Kushner, Manafort and Don Jr. met with a Russian lawyer with Kremlin ties during the campaign

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Thanks for posting the Chris Wallace piece. I don't watch Fox, but it appears that Chris Wallace is not a stooge. He seems to think.

New poster. Agreed, although watching that video it occurs to me that if the oppo research offered by the russian lawyer is illegal because it is a "thing of value" offered to a campaign by a foreign power, then what does that say about the "dossier" that was compiled by a British national against Trump and was provided to Hillary's campaign?

I thought Jeb! initially hired Steele and then--after his campaign folded--Steele was so alarmed that he continued the research gratis.

He hired Steele. He paid him money in exchange for something of value. And Steele, though a British citizen, wasn't acting (or at least Jeb Bush didn't believe he was acting) on behalf of the British government (or any other government). He was acting as a contract employee for Bush. In addition, even were Steele to have been acting as a British government agent, Great Britain is not considered a hostile nation to the US, so there's that.

This is in almost every was not similar to what Trump Junior did. Actually in every way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So this happened a month after the meeting on June 9th. This is from the RNC platform discussion around Ukraine.

http://politics.blog.mystatesman.com/2017/03/06/how-diana-denmans-singular-stand-for-ukraine-revealed-the-trump-campaigns-soft-spot-for-russia/

Any Trump supporters care to comment?

SHE'S a Trump supporter! She thinks some of the people around him, maybe, are a bit sketchy though.

She is a die hard Reagan republican who was confused and irate that the Trump people diluted the Ukraine policy in the GOP platform at Cleveland.

Denman is a Trump supporter. She just think his problem was bad staff.

So having triggered some of the suspicions by her actions, does Denman have a clear sense of what if any connection the Trump campaign had to the Russians?

No, it’s not clear what’s going on. And I’m really distressed.

I want Trump to have a chance and a good chance. I want him to have a chance of being a good president.

But we have to get his appointees who are all twisted up in this every day. I have never in all these years, it just looks like you get up in the morning and you think you might just have a clear day and then another bomb drops, and it’s gone on long enough.

I like what he says. I support what he says. I just want him to have some running time to just go ahead and get it done and see if he can turn America around.


Hes’ got to get his people in place to get anything working. He’s really been held back too long on this. I don’t have any idea whether the Russian thing is credible or not. It certainly has gone on too long. We have to get on about running America.

I really think as far as Trump personally, that there’s nothing here. It’s just beating a dead horse to death again. I don’t know. I really don’t know. But my gut feeling is that he himself is not involved in this. Staff is a different problem, former staff.

Absurd. If his problem is bad staff, then he is a bad hirer and manager. It's his fault either way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Thanks for posting the Chris Wallace piece. I don't watch Fox, but it appears that Chris Wallace is not a stooge. He seems to think.

New poster. Agreed, although watching that video it occurs to me that if the oppo research offered by the russian lawyer is illegal because it is a "thing of value" offered to a campaign by a foreign power, then what does that say about the "dossier" that was compiled by a British national against Trump and was provided to Hillary's campaign?

I thought Jeb! initially hired Steele and then--after his campaign folded--Steele was so alarmed that he continued the research gratis.

He hired Steele. He paid him money in exchange for something of value. And Steele, though a British citizen, wasn't acting (or at least Jeb Bush didn't believe he was acting) on behalf of the British government (or any other government). He was acting as a contract employee for Bush. In addition, even were Steele to have been acting as a British government agent, Great Britain is not considered a hostile nation to the US, so there's that.

This is in almost every was not similar to what Trump Junior did. Actually in every way.

No - there was not an email that said this meeting or information was part of the Russian governments efforts to influence the US election. Is Steele linked to a government?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Thanks for posting the Chris Wallace piece. I don't watch Fox, but it appears that Chris Wallace is not a stooge. He seems to think.

I believe he used to be on ABC news. I used to watch him there. He seems to be a pretty straight forward and respected journalist, and it's probably why he was chosen to moderate one of the debates. I think if he is questioning the collusion, ethics and corruption of Trump et al, then Rs should really pay attention here. He's not one of those that will be chasing a nothingburger.

[Anonymous]

Trump tweeted about the Junior meeting this morning, seemingly without prompting as the story was just starting to die.

Should we expect another bombshell sometime this week?

