Why Trump Jr didn't commit a crime

a reply to: Xtrozero

Yeah let's get absurd to make a point. Very intelligent ploy.

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Sillyolme

I did actually research this.
No precedent
It is actually funny you think those are stupid questions. It is also funny you cant research this yet you yell how guilty jr is.
You have become a caricature, but hey you worked for the dnc so I guess it is to be expected.

If she did work for the DNC, then I think the evidence from ATS posts tells us a lot about their hiring practices and why they lost

a reply to: mkultra11

No one but trump surrogates and trumpsters think so.
Everybody else is just fine with getting to the bottom of this. Everyone but those who fear what may be at the bottom that is.
Like trump firing the FBI director because he wouldn't shut down this investigation.
Before we found out that he really knew all along that Russia was helping him and when he pleaded with them to hack Clinton to get her deleted emails he was putting in a request.

originally posted by: icanteven
Otherwise, the only fact we have (from the email thread) is that Trump Jr. enthusiastically jumped at the chance to meet w/ a figure with ties to the Russian government who is said to have damaging information about the Clinton campaign.

I agree...and it was about dealings that Hillary had with Russia, so it is only logical a Russian was involved. I think that at some point he met for a few mins talked about nothing and took it no further, so there is nothing here. Even if it was a setup there still was no exchange, and we don't even know if it was all true and real information was exchanged whether Trump Jr. broke the law in anyway other than to have the last name Trump.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: mkultra11

So if it was a set up wouldn't it be better if there was some gain for trump that the DNC could point to and say See he obtained that info.

This whole it's a set up just doesn't jell. It doesn't sit right. A set up has to have a pay off. As payoffs go this one to be a victory for the DNC seems to have fallen short of any goal.
What's the payoff of the set up?

I like how the DNC is so full of clever cloak and dagger types. Chock full of schemes and plans of dastardly doings. All while trying to run a campaign.
What with murder and pay for play plans and setting up their opponents with fake Russians it's a wonder they even got Beyonce and Jay Z or Katy Perry to show up.

I've entertained the same type of thoughts in the first paragraph. The most logical one was a bait and switch where she promised one thing (Clinton info) but really wanted to discuss that Adoption issue. Seems like she sort of a lobbyist with relation to that. It's now obvious she was not a Russian operative or anything because of what you said, there's nothing, no payoff, no info, because there's was never anything there to begin with. It was a waste of time, even she admitted Kushner walked out, Manafort was playing on his phone and Trump got impatient and agitated. Maybe it was a set up, but she choked. She needs to be looked into some more an her connection with FusionGPS is a good start.

Aside from your strawman argument regarding the DNC. They do actually collude with the media behind the scenes, give media narrative direction, and more as was seen in the Wikileaks e-mail. They have Obama intel operatives constantly leaking illegal info to the media. Sounds like that to me.

a reply to: mkultra11

And that new FBI director that trump appointed...he doesn't think it's a witch hunt either.

Just so you know.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Xtrozero

They are the evidence silly. Hard evidence means you can touch it.
Rolls eyes...

The email was evidence of what, that he was interested? Outside of interest what do we have?

a reply to: shooterbrody

Ok so show the case where someone was charged and acquitted then.
Come on. You researched it. Put up or shut up as they say.

a reply to: Xtrozero

No.
Hillary had nothing to do with this. Try another angle maybe.
That argument is not based in any fact. It's a fairy tale.

a reply to: Sillyolme

By saying there is no precedent that means no one has been charged so there is nothing to go on. If someone had been charged and acquitted then there would be precedent in favor of DTJs side. You really are confused today huh?

originally posted by: Sillyolme
Like trump firing the FBI director because he wouldn't shut down this investigation.
Before we found out that he really knew all along that Russia was helping him and when he pleaded with them to hack Clinton to get her deleted emails he was putting in a request.

Your first line is an assumption, not fact...AND Comey said Trump was never under investigation, so not even a good assumption. Do you want me to post the dozens of Democrats screaming for his head a few months before? Comey was waffling all over the place on a number of investigations across both party lines that seemed to have hints of political agenda, but until Trump fired him the left was screaming for him to do it...lol

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Xtrozero

No.
Hillary had nothing to do with this. Try another angle maybe.
That argument is not based in any fact. It's a fairy tale.

Speaking of comprehension...

The whole thing was over alleged information of Hillary bad dealings with the Russians... So what are you talking about? He met with a Russian (duh) that he thought might have credible information to all this. It was all a sham and nothing came out of it but a few minute meeting... I'm not sure where my fairy tale is here?

Trump Jr didn't know who he was meeting with. Ron Goldstone simply told him someone has info. Ron Goldstone didn't tell either Trump Jr and Natalia who they were meeting with. It was a blind date.

a reply to: Xtrozero

Stop pressing me... I said hard evidence as opposed to friggin hearsay that you seem to think it is. Hearsay is something spoken by a party not present. E mail is not hearsay. You can see it you can print it you can electronically source it and trace it. Where it came from, who it was forwarded to.
Stop playing stupid please.

a reply to: Sillyolme

There is no case
No one has been charged
There is no crime for getting dirt on an opponent

Read the statute

a reply to: RickyD

I didn't say there was no precedence.
I have no idea. I didn't look it up. You're the one making all the legal claims here.
Please I'm laughing so hard my eyes are watering.
You're trying desperately to get me to make a claim here. To get me to say something g. I sense a gotcha moment you're trying to set me up for.

Ain't gonna happen bubba.

So first the Trump administration and its supporters denied any Russian collusion, you can watch the videos on YouTube of them all denying that they ever spoke with Russians regarding the campaign something which has now been proven to be a lie.

So true to form how does the Trump administration and its supporters try to get around this? they prime us, they prime us with this idea that says yes we colluded but collusion is not a crime. The narrative has shifted from we didn't collude with the Russians to we did collude but its not a crime.

Now it is a crime, the colluded with a hostile foreign government that was seeking to subvert American Democracy that in itself could be tantamount to treason. This goes well over the line of just doing research on the opposition, this is working with a foreign government to interfere in a election. That in itself is a crime, Flynn was fired for breaking the Logan Act, this is pretty close to the same thing. Then we have these ongoing FBI and Congressional investigations and who knows what else they might uncover, if we have this much already in the public eye you can bet that they have more.

a reply to: Xtrozero

Yeah trump told us he fired Comey because of the RUSHER thing .
Then he told the Russian spies that he invited into the oval office that he did it to get the pressure off of himself.
What more do you need.
There's so assumption there. It's his own words. Shall we run the tape?

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Xtrozero

No.
Hillary had nothing to do with this. Try another angle maybe.
That argument is not based in any fact. It's a fairy tale.

Speaking of comprehension...

The who thing was over alleged information of Hillary bad dealings with the Russians... So what are you talking about? He met with a Russian (duh) that he thought might have credible information to all this. It was all a sham and nothing came out of it but a few minute meeting... I'm not sure where my fairy tale is here?

There's no Hillary and the Russians. That whole scenario is a fairy tale. All of it.

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

You can bet they have a lot more and Mueller when he does make his move will be quick and sure.