plenzmd1 Posted April 23, 2019 Posted April 23, 2019 (edited) 44 minutes ago, Nanker said: Welcome back Omar, but that's not what happened. Not what happened at all. They weren't interested in the "dirt" and refused all "help" from the Russians. That's the facts. Don Jr. went to the meeting because he ran an adoption service for Russian babies and children for US adoptive parents. The Russians were there to get his support to have assurances that the "Majinsky Act" (sp?) would be dropped - or at least the name would be changed. Don Jr. walked out of the meeting. The Russians were also there to entrap Trump into a setup that made it look like collusion. Why didn't the FBI contact Trump to tell him that they thought the Russians were trying to tamper in his Campaign? Senator Diane Feinstein was notified by the FBI that her personal assistant and driver for 21 YEARS was an actual CHINESE SPY! She had to fire him. She had a Chinese spy on her payroll for 21 years! Thanks for the welcome back!!!! I do not think that is what it says in the report...and lets say it is even correct.I .thought Trump was yapping yesterday about people negotiating with foreign entities that did have authority too..so I guess there is that as well 32 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: ... You mean the "help" that was being offered by Western intelligence spooks and assets like Downer, Halper, and Misfud? Just a simple yes or no would suffice ..is it okay to accept help from a foreign government in your mind Edited April 23, 2019 by plenzmd1
Buffalo_Gal Posted April 23, 2019 Posted April 23, 2019 2 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said: Just a simple yes or no would suffice ..is it okay to accept help from a foreign government in your mind How about you start reading the source documents instead of coming back over and over with the same question phrased slightly differently? The answer is not going to change: NO COLLUSION!!
Joe Miner Posted April 23, 2019 Posted April 23, 2019 3 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said: Thanks for the welcome back!!!! I do not think that is what it says in the report...and lets say it is even correct.I .thought Trump was yapping yesterday about people negotiating with foreign entities that did have authority too..so I guess there is that as well Just a simple yes or no would suffice ..is it okay to accept help from a foreign government in your mind That's not a simple question.
Deranged Rhino Posted April 23, 2019 Posted April 23, 2019 5 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said: Just a simple yes or no would suffice ..is it okay to accept help from a foreign government in your mind It's not a simple yes or no because it depends entirely upon what sort of help you mean, and from which government. The Mueller report details several opportunities the Trump team had to pursue Russian help -- and every single one was not what it seemed or what the Mueller report shows. Each one was an attempt to entrap the team with western spies posing as Russian cut outs. If you're referring to the team retweeting articles which they had no idea were Russian in origin, that's not a crime. Otherwise, I'm not sure what help you're referring to? And to circle back to your first question - the entire point of this thing was not about accepting help from a foreign government. That's revisionist history to the extreme. The point and purpose of the probe was to determine if there was an active effort on the part of the Trump campaign to subvert the election with Russian help. THAT would be highly illegal and criminal. But it didn't happen. (and for clarity, I'm not trying to dodge or evade - quite the opposite) 1
plenzmd1 Posted April 23, 2019 Posted April 23, 2019 15 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said: How about you start reading the source documents instead of coming back over and over with the same question phrased slightly differently? The answer is not going to change: NO COLLUSION!! That was not my question...as I understand it there is not even a legal definition of collusion..so no collusion is relatively meaningless no? But again, the Trump campaign staffers attended the meeting as they understood the Russian's to have dirt on Hilary and that they wanted to get their hands on that dirt. 1) Do you have a different interpretation of the context of that meeting? 2) If you accept that as the context for why the meeting was arranged, do you have an issue with them accepting the meeting with the expectation that a foreign government would help in their campaign? I have not asked if it was legal, I have asked do you have an issue with it 10 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: It's not a simple yes or no because it depends entirely upon what sort of help you mean, and from which government. The Mueller report details several opportunities the Trump team had to pursue Russian help -- and every single one was not what it seemed or what the Mueller report shows. Each one was an attempt to entrap the team with western spies posing as Russian cut outs. If you're referring to the team retweeting articles which they had no idea were Russian in origin, that's not a crime. Otherwise, I'm not sure what help you're referring to? And to circle back to your first question - the entire point of this thing was not about accepting help from a foreign government. That's revisionist history to the extreme. The point and purpose of the probe was to determine if there was an active effort on the part of the Trump campaign to subvert the election with Russian help. THAT would be highly illegal and criminal. But it didn't happen. (and for clarity, I'm not trying to dodge or evade - quite the opposite) I refer specifically to the Trump Tower meeting ..and as mentioned above I am not asking about the legality of attending the meeting with the express expectation of getting dirt on an opponent from a foreign government, but rather if you think it okay. Rudy has said he thought it fine, I am asking if YOU think it is fine
