Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just so I'm clear- the outrage here is that Trump's son met with a Russian lawyer with "government ties" who claimed to have dirt on Hillary?

Are you somehow under the impression that this is an OK thing for someone involved in a presidential campaign to be doing?

Are you American?

I addressed the other poster.

I'm a naturalized American....I wouldn't immediately jump to questioning the nationality or immigration status of people who don't see eye-to-eye with you on politics, not a great look for you.

I'm asking because I want to know in what country it is OK to collude with a foreign government in this way, and to admit it publically and think it is no big deal?

Anonymous wrote:I voted for Hillary, but I will forgive President Pence when he grants the pardons. To end the long national nightmare.

No way. Pence is most likely complicit too. The only way this ends well is transparency and accountability. hopefully the Feds are currently looking into freezing the Trump and Kushner family assets.

Anonymous wrote:ok just one tiny little question...WHY IS NO ON IN JAIL YET?? WHY ARE THESE PEOPLE STILL WALKING AROUND AND RUNNING OUR GOVERNEMENT? I just don't understand...what more do we need to hear????

Due process. We'll get there. But we need to gather facts, charge, arrest, and try before we get there. The legal system moves slowly. But it will get there.
Or, they could resign and be pardoned, likeNixon. But this is not a quit while you are behind crew. They're more into making a bad situation worse.

Also, they have no ggrnment experience, and are not trying to understand it. And are used to do whatever they want, no consequence, money will solve anything. It seems like they don't realize how bad things are for them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just so I'm clear- the outrage here is that Trump's son met with a Russian lawyer with "government ties" who claimed to have dirt on Hillary?

Yes. Because that is a crime (aka colluding with a hostile foreign government to influence an election). What, you think NBD? It's a HUGE deal. It also stops the "months of investigation and no collusion shown" narrative of Trumpkins. Collusion not just shown-- admitted in writing. Game. Set. Match.

PP you responded to and not a Trump supporter, but the ethics double standard here and what people will forgive their own candidate of choice for vs the opponent is quite rich.

A Russian lawyer with "ties" to the Russian gov soliciting Trump's son for a meeting with dirt on Hillary hardly seems like a smoking gun for the campaign systemically colluding with the Russian gov.

thanks for the qualifier, the bar keeps getting higher and higher, eh.

1. No evidence, its all smoke
2. Well no evidence of collusion, its just alleged obstruction of justice
3. no HARD evidence. In public.
4. Its not hard evidence of SYSTEMATIC collusion.

Is circumstantial evidence of systematic collusion enough for you? If this was the first time they had heard about Russia helping them, why didn't they react with more surprise?

Happy to be corrected as I don't have any skin in this game, but it's evidence of a single private citizen with tenuous ties to the Russian gov soliciting a meeting and not circumstantial evidence of systemic collaboration. The desired narrative that the Russian gov won the election for Trump (otherwise it would've went to Hillary) has defined media coverage non-stop since November like it's Watergate 2.0. Facts and hard evidence should be defining the stories and narrative and right now it's just the opposite, a fishing expedition for page views. Comey hearings were a complete blowout (and if anything made the media look worse than before) and this is the closest they've gotten, so I won't froth at the mouth like some of you just yet.

Anonymous wrote:ok just one tiny little question...WHY IS NO ON IN JAIL YET?? WHY ARE THESE PEOPLE STILL WALKING AROUND AND RUNNING OUR GOVERNEMENT? I just don't understand...what more do we need to hear????

You do realize.... 1) that wasn’t just ONE tiny little question 2) it is spelled “no one” 3) it is spelled “government”
I think we know why you don’t understand.

So the guy also incriminated himself. Admitted intention by saying he ended the meeting when it was clear the lawyer didn't have any information.

I guess the high IQ runs in the family...

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like that, but then who is Jared?

You can't make this up. Saddam had a son-in-law named "Hussein Kamel al-Majid" whom Saddam though highly of and promoted to be Iraq's oil minister. Al-Majid and his wife (Saddam's daughter) later defected and revealed Saddam's nuclear program. Saddam pardoned him, but upon his return, al-Majid were killed by family members. None of this bodes well for Kushner.

Al-Majid explained his defections this way:

"This is what made me leave the country, the fact that Saddam Hussein surrounds himself with inefficient ministers and advisers who are not chosen for their competence but according to the whims of the Iraqi president. And as a result of this the whole of Iraq is suffering."

Lololololol. Morning made. (Okay-- to be fair Uday made my morning). But he needs a shorter moniker. The a mouthful. Kamal maybe?

ok just one tiny little question...WHY IS NO ON IN JAIL YET?? WHY ARE THESE PEOPLE STILL WALKING AROUND AND RUNNING OUR GOVERNEMENT? I just don't understand...what more do we need to hear????

Anonymous wrote:I like that, but then who is Jared?