[Anonymous]

Spicer: There's nothing we know of that'd lead anyone to believe Trump Jr.'s meeting wasn't about adoption policy


Uh, maybe the subject line of the email chain?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Thanks for posting the Chris Wallace piece. I don't watch Fox, but it appears that Chris Wallace is not a stooge. He seems to think.

New poster. Agreed, although watching that video it occurs to me that if the oppo research offered by the russian lawyer is illegal because it is a "thing of value" offered to a campaign by a foreign power, then what does that say about the "dossier" that was compiled by a British national against Trump and was provided to Hillary's campaign?

I thought Jeb! initially hired Steele and then--after his campaign folded--Steele was so alarmed that he continued the research gratis.

He hired Steele. He paid him money in exchange for something of value. And Steele, though a British citizen, wasn't acting (or at least Jeb Bush didn't believe he was acting) on behalf of the British government (or any other government). He was acting as a contract employee for Bush. In addition, even were Steele to have been acting as a British government agent, Great Britain is not considered a hostile nation to the US, so there's that.

This is in almost every was not similar to what Trump Junior did. Actually in every way.

No - there was not an email that said this meeting or information was part of the Russian governments efforts to influence the US election. Is Steele linked to a government?

Steele was a long time intel officer so yes, at least as connected to the UK government than the two Russians in the Donald Jr meeting were connected to the Russian government.

And the question about about nations being hostile or alloes, it,s not relevant to the questiom of whether the campaign accepted a "thing of value". My point was it's a stretch to think campaign finance laws were broken here.

[Anonymous]

THIS ISN'T RIGHT

https://twitter.com/joshledermanAP/status/887033755113844738

[Anonymous]

Russia announced they are close to a deal to get the compounds back.

Are we winning yet?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Russia announced they are close to a deal to get the compounds back.

Are we winning yet?

Sounds like Trump is gonna pay back Putin what he owes for the Russian help in his victory.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Thanks for posting the Chris Wallace piece. I don't watch Fox, but it appears that Chris Wallace is not a stooge. He seems to think.

New poster. Agreed, although watching that video it occurs to me that if the oppo research offered by the russian lawyer is illegal because it is a "thing of value" offered to a campaign by a foreign power, then what does that say about the "dossier" that was compiled by a British national against Trump and was provided to Hillary's campaign?

I thought Jeb! initially hired Steele and then--after his campaign folded--Steele was so alarmed that he continued the research gratis.

He hired Steele. He paid him money in exchange for something of value. And Steele, though a British citizen, wasn't acting (or at least Jeb Bush didn't believe he was acting) on behalf of the British government (or any other government). He was acting as a contract employee for Bush. In addition, even were Steele to have been acting as a British government agent, Great Britain is not considered a hostile nation to the US, so there's that.

This is in almost every was not similar to what Trump Junior did. Actually in every way.

No - there was not an email that said this meeting or information was part of the Russian governments efforts to influence the US election. Is Steele linked to a government?

Steele was a long time intel officer so yes, at least as connected to the UK government than the two Russians in the Donald Jr meeting were connected to the Russian government.

And the question about about nations being hostile or alloes, it,s not relevant to the questiom of whether the campaign accepted a "thing of value". My point was it's a stretch to think campaign finance laws were broken here.

Hostile vs. allies is relevant where it comes to TREASON. As for "accepting something of value" - Steele was hired by Jeb Bush to compile that information, as a contractor. Steele didn't compile the dossier for free. Ultimately not really any different than contracting a print shop to print campaign flyers where it comes to legality. That is totally not the case where it comes to Donald Trump Jr. and the Trump campaign.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Thanks for posting the Chris Wallace piece. I don't watch Fox, but it appears that Chris Wallace is not a stooge. He seems to think.

New poster. Agreed, although watching that video it occurs to me that if the oppo research offered by the russian lawyer is illegal because it is a "thing of value" offered to a campaign by a foreign power, then what does that say about the "dossier" that was compiled by a British national against Trump and was provided to Hillary's campaign?

I thought Jeb! initially hired Steele and then--after his campaign folded--Steele was so alarmed that he continued the research gratis.

He hired Steele. He paid him money in exchange for something of value. And Steele, though a British citizen, wasn't acting (or at least Jeb Bush didn't believe he was acting) on behalf of the British government (or any other government). He was acting as a contract employee for Bush. In addition, even were Steele to have been acting as a British government agent, Great Britain is not considered a hostile nation to the US, so there's that.