Deranged Rhino Posted April 23, 2019 Posted April 23, 2019 7 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said: I refer specifically to the Trump Tower meeting ..and as mentioned above I am not asking about the legality of attending the meeting with the express expectation of getting dirt on an opponent from a foreign government, but rather if you think it okay. Rudy has said he thought it fine, I am asking if YOU think it is fine Trump Jr. did not know he was meeting with a "foreign government" when he took that meeting. He was meeting a lawyer who claimed to have dirt on their opposition campaign. That's how the meeting was proposed to Trump through Goldstone. It was not pitched as "the Russian government has dirt on the Clintons". Is it okay in my opinion to take a meeting with someone who claims to have dirt on the opposition? Yes. Is it okay in my opinion to take a meeting with an official member of a foreign government who claims to have dirt on the opposition? Depends on the government. Of course, the reality of the Trump tower meeting was that NV wasn't working with Putin but with Obama and Clinton to frame Trump Jr. Which makes asking about this story, while omitting that key fact, kind of irrelevant. 2
3rdnlng Posted April 23, 2019 Posted April 23, 2019 5 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said: That was not my question...as I understand it there is not even a legal definition of collusion..so no collusion is relatively meaningless no? But again, the Trump campaign staffers attended the meeting as they understood the Russian's to have dirt on Hilary and that they wanted to get their hands on that dirt. 1) Do you have a different interpretation of the context of that meeting? 2) If you accept that as the context for why the meeting was arranged, do you have an issue with them accepting the meeting with the expectation that a foreign government would help in their campaign? I have not asked if it was legal, I have asked do you have an issue with it I refer specifically to the Trump Tower meeting ..and as mentioned above I am not asking about the legality of attending the meeting with the express expectation of getting dirt on an opponent from a foreign government, but rather if you think it okay. Rudy has said he thought it fine, I am asking if YOU think it is fine It wasn't information from a foreign government. They represented themselves as private citizens and It was certainly ok to receive that info under the circumstances. They didn't have any dirt on Hillary though. What they wanted to talk about was the Magnitsky Act which the USA passed in 2012. It targeted oligarchs and also the Russian government. The Russians in turn put a moratorium on adoption of Russian babies here in the U.S. as punishment for the Act. Shortly after the meeting started Don Jr. found out that his team had been duped into attending the meeting and he left. 2
Joe Miner Posted April 23, 2019 Posted April 23, 2019 3 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: Trump Jr. did not know he was meeting with a "foreign government" when he took that meeting. He was meeting a lawyer who claimed to have dirt on their opposition campaign. That's how the meeting was proposed to Trump through Goldstone. It was not pitched as "the Russian government has dirt on the Clintons". Is it okay in my opinion to take a meeting with someone who claims to have dirt on the opposition? Yes. Is it okay in my opinion to take a meeting with an official member of a foreign government who claims to have dirt on the opposition? Depends on the government. Of course, the reality of the Trump tower meeting was that NV wasn't working with Putin but with Obama and Clinton to frame Trump Jr. Which makes asking about this story, while omitting that key fact, kind of irrelevant. Depends on the government Depends on the type of dirt Depends on how it was obtained Depends on what if anything they want for it Depends on why they it was obtained It's not a simple question with a simple answer. Is it ever right to get information about a political opponent from a foreign govt? Yes. Is it always right? No 2
Deranged Rhino Posted April 23, 2019 Posted April 23, 2019 Just now, Joe Miner said: Depends on the government Depends on the type of dirt Depends on how it was obtained Depends on what if anything they want for it Depends on why they it was obtained It's not a simple question with a simple answer. Is it ever right to get information about a political opponent from a foreign govt? Yes. Is it always right? No Agreed. And it's also important to remember when the Trump Tower meeting happened, Russia wasn't "hostile" or an "enemy nation". That narrative hadn't been built quite yet.
