[Winstonm]

Oops! It appears that the Trumps have been lying, all along.

Quote

Donald Trump Jr. was told in an email that a meeting to obtain information damaging to presidential rival Hillary Clinton was connected to intelligence gathered by the Russian government to help elect his father, according to a report from The New York Times.

This is now serious stuff. Moderators, can we now move the Bill Clinton sideshow to its own separate thread?

[mike777]

ok and after the public condemnation...which has actually happened.....next?

at the very least we are debating not whether to destroy the president but how...it seems.

If you follow the last 6ooo or so posts the debate is over how to destroy...trump....how to wreck destruction...but you may have a different take.

[Winstonm]

Winstonm, on 2017-July-10, 10:44, said:

One has to wonder how Trump Jr., Kushner, and Manafort had the gall to meet with a Kremlin-connected Russian lawyer expecting to receive information that would damage Hillary Clinton. To those who do not yet understand the attitudes of Donald Trump, his family, and his inner circle, I would suggest a study of John Gotti and the Gambino crime family. The actions taken may not all match but the basic attitude is the same.

You can't make this stuff up. Too ironic.

Quote

Later Monday, Trump Jr. announced he had hired Alan Futerfas as his lawyer. Futerfas is known for representing the Gambino, Genovese and Colombo crime families.

[diana_eva]

Moved some of the BC discussion to a separate thread here.

[RedSpawn]

diana_eva, on 2017-July-11, 05:41, said:

Moved some of the BC discussion to a separate thread here.

I'm not seeing how we can rail on Trump but any comparison of the same behavior to other President's similar behavior is considered hijacked and moderator worthy and requires a separate thread.

If the Office of the President has a moral standard, then it applies to all Presidents, not just the one we are rooting for. I am deeply disappointed that we call moderators than discuss the double standard we hold for Presidents in terms of their character. Sad.

[diana_eva]

RedSpawn, on 2017-July-11, 06:21, said:

I'm not seeing how we can rail on Trump but any comparison of the same behavior to other President's similar behavior is considered hijacked and moderator worthy and requires a separate thread.

If the Office of the President has a moral standard, then it applies to all Presidents, not just the one we are rooting for. I am deeply disappointed that we call moderators than discuss the double standard we hold for Presidents in terms of their character. Sad.

You made your point clear in the first two or three replies. Meanwhile investigation into russian ties advances, trump does stuff abroad, the balance of power changes in the world and all that can't be discussed because after each new post there's a flood of arguments on how sexually assaulting women and cheating on your wife is somehow equivalent.

[RedSpawn]

diana_eva, on 2017-July-11, 06:40, said:

You made your point clear in the first two or three replies. Meanwhile investigation into russian ties advances, trump does stuff abroad, the balance of power changes in the world and all that can't be discussed because after each new post there's a flood of arguments on how sexually assaulting women and cheating on your wife is somehow equivalent.

They aren't equivalent but the sexual assault allegations against BC for Kathleen Willey and Juanita Broddrick are right up Trump's pu$$y grabbing alley. When a man gropes you and kisses you without invitation, I thought that qualified as sexual assault. OK, enough about sexual assault.

http://www.cnn.com/2...tion/index.html

[jogs]

The lie of the century comes from the European progressive left. The left claims this world is ready for globalism and open borders. Trump says if Europe wants open borders why do we need NATO? Let the Russians invade and occupy. Obviously Europe doesn't want open borders.
The Russians aren't the main threat. Islamic terrorists is only a minor inconvenience. The main threat is ordinary Muslims who don't assimilate and want to live under Sharia from the Kuran.
The progressive left wants to live in the idealized 25th century. Conservatives wants to live in the 20th century. Muslims want to live in the ancient 7th century. Women would be property of their husbands. Any LGBT member will be stoned on sight. The left condemns conservatives, while they defend Muslims. Turkey blocked a gay pride parade.
No Western nation has a fertility rate higher than 1.9 babies per female and a generation is about 30 years. Muslims have a fertility rate of 3.5 babies per female and a generation is under 25 years. By 2050 Muslims will outnumber Westerns worldwide.
Muslims didn't assimilate into Europeans. Muslims cannot defeat Westerners on the battlefield. By 2050 Muslims will outnumber Europeans in many regions of Europe. Muslims will absorb the Europeans. Muslim can beat Europeans by the ballot box. Many of you fools will be living under Sharia.
[url="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/07/07/muslim-activist-suggests-resisting-trump-is-form-jihad.html"]This women] terrifies me. She represents the views of 50% of Muslims in America and 90% of Muslims in Europe.
Donald Trump is the only Western leader defending western civilization.
You Europeans are fighting the last war. The Soviet Union collapsed in the 1980's. The Russians are a toothless enemy.
The real danger is the devout Muslim who believes in the Kuran and Sharia Law. They want to take humanity back to the 7th century.

[Winstonm]

diana_eva, on 2017-July-11, 05:41, said:

Moved some of the BC discussion to a separate thread here.

Thank you.

[awm]

Bill Clinton is not the president, he was not a candidate in 2016, and no set of circumstances will cause him to become president now. So he is not really relevant to the current discussion.

The difference between Trump and Clinton on sexual harassment is that Trump has admitted, on tape, to criminal harassment. Clinton has not done this, and while there are accusations out there all of them seem to have reasonable doubts and none have been proven. So Trump voters clearly know his attitude towards women and didn't care (Trump himself doesn't really deny it, just tries to change the subject) whereas Clinton voters could credibly disbelieve accusations of this sort.

In any case, no one is suggesting Trump be impeached because of his history of sexual assault, much less because of cheating on his wife (which is basically what Clinton was impeached for -- lying to congress about having cheated on his wife; senators, including some Republicans, did not feel this rose to the level of "high crimes"). If Trump is impeached it will be for treason -- colluding with a foreign power to illegally obtain information which would then be used to win a US election. Treason (and covering it up) is a different and far more serious issue than lying about an extra-marital affair. Note that the breach of the DNC data is quite similar to Watergate, if the burglars had been Soviet spies and with the addition of modern technology. There is certainly precedent for impeachment and the case seems to grow stronger by the day. Of course politics enters into the equation and Republicans in congress are unlikely to impeach as long as their voters (who already forgave Trump for sexual assault and a scam university and any number of other things) still support the president.

[Winstonm]

RedSpawn, on 2017-July-11, 06:21, said:

I'm not seeing how we can rail on Trump but any comparison of the same behavior to other President's similar behavior is considered hijacked and moderator worthy and requires a separate thread.

If the Office of the President has a moral standard, then it applies to all Presidents, not just the one we are rooting for. I am deeply disappointed that we call moderators than discuss the double standard we hold for Presidents in terms of their character. Sad.

This is a thread about Trump's influence on American politics. Your views are valid - they just need to be expressed on another thread. You now have one. And you're still sad. Sad.

[Zelandakh]

Winstonm, on 2017-July-10, 22:01, said:

You can't make this stuff up. Too ironic.

It is an interesting response to Müller hiring lawyers into his team with experience of prosecuting organised crime. Perhaps RM predicted such a move and wanted experience of going up against a powerful criminal family.

[Zelandakh]

A humourous overview of where we stand regarding Russia.

[Zelandakh]

And a few more details emerging from the NYT.

[Winstonm]

Zelandakh, on 2017-July-11, 09:44, said:

And a few more details emerging from the NYT.

Trumpsters are finally getting good legal advice, it seems. History has shown that it is always better to dump all at once information that hurts you rather than allow the prosecution to pull it out drop by drop or in a big show.

Of course, when the information is this damning, trying to bury it might have been a better idea.

[Zelandakh]

Winstonm, on 2017-July-11, 09:55, said:

Trumpsters are finally getting good legal advice, it seems. History has shown that it is always better to dump all at once information that hurts you rather than allow the prosecution to pull it out drop by drop or in a big show.

Of course, when the information is this damning, trying to bury it might have been a better idea.

I think he was just trying to stop the paper from benefiting from their scoop. The emails were coming out one way or the other.

[Winstonm]

Zelandakh, on 2017-July-11, 10:06, said:

I think he was just trying to stop the paper from benefiting from their scoop. The emails were coming out one way or the other.

Maybe so.

The takeaway is this: the Trump campaign was not only willing but actively tried to collude with the Russian government to influence the election for Donald Trump. This is what Trump Jr. has been forced to admit so far. He has changed his story each time new revelations came out, so it is beyond naive to believe his explanation for what occurred in the meeting or what was said.

When the campaign brass - Mahafort and Kushner - were involved as they were then how can it not follow that there were further meetings or further involvement that led to the weaponizing and release of the hacked information with the assistance of the Trump campaign or its soldiers? After all, the campaign showed with this meeting they were actively willing to collude with the Russian government to win the election.

I would bet this is only the tip of the iceberg as Trump Sr. has been so concerned and adamant about trying to bury the investigation. Sorry, Don, but they found the body in the concrete.

[PassedOut]

Winstonm, on 2017-July-11, 10:14, said:

I would bet this is only the tip of the iceberg as Trump Sr. has been so concerned and adamant about trying to bury the investigation. Sorry, Don, but they found the body in the concrete.

The real problem is the news media making this information public.

[RedSpawn]

Winstonm, on 2017-July-11, 10:14, said:

Maybe so.

The takeaway is this: the Trump campaign was not only willing but actively tried to collude with the Russian government to influence the election for Donald Trump. This is what Trump Jr. has been forced to admit so far. He has changed his story each time new revelations came out, so it is beyond naive to believe his explanation for what occurred in the meeting or what was said.

When the campaign brass - Mahafort and Kushner - were involved as they were then how can it not follow that there were further meetings or further involvement that led to the weaponizing and release of the hacked information with the assistance of the Trump campaign or its soldiers? After all, the campaign showed with this meeting they were actively willing to collude with the Russian government to win the election.

I would bet this is only the tip of the iceberg as Trump Sr. has been so concerned and adamant about trying to bury the investigation. Sorry, Don, but they found the body in the concrete.

I am willing to follow your theory of weaponization when you answer how do we know Russia and/or Russian propagandists hacked the DNC server when no federal investigative authority analyzed the hacked DNC server?

I am not wooed by the slow trickle of information because the answers I want on the government side won't be answered. That's the beauty of intelligence leaks, the government gets to determine what is fit for public consumption but will withhold information that may paint itself in an unseemly light.

[Winstonm]

RedSpawn, on 2017-July-11, 10:55, said:

I am willing to follow your theory of weaponization when you answer how do we know Russia and/or Russian propagandists hacked the DNC server when no federal investigative authority analyzed the hacked DNC server?

I am not wooed by the slow trickle of information because the answers I want on the government side won't be answered. That's the beauty of intelligence leaks, the government gets to determine what is fit for public consumption but will withhold information that may paint itself in an unseemly light.

You also seem to be un-wooed by the fact that Jared Kushner, Paul Manafort, and Donald Trump Jr., by Trump's own admission, actively attempted to collude with the Russian government to harm the Clinton campaign.