Trump and Russia

[Deranged Rhino]

Just now, daz28 said:

Also, some may disagree with your assertion it's legal:  A foreign national shall not, directly or indirectly, make a contribution or a donation of money or other thing of value, or expressly or impliedly promise to make a contribution or a donation, in connection with any Federal, State, or local election.

 

And that didn't happen in the meeting -- because the conversation was about Magnitsky/Adoptions, not the election. Thus, no crime was committed. Even if they had given the Trump campaign dirt in that meeting, it still wouldn't meet the bar of what you state above unless they didn't report it to the proper authorities. So we'll never know one way or the other what they would have done had they been given actionable intel. 

 

But you're missing the bigger picture.

 

Doesn't it strike you as odd that if the FBI and USIC were so worried that NV was a Russian operative looking to disrupt the 2016 election, as they say now, that they moved mountains to not only let the woman into the country, but to assure she made that meeting? Isn't that strange to you?

 

Isn't it also strange that the same woman met with Glenn Simpson immediately before and after that meeting when Simpson himself testified he doesn't speak Russian and she doesn't speak English? Does the pre-existing connection to Natalia and Fusion GPS not stand out as strange as well in light of everything that came out after that meeting? 

[daz28]

1 minute ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

And that didn't happen in the meeting -- because the conversation was about Magnitsky/Adoptions, not the election. Thus, no crime was committed. Even if they had given the Trump campaign dirt in that meeting, it still wouldn't meet the bar of what you state above unless they didn't report it to the proper authorities. So we'll never know one way or the other what they would have done had they been given actionable intel. 

 

But you're missing the bigger picture.

 

Doesn't it strike you as odd that if the FBI and USIC were so worried that NV was a Russian operative looking to disrupt the 2016 election, as they say now, that they moved mountains to not only let the woman into the country, but to assure she made that meeting? Isn't that strange to you?

 

Isn't it also strange that the same woman met with Glenn Simpson immediately before and after that meeting when Simpson himself testified he doesn't speak Russian and she doesn't speak English? Does the pre-existing connection to Natalia and Fusion GPS not stand out as strange as well in light of everything that came out after that meeting? 

Yes it's strange, but that's all it is at this point.  The keyword I think your missing is implied promise.  I'm not saying it's a slam dunk, but it's sticky.  I also believe, but can't prove they did give intel, but it wasn't what he thought it would be.  There's no logical explanation to think that she'd try to sneak in a meeting under false pretenses, and get a warm audience.  

[Deranged Rhino]

Just now, daz28 said:

Yes it's strange, but that's all it is at this point.  The keyword I think your missing is implied promise.  I'm not saying it's a slam dunk, but it's sticky.  I also believe, but can't prove they did give intel, but it wasn't what he thought it would be.  There's no logical explanation to think that she'd try to sneak in a meeting under false pretenses, and get a warm audience.  

 

I'm giving you the logical explanation for it -- you're just not seeing it yet because you're still laboring under the assumption that Trump/Russia was ever real. It never was. It was a piece of fiction created by the CIA, FBI, DOJ, and Obama White House in order to cover up a massive scandal uncovered by then acting NSA director Mike Rogers. 

 

The logical explanation for why she'd try to sneak into a meeting under false pretenses is so that the meeting could then be weaponized by the media and the Clinton campaign to smear their opponent with accusations of "working with Russians" that would never stand up in court (but would in the court of public opinion during the height of election season).

 

It was a set up. 

[Gary M]

On ‎2‎/‎16‎/‎2017 at 2:27 PM, keepthefaith said:

Russia - Trump, the biggest non-story of the year so far.

 

 

And yet this thread won't die. 

[daz28]

5 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

I'm giving you the logical explanation for it -- you're just not seeing it yet because you're still laboring under the assumption that Trump/Russia was ever real. It never was. It was a piece of fiction created by the CIA, FBI, DOJ, and Obama White House in order to cover up a massive scandal uncovered by then acting NSA director Mike Rogers. 

 

The logical explanation for why she'd try to sneak into a meeting under false pretenses is so that the meeting could then be weaponized by the media and the Clinton campaign to smear their opponent with accusations of "working with Russians" that would never stand up in court (but would in the court of public opinion during the height of election season).

 

It was a set up. 

Then why didn't she offer up the dirt(fake or not), and finish the mission?  You yourself said if they got intel it may have been a problem, so why would they stop just short of what their goal was.  Again, no logical explanation for that.

[Doc]

Just now, daz28 said:

Then why didn't she offer up the dirt(fake or not), and finish the mission?  You yourself said if they got intel it may have been a problem, so why would they stop just short of what their goal was.  Again, no logical explanation for that.