3rdnlng Posted April 23, 2019 Posted April 23, 2019 1 minute ago, Deranged Rhino said: Agreed. And it's also important to remember when the Trump Tower meeting happened, Russia wasn't "hostile" or an "enemy nation". That narrative hadn't been built quite yet. Do you mean that the democrats hadn't yet fully bought into Mitt Romney's opinion that Russia was our biggest geopolitical foe? 1 1
plenzmd1 Posted April 23, 2019 Posted April 23, 2019 1 minute ago, Deranged Rhino said: Trump Jr. did not know he was meeting with a "foreign government" when he took that meeting. He was meeting a lawyer who claimed to have dirt on their opposition campaign. That's how the meeting was proposed to Trump through Goldstone. It was not pitched as "the Russian government has dirt on the Clintons". Is it okay in my opinion to take a meeting with someone who claims to have dirt on the opposition? Yes. Is it okay in my opinion to take a meeting with an official member of a foreign government who claims to have dirt on the opposition? Depends on the government. Of course, the reality of the Trump tower meeting was that NV wasn't working with Putin but with Obama and Clinton to frame Trump Jr. Which makes asking about this story, while omitting that key fact, kind of irrelevant. okay, thank you. Now, here si the actual text of the email Goldstone sent to Trump jr..please refute Quote June 2016 Rob Goldstone to Trump Jr Emin [Agalarov, a Russian pop star represented by Goldstone] just called and asked me to contact you with something very interesting. The Crown prosecutor of Russia met with his father Aras [a Moscow-based developer who tried to partner with Trump in a hotel project] this morning and in their meeting offered to provide the Trump campaign with some official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary [Clinton] and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father. This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr Trump – helped along by Aras and Emin. Couple of points. Goldstone told Don JR the Russiam government was involved..plain and simple 1) Of course, it is okay to take a meeting with someone claiming to have dirt on the opposition..should not be elected President if you dumb enough to say no to that. 2) The second okay you got there.. I don't see the wiggle room. Indebtedness is indebtedness no? And to Russia? In terms of the last sentence, does not matter who she is working for ..if Trump JR believed she was working for the Russian government, that is all that matters. Again, you okay with the campaign knowingly taking information for an adversarial government?
Buffalo_Gal Posted April 23, 2019 Posted April 23, 2019 @plenzmd1 source document:Donald J Trump Jr testimony September 7, 2017
Deranged Rhino Posted April 23, 2019 Posted April 23, 2019 4 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said: okay, thank you. Now, here si the actual text of the email Goldstone sent to Trump jr..please refute It is what it is. Goldstone was doing the bidding of Dearlove, not Putin. NV worked for Fusion GPS, not the Kremlin. These are fundamental facts that you can't just put aside. 5 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said: In terms of the last sentence, does not matter who she is working for ..if Trump JR believed she was working for the Russian government, that is all that matters. It matters greatly. To say it doesn't is kind of silly. If she had no real information, and wasn't really working on behalf of Putin but instead the Clinton campaign, that fundamentally changes everything about the meeting regardless of what Jr. thought going in. Taking the meeting, even with a hostile foreign government (which Russia was not) is not illegal, criminal, or unexpected. 7 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said: Again, you okay with the campaign knowingly taking information for an adversarial government? Russia, in June of 2016, was not a hostile government. They weren't an enemy. There's nothing wrong with taking the meeting. Had they been given information, obtained illicitly, then we'd be having a different conversation. But it didn't happen so we can't speculate what Trump Jr would or wouldn't have done had he been put in that spot. 1
plenzmd1 Posted April 23, 2019 Posted April 23, 2019 1 minute ago, Deranged Rhino said: It is what it is. Goldstone was doing the bidding of Dearlove, not Putin. NV worked for Fusion GPS, not the Kremlin. These are fundamental facts that you can't just put aside. It matters greatly. To say it doesn't is kind of silly. If she had no real information, and wasn't really working on behalf of Putin but instead the Clinton campaign, that fundamentally changes everything about the meeting regardless of what Jr. thought going in. Taking the meeting, even with a hostile foreign government (which Russia was not) is not illegal, criminal, or unexpected. Russia, in June of 2016, was not a hostile government. They weren't an enemy. There's nothing wrong with taking the meeting. Had they been given information, obtained illicitly, then we'd be having a different conversation. But it didn't happen so we can't speculate what Trump Jr would or wouldn't have done had he been put in that spot. Okay, we are just gonna have to disagree here. I am saying Trump JR and the Trump campaign thought they were meeting with someone officially connected to Russia..but you are saying your belief, and i stress belief at this time, that she was not there on behalf of Russia but the Clintons somehow mitigates the intent. Sounds like to me if I have you believe you are buying a kilo of coke from me but I actually work for the government and there are no drugs involved, no crime has taken place. And to reiterate, I am not saying there was a crime, but the intent to get information from a foreign government on the opposition, and you see no problem with that. We will forever disagree on that. I find it morally reprehensible to think our president and his kin would be in debt to a foreign government. Any government. And obviously Trump Sr thought it was bad to have that info out in the public realm, as he lied about the meeting too. So yes, that information could have been leveraged against him And to say you believe the Russian government was a friendly..cmon now ..i know you better 1
3rdnlng Posted April 23, 2019 Posted April 23, 2019 11 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said: Okay, we are just gonna have to disagree here. I am saying Trump JR and the Trump campaign thought they were meeting with someone officially connected to Russia..but you are saying your belief, and i stress belief at this time, that she was not there on behalf of Russia but the Clintons somehow mitigates the intent. Sounds like to me if I have you believe you are buying a kilo of coke from me but I actually work for the government and there are no drugs involved, no crime has taken place. And to reiterate, I am not saying there was a crime, but the intent to get information from a foreign government on the opposition, and you see no problem with that. We will forever disagree on that. I find it morally reprehensible to think our president and his kin would be in debt to a foreign government. Any government. And obviously Trump Sr thought it was bad to have that info out in the public realm, as he lied about the meeting too. So yes, that information could have been leveraged against him And to say you believe the Russian government was a friendly..cmon now ..i know you better What was the lie?