You can't make this up. Saddam had a son-in-law named "Hussein Kamel al-Majid" whom Saddam though highly of and promoted to be Iraq's oil minister. Al-Majid and his wife (Saddam's daughter) later defected and revealed Saddam's nuclear program. Saddam pardoned him, but upon his return, al-Majid were killed by family members. None of this bodes well for Kushner.

Al-Majid explained his defections this way:

"This is what made me leave the country, the fact that Saddam Hussein surrounds himself with inefficient ministers and advisers who are not chosen for their competence but according to the whims of the Iraqi president. And as a result of this the whole of Iraq is suffering."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Donald Jr. is going to look as "good" in Orange as daddy does. Kushner and Manifort too. That's the ballgame for these three. Federal crime committed and prove via Jr. Own tweets.

Also, is Don Jr. doiing an insanity defense thing? No sane person would tweet: Hey! Here's the written proof I committed a federal crime!

Also: Don, Jr.'s lawyer either needs to resign (because Donny did the exact opposite of what was advised. Which would have been Shut Up!). Or disbarred for gross incompetence. Dealers choice.

It's a beautiful day.

Daddy can pardon him. You don't think he will? Then you haven't been paying attention. Things aren't normal anymore.

Presidents can't pardon state crimes. Keep it in your back pocket.

Is this a NY state crime? (genuine question)

Almost certainly parts of it will be prosecuted as such specifically to prevent pardoning. Federal crimes were committed as well but it happened in New York and that will come into play.

RICO is federal. But the first thing that comes to mind in NY is money laundering. The first of many crimes, BTW. And NY does not have Trumpkin AG.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Need a DCUM prediction: when do we get thee Trump tweet about how. Donny was right and this is HRC and Obama's fault (because emails or Benghazi or a crime having to do with Russia that has never been shown?). This afternoon? Tomorrow am's toilet time? Or does he STFU and stay off Twitter. (That last one is a joke. We all know the tweet is coming...).

So, DCUM, place your bets now on tTrump tweet time. I say 6:30 tomorrow am. Needs some time to watch Fox and Friends.

Actually, I wonder...do you think Putin is currently creating some kind of incriminating evidence against Hillary to show that there's some truth to the story?

It doesn't matter. Even if it is proven that HRC did whatever in the library with the candlestick, takinnga meeting with a foreign government Rep to get this info is still a crime. "But HRC was guilty" is not a defense. She could end up with her own legal problems if she did something wrong. But it does not get Uday (I like that, but then who is Jared?) out of this clusterf*ck.

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is Donald trump Jr called uday

Because he is the older one.

If you had any question about the political leaning of the moderator here, this is a clue.
And, the fact that attributing derogatory names to the president, his family and his administration is not only allowed, but condoned and celebrated here.

\

Trump: "Lyin Ted", "Little Marco", "Crooked Hillary", "Pocahontas".

Trumpsters: "Hah, hah, he's so funny. I'm going to vote for him for President".

Me: "Uday".

Trumpsters: "Someone bring me my fainting pills, I've just crushed my pearls".

I'll never understand it. Would you at least vote for me for President?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just so I'm clear- the outrage here is that Trump's son met with a Russian lawyer with "government ties" who claimed to have dirt on Hillary?

Yes. Because that is a crime (aka colluding with a hostile foreign government to influence an election). What, you think NBD? It's a HUGE deal. It also stops the "months of investigation and no collusion shown" narrative of Trumpkins. Collusion not just shown-- admitted in writing. Game. Set. Match.

PP you responded to and not a Trump supporter, but the ethics double standard here and what people will forgive their own candidate of choice for vs the opponent is quite rich.

A Russian lawyer with "ties" to the Russian gov soliciting Trump's son for a meeting with dirt on Hillary hardly seems like a smoking gun for the campaign systemically colluding with the Russian gov.

thanks for the qualifier, the bar keeps getting higher and higher, eh.

1. No evidence, its all smoke
2. Well no evidence of collusion, its just alleged obstruction of justice
3. no HARD evidence. In public.
4. Its not hard evidence of SYSTEMATIC collusion.

Is circumstantial evidence of systematic collusion enough for you? If this was the first time they had heard about Russia helping them, why didn't they react with more surprise?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just so I'm clear- the outrage here is that Trump's son met with a Russian lawyer with "government ties" who claimed to have dirt on Hillary?

Are you somehow under the impression that this is an OK thing for someone involved in a presidential campaign to be doing?

Are you American?

I addressed the other poster.

I'm a naturalized American....I wouldn't immediately jump to questioning the nationality or immigration status of people who don't see eye-to-eye with you on politics, not a great look for you.

Anonymous wrote:Why did Junior post the emails??? I don't understand the motivation.

The NY Times was going to post them so he was trying to get ahead of the story.

My guess is that there is another email out there along the lines of thanking someone for the information and plotting how to use it... and Jr. is hoping that by releasing these people will not ask for more... Seems like he is just that dumb.