woolfe9998
Lifer
- Apr 8, 2013
- 16,242
- 14,244
- 136
Thanks, but what you linked is poor quality journalism, whatever the reporters background. It reads like something Sean Hannity would write.
Someone offered information and he listened. Nothing more happened. There was no collusion. There was no damaging information shared. There is/was no Russian government connection.
Source
I'm thinking more along the lines of a phone call (hopefully cell therefore a record) or a text. Even the Trumps were versed enough in the concept of plausible deniability so as to never forward to His Donaldship the actual email.
I think it is more likely that the emails were not forwarded to The Donald because The Donald doesn't read emails. I'm almost certain that he is the sort of person that has his secretary print his emails out for him, and he 'reads' along as she reads them out loud to him.
Next phase.
That liberal rag WSJ says that talking to Russians will get you caught on tape talking to Russians without you actually being under surveillance. Turns out the Russians you talk to were though.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/russia...p-associates-before-campaign-began-1499890354
Foreign Policy also has some concerns:
http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/07/12...-case-involving-lawyer-who-met-with-trump-jr/
It's an effective strategy that has been perfected by the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity - Discredit facts, create conspiracy theories and flat out lie to move your agenda forward... These clowns may not have known the beast they have created, a population of ignorant, paranoid, reality TV soaked robots.... That respond to the irrational ramblings of sociopaths.
I believe the story leaked from inside the current investigation. Doesn't make sense for any of the 3 campaign members to leak it. Puts all of them in legal jeopardy. Outside chance the russkies did it, but unlikely. Slim chance someone else in admin, but they weren't in the meeting or on the emails. Logical choice is SIGINT that's been collected from one of the participants.
I also expected more of a Dolph Lundgren type.if someone back in the '80s had told me that one day the Russians would be seriously accused by much of the US establishment of interfering with their elections, and getting their favoured candidate into the Presidency, I really don't think this is what I would have envisaged.
I also expected more of a Dolph Lundgren type.
Doesn't convey the strength needed to win people over. Bullies were still quite en vogue in those days. Physical strength was the end-all.If I were to guess in the 80s I would have described a Bernie Sanders type
FNN? C'mon man.2013 video shows Trump with the fat guy who reached out to Don Jr
http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/12/politics/video-trump-relationships-russian-associates/index.html
All reporting says it was leaked from inside the Trump Admin (Senior Advisers). People are speculating multiple reasons (more damaging info to come, Jr. being the scapegoat, protecting Kushner,, etc, etc,)
Next phase.
That liberal rag WSJ says that talking to Russians will get you caught on tape talking to Russians without you actually being under surveillance. Turns out the Russians you talk to were though.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/russia...p-associates-before-campaign-began-1499890354
Foreign Policy also has some concerns:
http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/07/12...-case-involving-lawyer-who-met-with-trump-jr/
The second link is very concerning. Very very concerning. The plot is thickening like oatmeal left out in the sun.damn thats fucking crazy.
If you want to know why the resident Trump cheerleaders think there's nothing wrong with Trump Jr.'s emails, here's one reason why: Fox News deliberately omitted the mentions of Russian government in its excerpts.
That's one of the most frustrating things about the Trump administration. It's not just the rampant corruption and lying from the administration and the Trump family -- it's that Fox's response to this is to double down on its falsehoods. For example, lies by omission like this. CNN and other outlets may make mistakes, but they don't deliberately hide facts to create a false narrative.
Foreign Policy also has some concerns:
http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/07/12...-case-involving-lawyer-who-met-with-trump-jr/
Make it so.this deserves a thread of its own, and let's all welcome Jeffrey Beauregard Sessions back to the middle of Russiagate.
How does potentially implicating Kushner in a crime protect Kushner though? Serious question, I don't understand how this helps him.