plenzmd1 Posted April 23, 2019 Posted April 23, 2019 1 minute ago, 3rdnlng said: What was the lie? oh stop...you know damn well what the lie was ...when does that man not lie...
Koko78 Posted April 23, 2019 Posted April 23, 2019 7 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said: oh stop...you know damn well what the lie was ...when does that man not lie... Solid logic. So, was Trump lying about being wiretapped by Obama's administration? Was he lying about not colluding with Russia? Was he lying that he was the subject of a coup? Nope. Pretty well proven that he was absolutely correct about those things.
Buffalo_Gal Posted April 23, 2019 Posted April 23, 2019 18 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said: oh stop...you know damn well what the lie was ...when does that man not lie... Shesh. The hyperbole, it burns.
Deranged Rhino Posted April 23, 2019 Posted April 23, 2019 (edited) 41 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said: Okay, we are just gonna have to disagree here. I am saying Trump JR and the Trump campaign thought they were meeting with someone officially connected to Russia..but you are saying your belief, and i stress belief at this time, that she was not there on behalf of Russia but the Clintons somehow mitigates the intent. It's not a belief, it's a fact the meeting was set up by Fusion GPS on behalf of the Clinton campaign. It's a fact NV was only allowed into the country thanks to the Obama State Department intervening on her behalf at the eleventh hour. Those are facts backed by evidence, not speculations. * NV has a history with Fusion GPS which mueller omitted. * NV met with Glenn Simpson immediately before and after the meeting. * Fusion GPS had been hired weeks before by the Clinton campaign to run an informational operation agains the Trump campaign. Those are not speculations. 41 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said: Sounds like to me if I have you believe you are buying a kilo of coke from me but I actually work for the government and there are no drugs involved, no crime has taken place. That's not my opinion, that's the law. Unless you sell me coke in that meeting, there's no crime committed. You'd not be able to make a case unless a purchase was made. Going to the meet isn't a crime. Arranging the meet isn't a crime. *Narco laws might be different - I don't know that law cold but I'm trying to keep it apples to apples. Same here. Taking the meeting isn't a criminal or a crime. Taking information illegally obtained MIGHT be, but it didn't happen so it's moot. 41 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said: And to reiterate, I am not saying there was a crime, but the intent to get information from a foreign government on the opposition, and you see no problem with that. We will forever disagree on that. I never said I didn't see a problem with it. I said it's not a crime, and it's not. Meetings like that one are done all the time by every campaign. You take the meeting, and see what they have - if only to report bad actors to the authorities if it turns out it is something nefarious. This was nefarious - just not in the way the mueller report wants you to think. It's nefarious because NV wasn't there on behalf of Putin but on behalf of fusion GPS and the Clinton campaign. There were crimes committed here. Just not by Trump Jr. 41 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said: I find it morally reprehensible to think our president and his kin would be in debt to a foreign government. Any government. And obviously Trump Sr thought it was bad to have that info out in the public realm, as he lied about the meeting too. So yes, that information could have been leveraged against him I wonder if your moral outrage stretches enough to be outraged over the fact the Clinton campaign and Obama administration were actually paying Russian intelligence assets to creat fake dirt on their political opposition at the very same time this meeting took place. Doesn't that put them both "in debt" to a foreign government? Isn't that a worse crime - considering how deceitful they were with the public about the realities of that meeting and the dossier? They lied about this for two years, perpetrating fraud on the public and FISC in the process. Dividing the country in the process purely for CYA reasons. Or is it worse to take a meeting where nothing happened, no crime was committed? 41 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said: And to say you believe the Russian government was a friendly..cmon now ..i know you better I didn't say friendly. I said they weren't a hostile adversary in June of 2016. And they weren't. It wasn't until Fusion GPS and the Obama Administration launched a divisive information campaign against its own people that Russia became scary again. It it was always a coup. Edited April 23, 2019 by Deranged Rhino 4
Recommended Posts