Anonymous wrote:BTW, the Steele dossier is proven to be correct again that Agaralov is the conduit from trump campaign to Russia.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What concerns me are the reports that the FBI either didn't know about this meeting or at least, didn't know about these emails. Kinda worried what else they/Mueller may be missing?

Is there a source for this assertion? I don't remember seeing anything in the articles to suggest this information was unknown to the FBI. Undisclosed to the public? Sure.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a question to all you brilliant DCUM legal minds out there. What's the legal standard/definition for collusion in this context? The more that comes out, the more certain it sounds like the Trump campaign had at least some knowledge of Russian involvement in the election during campaign season. However, this doesn't necessarily mean they acted on this knowledge. But would being complicit meet a collusion threshold test?

My pure speculation here. I have a feeling all these meetings that took place were about the Russians telling the Trump campaign what kind of information they had and what they were going to do with the information, while team Trump so sat there and nodded their heads.

I don't know. But let me ask you this,

Guy talks to a 14 YO girl online. Agrees to meet her for sex.

Shows up, no sex. Instead, an officer waiting to arrest him.

He's guilty of attempting to have sex with her and goes to jail.

Uday electronically agreed to meet with the Russians to get info. Showed up, no info. But he still went to the meeting. Question is what was his intent? Was his intent to collude? Is attempted treason illegal or just successful treason?

I am beginning to think Richard Nixon was merely a man before his time.

So the proper comparison isn't to Hillary but to Weiner?

The proper comparison is a setup.

https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/885001097420697606

https://twitter.com/SenJohnMcCain/status/588019015198625792

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a question to all you brilliant DCUM legal minds out there. What's the legal standard/definition for collusion in this context? The more that comes out, the more certain it sounds like the Trump campaign had at least some knowledge of Russian involvement in the election during campaign season. However, this doesn't necessarily mean they acted on this knowledge. But would being complicit meet a collusion threshold test?

My pure speculation here. I have a feeling all these meetings that took place were about the Russians telling the Trump campaign what kind of information they had and what they were going to do with the information, while team Trump so sat there and nodded their heads.

I don't know. But let me ask you this,

Guy talks to a 14 YO girl online. Agrees to meet her for sex.

Shows up, no sex. Instead, an officer waiting to arrest him.

He's guilty of attempting to have sex with her and goes to jail.

Uday electronically agreed to meet with the Russians to get info. Showed up, no info. But he still went to the meeting. Question is what was his intent? Was his intent to collude? Is attempted treason illegal or just successful treason?

I am beginning to think Richard Nixon was merely a man before his time.

So the proper comparison isn't to Hillary but to Weiner?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a question to all you brilliant DCUM legal minds out there. What's the legal standard/definition for collusion in this context? The more that comes out, the more certain it sounds like the Trump campaign had at least some knowledge of Russian involvement in the election during campaign season. However, this doesn't necessarily mean they acted on this knowledge. But would being complicit meet a collusion threshold test?

My pure speculation here. I have a feeling all these meetings that took place were about the Russians telling the Trump campaign what kind of information they had and what they were going to do with the information, while team Trump so sat there and nodded their heads.

I don't know. But let me ask you this,

Guy talks to a 14 YO girl online. Agrees to meet her for sex.

Shows up, no sex. Instead, an officer waiting to arrest him.

He's guilty of attempting to have sex with her and goes to jail.

Uday electronically agreed to meet with the Russians to get info. Showed up, no info. But he still went to the meeting. Question is what was his intent? Was his intent to collude? Is attempted treason illegal or just successful treason?

I am beginning to think Richard Nixon was merely a man before his time.

Anonymous wrote:https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/11/opinion/donald-trump-jr.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=opinion-c-col-left-region®ion=opinion-c-col-left-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-left-region

Sometimes the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree. Sometimes the apple is also considerably dimmer than the tree. And sometimes the apple must be thrown under the bus so that the tree and a few of its most crucial limbs don’t tumble to the forest floor, where they’ll be chopped up and used as firewood by Democrats.

Is that the fruity fate of Donald Trump Jr.?

love the writing in the editorials this morning.

There’s no proof that Donald Trump Sr. knew of the meeting with the Russian lawyer, though there’s this: In the week between its scheduling and its occurrence back in June 2016, he made public remarks in which he said he’d be delivering a special speech about Clinton’s wrongdoing that was set — oh so interestingly, in retrospect — for a few days after the meeting. But that meeting, we’re now told, was a bust, with no great trove of Clinton-wounding revelations, and the speech didn’t happen as promised.

Anonymous wrote:https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/11/opinion/donald-trump-jr.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=opinion-c-col-left-region®ion=opinion-c-col-left-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-left-region

Sometimes the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree. Sometimes the apple is also considerably dimmer than the tree. And sometimes the apple must be thrown under the bus so that the tree and a few of its most crucial limbs don’t tumble to the forest floor, where they’ll be chopped up and used as firewood by Democrats.

Is that the fruity fate of Donald Trump Jr.?

love the writing in the editorials this morning.

Anonymous wrote:BTW, the Steele dossier is proven to be correct again that Agaralov is the conduit from trump campaign to Russia.

Sometimes the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree. Sometimes the apple is also considerably dimmer than the tree. And sometimes the apple must be thrown under the bus so that the tree and a few of its most crucial limbs don’t tumble to the forest floor, where they’ll be chopped up and used as firewood by Democrats.

Is that the fruity fate of Donald Trump Jr.?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

So the proper comparison isn't to Hillary but to Weiner?

Weiner should definitely not be in the White House.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What concerns me are the reports that the FBI either didn't know about this meeting or at least, didn't know about these emails. Kinda worried what else they/Mueller may be missing?

Is there a source for this assertion? I don't remember seeing anything in the articles to suggest this information was unknown to the FBI. Undisclosed to the public? Sure.

Exactly. If you hear about the FBI knowing about this information, we'll be receiving yet another 3am rambling tweet from our dear leader about leakers.

I haven't seen it either, but hope the FBI is only being circumspect about its knowledge and sources. If not, isn't it likely Russia is feeding this to NYT? Not arguing that makes it untrue; it's all clear as day in the email, but to sow unrest here. I mean, we are handicapped right now. Also, not trying to say it shouldn't have been reported. Obvs it should. I've just been crazy curious about who the leakers have been throughout this whole debacle and what their true motivation is.

Anonymous wrote:

So the proper comparison isn't to Hillary but to Weiner?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a question to all you brilliant DCUM legal minds out there. What's the legal standard/definition for collusion in this context? The more that comes out, the more certain it sounds like the Trump campaign had at least some knowledge of Russian involvement in the election during campaign season. However, this doesn't necessarily mean they acted on this knowledge. But would being complicit meet a collusion threshold test?

My pure speculation here. I have a feeling all these meetings that took place were about the Russians telling the Trump campaign what kind of information they had and what they were going to do with the information, while team Trump so sat there and nodded their heads.

I don't know. But let me ask you this,

Guy talks to a 14 YO girl online. Agrees to meet her for sex.

Shows up, no sex. Instead, an officer waiting to arrest him.

He's guilty of attempting to have sex with her and goes to jail.

Uday electronically agreed to meet with the Russians to get info. Showed up, no info. But he still went to the meeting. Question is what was his intent? Was his intent to collude? Is attempted treason illegal or just successful treason?

I am beginning to think Richard Nixon was merely a man before his time.