them.
He almost seems...dare I say it...afraid of Putin.

What campaign contributions? You mean the ones foreign companies made to Hillary? Yes, I wish those would get prosecuted.

originally posted by: Blarneystoner
a reply to: AndyFromMichigan

It is conspiracy to commit... also a crime.

Not quite.

"secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy in order to deceive others."

How is getting opposition research on an opponent deceiving anyone - especially if it was not used because it was not tangible and could not be proven. Quite the opposite of collusion in fact. The liberal media could learn a lot from the Trump campaign in this instance. If you don't have evidence of someone's claims then best to send them on their way.

originally posted by: pthena
a reply to: worldstarcountry

Solicit: "verb (used with object)
1. to seek for (something) by entreaty, earnest or respectful request, formal application, etc.:"

In this case Donald Jr. took the meeting under the assumption that he would receive in kind material (official documents harmful to Clinton) from a Russian source as "part of Russian support for Donald Trump".

Look at the law again for the words "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;"

Read it again.....thing of value.
Information on Clinton is nothing of value.....any asshole can dig up dirt on her pretty much anywhere.

a reply to: RazorV66

He was a member of his father's campaign and subject to the United States campaign laws just like everybody else who was. Too bad nobody associated with the campaign bothered to read them.

Entitled as he may see himself... he still needed to follow the rules.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: AndyFromMichigan

originally posted by: growler

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: UKTruth

If the Clinton camp is also guilty of this then they should be subject to the same scrutiny as Trump, only differences is that with Trump as POTUS the political ramifications are much more severe.

You seem to have this idea that those of us who oppose Trump are pro-hillary, nothing could be further from the truth.

It was collusion. 100%. Jr. Lied. Kushner Lied. I hope our President did not know.

Kushner had to step away now. That could be good. I hope the President did not know his son lied about this.

Neither are guilty of anything in these cases other than using non American sources for opposition research - a common practice.
I guess the closest to a real issue is the Democrats actually paying a Russian agent to do their opposition research.

so why has trump spent over a year denying any russian collusion and why have his supporters spent over a year denying russian collusion?

Because there is no Russian collusion. A Russian said she had evidence of criminal wrongdoing by the DNC. Trump Jr. met with her, and it turned out to be a bait-and-switch, with no such evidence being offered. The meeting ended.

That's not collusion.

They don't know what collusion means - they just heard it on CNN and think it's an impeachable thing so everything gets labelled that way - even a meeting.

Wasn't Trump.

She wasn't sent by Russia.

Still fake news.

a reply to: Damiel

And yet...

Just easier if I link beck to my post

a reply to: UKTruth

There is some irony here. Trump Jr was seeking evidence of collusion between Clinton and Russia, but by doing so, gets accused of colluding with Russia. It's a nice piece of propaganda.

originally posted by: UKTruth
Lol just watched CNN and even their legal expert had to almost laugh at the suggestions a crime was committed... whilst the anchor was musing over the death penalty

I am sure they will fire him pronto for going against the narrative.
Anybody with half a brain knows this is a big zero again, everybody that is except the Leftists.....the group of people with no brains.

originally posted by: jjkenobi
Wasn't Trump.

She wasn't sent by Russia.

Still fake news.

Wanna bet?

It was all about lifting the sanctions....

www.washingtonpost.com... 5e2a2f6496aa

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Blarneystoner
a reply to: AndyFromMichigan

It is conspiracy to commit... also a crime.

Not quite.

"secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy in order to deceive others."

How is getting opposition research on an opponent deceiving anyone - especially if it was not used because it was not tangible and could not be proven. Quite the opposite of collusion in fact. The liberal media could learn a lot from the Trump campaign in this instance. If you don't have evidence of someone's claims then best to send them on their way.

Not quite my ass...
Seems that some would disagree with you and agree with me.

“He did in my view violate the prohibition on soliciting a contribution of a foreign national,” Paul S. Ryan, a campaign finance expert at Common Cause, told HuffPost.

The alleged illegal contribution would be any opposition research that Veselnitskaya purported to have about Clinton. Campaign finance law defines “contribution” broadly. In this case, the opposition research would qualify as an illegal in-kind contribution. At least one past opinion issued by the FEC found that “information” could qualify as “something of value” that would make it an in-kind contribution. According to Trump Jr., the lawyer ultimately didn’t provide any useable information.

The ban on foreign campaign contributions also defines “solicitation” broadly. Both explicit and implicit suggestions from campaign officials that a foreign national provide something of value could be classified as solicitation. Even if he did not obtain the information as a contribution, as Trump Jr. has stated, he still sought it.

Source: Exactly Why Donald Trump Jr.’s Meeting With A Russian Lawyer Could Be Illegal

a reply to: Sillyolme

Only Manafort was a member of the campaign.

Cite

a reply to: theantediluvian
Don Jr. just released his emails. Hillary deleted her emails and lied multiple times under oath about them.

originally posted by: Damiel
All deflection, redirection
and genuflection to King Drump the 1st aside

can you guys not get back to the facts

Fact:

Rob Goldstone
told Trump the Younger that
“the crown prosecutor of Russia” had offered
“to provide the Trump campaign with some official documents
and information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia
and would be very useful to your father”.

“This is obviously very high level and sensitive information
but is part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr Trump.”

Seventeen minutes later,
Trump the Younger welcomes this with the reply:
“If it’s what you say, I love it, especially later in the summer.”

Thus setting the scene for the june 2016 meeting

Is that clear ? any questions ?

Fact: Trump Jr. was skeptical but felt it was his duty to investigate any possible proof of illegal actions of Hillary.

IF.

"IF it's what you say..."

Fact: It was not what Goldstone assumed it might be after all.