This is in almost every was not similar to what Trump Junior did. Actually in every way.

No - there was not an email that said this meeting or information was part of the Russian governments efforts to influence the US election. Is Steele linked to a government?

Steele was a long time intel officer so yes, at least as connected to the UK government than the two Russians in the Donald Jr meeting were connected to the Russian government.

And the question about about nations being hostile or alloes, it,s not relevant to the questiom of whether the campaign accepted a "thing of value". My point was it's a stretch to think campaign finance laws were broken here.

Hostile vs. allies is relevant where it comes to TREASON. As for "accepting something of value" - Steele was hired by Jeb Bush to compile that information, as a contractor. Steele didn't compile the dossier for free. Ultimately not really any different than contracting a print shop to print campaign flyers where it comes to legality. That is totally not the case where it comes to Donald Trump Jr. and the Trump campaign.

Yeah I didn't expect you to walk into the trap so easily but... you are now arguing that if Donald Jr had offered to pay the Russian lawyer for the oppo research, then it would have been ok.

The point is, again, this behavior can be and is being criticized politically but none of what we've seen to date could be the grounds for any criminal charges.

For whatever reasons a lot of Trump opponents do not feel confident about winning a political battle against Trump (not surprising, given the recent 2016 defeat), and so these opponents instead grasp at the latest flimsy pretext to use the judicial branch to remove or at least undermine Trump.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Thanks for posting the Chris Wallace piece. I don't watch Fox, but it appears that Chris Wallace is not a stooge. He seems to think.

New poster. Agreed, although watching that video it occurs to me that if the oppo research offered by the russian lawyer is illegal because it is a "thing of value" offered to a campaign by a foreign power, then what does that say about the "dossier" that was compiled by a British national against Trump and was provided to Hillary's campaign?

I thought Jeb! initially hired Steele and then--after his campaign folded--Steele was so alarmed that he continued the research gratis.

He hired Steele. He paid him money in exchange for something of value. And Steele, though a British citizen, wasn't acting (or at least Jeb Bush didn't believe he was acting) on behalf of the British government (or any other government). He was acting as a contract employee for Bush. In addition, even were Steele to have been acting as a British government agent, Great Britain is not considered a hostile nation to the US, so there's that.

This is in almost every was not similar to what Trump Junior did. Actually in every way.

No - there was not an email that said this meeting or information was part of the Russian governments efforts to influence the US election. Is Steele linked to a government?

Steele was a long time intel officer so yes, at least as connected to the UK government than the two Russians in the Donald Jr meeting were connected to the Russian government.

And the question about about nations being hostile or alloes, it,s not relevant to the questiom of whether the campaign accepted a "thing of value". My point was it's a stretch to think campaign finance laws were broken here.

Hostile vs. allies is relevant where it comes to TREASON. As for "accepting something of value" - Steele was hired by Jeb Bush to compile that information, as a contractor. Steele didn't compile the dossier for free. Ultimately not really any different than contracting a print shop to print campaign flyers where it comes to legality. That is totally not the case where it comes to Donald Trump Jr. and the Trump campaign.

Yeah I didn't expect you to walk into the trap so easily but... you are now arguing that if Donald Jr had offered to pay the Russian lawyer for the oppo research, then it would have been ok.

The point is, again, this behavior can be and is being criticized politically but none of what we've seen to date could be the grounds for any criminal charges.

For whatever reasons a lot of Trump opponents do not feel confident about winning a political battle against Trump (not surprising, given the recent 2016 defeat), and so these opponents instead grasp at the latest flimsy pretext to use the judicial branch to remove or at least undermine Trump.

+100

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:THIS ISN'T RIGHT

https://twitter.com/joshledermanAP/status/887033755113844738

No, it's not.

$&@?$?$@#%# you Trumpster-fires of "Americans."

[Anonymous]

"It should come as no surprise to anyone that now Donald Jr. and Kushner are at the center of a controversy that could ultimately cost the president his job. Like Ivana before them, these children were given unprecedented power and authority without accountability. It looks like it went to their heads. They apparently thought they reported to no one, and they seem to have acted without thinking. The story of Trump Jr.’s emails with this English publicist could be an example of inexperience coupled with a sense that they are so powerful that rules don’t apply to them."
- Jack O’Donnell, former president and COO, Trump Plaza Hotel and Casino
https://www.vox.com/first-person/2017/7/14/15966918/don-trump-jr-twitter-russia-scandal