Russian Lawyer: I did not have Clinton Information.

[Hellcats]

Scarborough is as much of a Republican as you are.

 

Not anymore.

 

Joe Scarborough announces he's leaving the Republican Party - CBS News

Joe Scarborough announces he'''s leaving the Republican Party

[BigVMan23]

Uhhhhhhhhhhh, politics.:meh:

 

I'm a republican, and here are my thoughts. I'm embarrassed, in many ways, by both the current state and federal administrations. The tops dogs are like spoiled, petulant children. Things are in chaos. It's ludicrous.

 

With all that said, here is what I don't understand. Someone from Russia gets a hold of the Trump campaign and alludes to the fact they may have some juicy "dirt" on HRC. DT Jr. says cool, we can meet. Turns out, evidently, it was a farce and no "dirt" was given. So, whats wrong with that? Does anyone on here really think it's not possible someone from Russia could have some dirt on her that they wanted to share, with HRC having been involved with national politics in some form or fashion since the early 90's, and having meetings and discussions with Russian officials for years as part of her job and with the Clinton Foundation. It's not possible she promised something and didn't deliver and ticked the wrong people off, or she burned a bridge and someone wanted to get even by letting some info go that they know HRC wouldn't want known? I mean heck, she signed away 20% of the US uranium stockpile to Russia for crying out loud. But yet, THIS MEETING is a big scandal?:idunno:

 

I'm not taking up for the Trump administration and they have made many mistakes and missteps already in just a short amount of time, and maybe this meeting, or how it was handled was a misstep. But I fail right now to see the big scandal here.

[Hellcats]

Uhhhhhhhhhhh, politics.:meh:

 

I'm a republican, and here are my thoughts. I'm embarrassed, in many ways, by both the current state and federal administrations. The tops dogs are like spoiled, petulant children. Things are in chaos. It's ludicrous.

 

With all that said, here is what I don't understand. Someone from Russia gets a hold of the Trump campaign and alludes to the fact they may have some juicy "dirt" on HRC. DT Jr. says cool, we can meet. Turns out, evidently, it was a farce and no "dirt" was given. So, whats wrong with that? Does anyone on here really think it's not possible someone from Russia could have some dirt on her that they wanted to share, with HRC having been involved with national politics in some form or fashion since the early 90's, and having meetings and discussions with Russian officials for years as part of her job and with the Clinton Foundation. It's not possible she promised something and didn't deliver and ticked the wrong people off, or she burned a bridge and someone wanted to get even by letting some info go that they know HRC wouldn't want known? I mean heck, she signed away 20% of the US uranium stockpile to Russia for crying out loud. But yet, THIS MEETING is a big scandal?:idunno:

 

I'm not taking up for the Trump administration and they have made many mistakes and missteps already in just a short amount of time, and maybe this meeting, or how it was handled was a misstep. But I fail right now to see the big scandal here.

 

Well...simply put...Jr. has admitted to a pee-poor attempt at collusion. Let's not forget he previously denied any involvement screaming fake news.

 

The faucet drip continues to get louder.

[Habib]

The conservative National Review had a pretty measured takeaway on the latest news.

 

Donald Trump Jr’s Meeting with Russian Lawyer -- Email Revelations | National Review

 

It would be easier to credit the Trump team’s denials if they didn’t so routinely mislead. Put aside Trump Jr.’s self-servingly incomplete account of the meeting with the Russian lawyer; he has said in the past that he never at any point met with Russian nationals, that he never discussed policy matters with Russian citizens, and that he never met with any Russians as a representative of the campaign. All of those statements have proven false. Paul Manafort’s record of truth-telling is no better, and Jared Kushner — the only person in the meeting with a White House job — initially failed to disclose the meeting during his security-clearance application process.

 

If the Trump team affirmatively wanted to stoke suspicions of the worst, it wouldn’t be acting any differently. One meeting doesn’t prove collusion, but it does demonstrate the seriousness of this matter and the public interest in getting to the bottom of it — now more than ever.