 

Because she never had any to begin with?

[Deranged Rhino]

Just now, daz28 said:

Then why didn't she offer up the dirt(fake or not), and finish the mission? 

 

Because of this: 

https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/icotr/51117/2016_Cert_FISC_Memo_Opin_Order_Apr_2017.pdf

 

Giving up the "dirt" would mean giving up dirt on her own team. She wasn't working for Russia, she wasn't working for Trump. She was working -- via proxy -- for Clinton and Obama. 

 

2 minutes ago, daz28 said:

 You yourself said if they got intel it may have been a problem, so why would they stop just short of what their goal was.  Again, no logical explanation for that.

 

The goal wasn't to make a case to bring to trial. 

 

The goal was to create innuendo which the media could then use to aid her client's campaign. You have a much lower bar to reach in the court of public opinion than you do in an actual court of law where the other side gets a bite of the apple. 

[daz28]

10 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

Because she never had any to begin with?

If it was a setup it wouldn't have to be real dirt, much like in a drug deal rip it's baking soda not real cocaine.  Even in the court of opinion the fake dirt would have been better ammo, and it would have left a backup plan of an actual crime if need be down the road.  I mean that's how I or any logical criminal probably would have done it.

Edited April 22, 2020 by daz28

[Deranged Rhino]

2 minutes ago, daz28 said:

If it was a setup it wouldn't have to be real dirt, much like in a drug deal rip it's baking soda not real cocaine.  Even in the court of opinion the fake dirt would have been better ammo, and it would have left a backup plan of an actual crime if need be down the road.  I mean that's how I or any logical criminal probably would have done it.

 

For the answer, look back to what you just wrote recently: 

 

25 minutes ago, daz28 said:

I also believe, but can't prove they did give intel, but it wasn't what he thought it would be.  

 

That's the answer. They didn't need to invent dirt, or even hint at dirt in the meeting because it was unnecessary. All that was needed was to have Trump Jr in a meeting with "RUSSIANS!" so the media could run wild with innuendo and smears, flood the airwaves with them until even you -- an otherwise rational and intelligent person, assumes that something happened in that meeting that was nefarious. 

 

If they had dropped real dirt, or fake dirt, it would open up a whole new can of worms -- including giving Trump Jr a line of defense to use to change the media narrative. 

 

The goal was to smear with innuendo while also creating context to justify surveillance warrants. 

 

They achieved both goals.

[Doc]

13 minutes ago, daz28 said:

If it was a setup it wouldn't have to be real dirt, much like in a drug deal rip it's baking soda not real cocaine.  Even in the court of opinion the fake dirt would have been better ammo, and it would have left a backup plan of an actual crime if need be down the road.  I mean that's how I or any logical criminal probably would have done it.

 

What do you think the meeting was for then, if it was supposed to be about giving DTJ dirt on Hillary?  Sounded like all the world to be a sting, with them hoping DTJ would ask for the dirt and then they'd settle on a price and then boom, he's snared. 

[daz28]

18 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

What do you think the meeting was for then, if it was supposed to be about giving DTJ dirt on Hillary?  Sounded like all the world to be a sting, with them hoping DTJ would ask for the dirt and then they'd settle on a price and then boom, he's snared. 

He kinda did ask for the dirt, and the way I read the law he wouldn't have had to receive it or need any money to transfer hands.  I guess the only logic is they really did never have any intention to prosecute anyways, because to me the law appears to have been broken.  Probably because they didn't want the can of worms opened that far.

29 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

 

 

 

That's the answer. They didn't need to invent dirt, or even hint at dirt in the meeting because it was unnecessary. All that was needed was to have Trump Jr in a meeting with "RUSSIANS!" so the media could run wild with innuendo and smears, flood the airwaves with them until even you -- an otherwise rational and intelligent person, assumes that something happened in that meeting that was nefarious. 

 

 

He did take the bait, and it was nefarious.

Edited April 22, 2020 by daz28

[Deranged Rhino]

3 minutes ago, daz28 said:

He did take the bait, and it was nefarious.

 

... ? 

 

So, if the bait was laid out by American Intelligence officials, rather than the Russians you've been told -- that makes zero difference to your calculus? 

[daz28]

2 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

... ? 

 

So, if the bait was laid out by American Intelligence officials, rather than the Russians you've been told -- that makes zero difference to your calculus? 

It makes them all guilty.  Now what can we do about it?  I don't think it should let Don Jr. off the hook, and I don't think the officials should get off either.  Why do you phrase everything as a supposition rather than just a question?

[Taro T]

37 minutes ago, daz28 said:

If it was a setup it wouldn't have to be real dirt, much like in a drug deal rip it's baking soda not real cocaine.  Even in the court of opinion the fake dirt would have been better ammo, and it would have left a backup plan of an actual crime if need be down the road.  I mean that's how I or any logical criminal probably would have done it.

 

Of course, if they did give made up dirt on Clinton and they then went to the authorities with it (we'll never know if they would've or wouldn't have; but we do know that his dad is a NYC real estate guy who has had people digging for dirt on HIM for 4+ years and the worst they've found to date is a settled case about discriminatory rentingbpractices from 30+ years ago and him saying if he wanted that women would let him grab them by the ######, so if's st least possible he would've brought it to the authorities), then it seems they'd be able to use the "dirt" on Hillary themselves and now Clinton is on the defensive explaining how it's all bunk.  At which point Trump's team starts looking into that themselves.

 

It seems providing fake dirt about Hillary is less clean than simply bait & switching the meeting premise.

[Foxx]

13 minutes ago, daz28 said:

He kinda did ask for the dirt, and the way I read the law he wouldn't have had to receive it or need any money to transfer hands.  I guess the only logic is they really did never have any intention to prosecute anyways, because to me the law appears to have been broken.  Probably because they didn't want the can of worms opened that far.

He did take the bait, and it was nefarious.

daz, you're doing it again.

 

your taking only one side of the equation and ruling out the other side. you can't do that and come to a fair and equitable conclusion of an evaluation. 

 

your so close, you just need to push through the NLP they have whipped your ass with for these last 4 years.

 

 

4 minutes ago, daz28 said:

It makes them all guilty.  Now what can we do about it?  I don't think it should let Don Jr. off the hook, and I don't think the officials should get off either.  Why do you phrase everything as a supposition rather than just a question?

he's trying to get you to think for yourself.

Edited April 22, 2020 by Foxx

[daz28]

1 minute ago, Foxx said:

daz, you're doing it again.

 

your taking only one side of the equation and ruling out the other side. you can't do that and come to a fair and equitable conclusion of an evaluation. 

 

your so close, you just need to push through the NLP they have whipped your ass with for these last 4 years.

No I'm not I said they're both guilty, and should both have to face the music.

[Deranged Rhino]

Just now, daz28 said:

It makes them all guilty.  

 

All of whom guilty? 

 

1 minute ago, daz28 said:

Now what can we do about it?

 

Which is a more egregious matter to be concerned about in your opinion: 

 

A) A campaign worker who seeks out dirt on his or her opponent during the height of a presidential campaign 

 

or 

 

B) The entire upper echelon of the US Intelligence Community working hand in hand with the White House and a political party in an effort to influence a US election? 

 

3 minutes ago, daz28 said:

I don't think it should let Don Jr. off the hook --

 

Let off the hook for what? Taking the meeting, even under the pretenses of obtaining dirt, is not a crime. It happens every day on every campaign at the national level. He didn't lie to Congress about the meeting, he didn't receive anything illegally obtained by Russians during the meeting and use that in the election... so what is he on the hook for other than innuendo?

 

4 minutes ago, daz28 said:

Why do you phrase everything as a supposition rather than just a question?

 

Because knowledge is more appreciated when it's learned for yourself, rather than preached to you by another.

 

I truly am not trying to be pedantic or play gotcha with you, Daz. You've shown a willingness to have a conversation with me on this topic, and it's appreciated. I'm just trying to make sure I fully understand you so we can continue that rather than talking past one another.  

[Foxx]

Just now, daz28 said:

No I'm not I said they're both guilty, and should both have to face the music.

not trying to gang up you here, at all.

 

it's just that you remind me of Mulder, 'you want to believe', i can see it.

[daz28]

I'm sorry, but the way the law is phrased I think Don Jr did break the law, but I'm not trying to pick on just him.  Sure he should get a better deal than the officials who framed him, but he still did it.  Maybe he can argue entrapment, but that's up to the courts.  Now, the REAL issue is none of them are likely to face any music.  They protect each other, and live under the guise that it makes the country look better if we just let it slide.  I'm not about that.

[Deranged Rhino]

Just now, daz28 said:

I'm sorry, but the way the law is phrased I think Don Jr did break the law, but I'm not trying to pick on just him.  Sure he should get a better deal than the officials who framed him, but he still did it.  Maybe he can argue entrapment, but that's up to the courts.  Now, the REAL issue is none of them are likely to face any music.  They protect each other, and live under the guise that it makes the country look better if we just let it slide.  I'm not about that.

 

On that we can agree  

 

Though, I'd suggest you keep watching this story over the next few weeks. I'm thinking that we're both in for a surprise about whether or not they did get away with it.