 

I'm willing to wait and see what comes of the investigation. But between Trump's bizarrely favorable posture toward Russia, Russia's effort to interfere in the election on his behalf, the Trump team's incessant lying about meetings with Russians (how many times has Kushner amended his security clearance form now?), Trump admitting to firing the FBI director to thwart the investigation into Flynn (over his contacts with Russia!), and now incontrovertible evidence that Manafort, Kushner, and Don Jr took a meeting with a connected Russian national under the auspices of getting "high level and sensitive information" that's "part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump" just before WikiLeaks began dumping docs during the Democratic Convention, how confident can anyone be that there isn't more out there and this is all a silly coincidence the Trump clan will chuckle about in a few years? Maybe that's all it is, but the odds keep going up.

[BigVMan23]

With all I said in my post above...just be honest from the getgo and quit trying to hide stuff. It all comes out eventually, and many times it's the lying that looks worse than the thing they were lying or untruthful about to start with.

[Hatz]

With all I said in my post above...just be honest from the getgo and quit trying to hide stuff. It all comes out eventually, and many times it's the lying that looks worse than the thing they were lying or untruthful about to start with.

 

You could sign the above with:

 

"From Personal Experience, Richard M. Nixon."

[BigVMan23]

You could sign the above with:

 

"From Personal Experience, Richard M. Nixon."

 

 

I almost made that exact point. The Watergate break in isn't what really got the President in trouble...the big mess of a cover up did.

Edited July 12, 2017 by BigVMan23

[Hatz]

I almost made that exact point. The Watergate break isn't what really got the President in trouble...the big mess of a cover up did.

 

Yep. Nixon didn't order the break-in. Cronies working for him did it. But when his inner circle knew about it, he tried to protect them rather than admit what really happened. It was the cover up that did him in.

 

To be sure, Nixon did other things that made many enemies but the legal reason he gave them to fire him was the coverup.

[Jumper_Dad]

Well...simply put...Jr. has admitted to a pee-poor attempt at collusion. Let's not forget he previously denied any involvement screaming fake news.

 

The faucet drip continues to get louder.

 

Is collusion against the law? I keep hearing "Collusion" said over and over, but this morning on one of the cable channels a guy interrupted the others and made the point that the collusion that is being claimed isn't illegal.

So if it's not illegal what's all this about?

[Oldbird]

Is collusion against the law? I keep hearing "Collusion" said over and over, but this morning on one of the cable channels a guy interrupted the others and made the point that the collusion that is being claimed isn't illegal.

So if it's not illegal what's all this about?

 

Collusion is not illegal; however, collusion has much less baggage than terming it potential conspiracy or treason.

[Hatz]

Is collusion against the law? I keep hearing "Collusion" said over and over, but this morning on one of the cable channels a guy interrupted the others and made the point that the collusion that is being claimed isn't illegal.

So if it's not illegal what's all this about?

 

It depends. Collusion is I guess what the Rosenbergs did in the 40's and 50's with the Russians. It sent them to the chair when it became treason.

 

(For the record I don't think any of this is close to the above example. Collusion is such a broad word)

[Hellcats]

Is collusion against the law? I keep hearing "Collusion" said over and over, but this morning on one of the cable channels a guy interrupted the others and made the point that the collusion that is being claimed isn't illegal.

So if it's not illegal what's all this about?

 

Did Donald Trump Jr break the law? - BBC News

 

"Specifically, Section 30121 of Title 52 of federal campaign law, which deals with "contributions and donations by foreign nationals".

 

"It is illegal for a foreign government or a foreign national to give something of value to a candidate or campaign," says Nathaniel Persily, an election law expert and professor at Stanford Law School."

 

It could be.

[Pioneer.Pride]

[plantmanky]

Did Donald Trump Jr break the law? - BBC News

 

"Specifically, Section 30121 of Title 52 of federal campaign law, which deals with "contributions and donations by foreign nationals".

 

"It is illegal for a foreign government or a foreign national to give something of value to a candidate or campaign," says Nathaniel Persily, an election law expert and professor at Stanford Law School."

 

It could be.

 

So then that would mean both candidates were invalid for election. Sweet, give us two more candidates and lets do this again in November.

[Hatz]

So then that would mean both candidates were invalid for election. Sweet, give us two more candidates and lets do this again in November.

 

Best Solution I've heard!!! :jump: