Seems Like Donald Trump Jr admitted to looking for Russian Info

[Merge]

And what does Twinkies have to do with the campaign?

I don't know. You brought them up. .

It is illegal for Trump Jr to solicit damaging information on Hillary that from a foreign national, the same way it would be illegal for him to solicit a prostitute in NY.

That work for you?

Not everyone who gets caught soliciting a prostitute will be arrested, so I am not suggesting Trump Jr will be in jail... I am saying what he did was illegal.

 

[HALL85]

You seem to have an obsession with prostitutes. I will leave it at that because you can't seem to understand my point.

 

[Pirata]

Merge said:
Remember that wild speculation on my part which turned out to be the truth?

Pirata said:

I do not. Refresh me.


Merge Refreshed me with when said:
of course he would know who he was meeting with and why.

In response to what Pirata Said:
Other than supposition and hope, how does one get from "information helpful to the campaign" to concluding that he knew it was about "dirt"?


How has your speculation come true?

As Elmer Fudd would say, "weed it werry werry calf-fully"

You speculation was that he knew who he was meeting with. N'est Pas?

How do you link/conclude that he knew who he was meeting with based on: "
how does one get from "information helpful to the campaign" to concluding that he knew it was about "dirt"?

 

[SPK145]

Soliciting anything of value for a campaign is against the law the same way soliciting a prostitute is against the law (in most states)

You don't need to have sex to get arrested.

Maybe that a clearer analogy for you?

Doesn't the word "solicit" mean you went looking for something (like a prostitute)?

 

[knowknow456]

I think you have to have the same penalty for both. I hate penalties in college sports for a year where they penalize a school that wasn't going to be good anyway. So you can't just say you are out of office Trump. Clinton you are out of office too. If Clinton and Trump are guilty of similar actions make them suffer the same consequences. $100 million fine toward the national debt. Granted that's no dent at all in the debt, but it's something that could prevent these types of events in the future.

I was unclear earlier on. To recap, I agree with you that the Trump/Russia & Clinton/Ukraine investigations should have the same structure and the same penalties.

I have concerns specifically about the DNC/Sanders investigation. In the spirit of collaboration, i have agreed to the investigation but have questions regarding what we intend to accomplish.

Sending them to Russia is entertaining but not practical. Will this be a criminal or a civil investigation? Is the plan simply to bankrupt the DNC with a $100 million dollar fine? Or should Wasserman do jail time? In the worst case scenario are we prepared to conclude that the election was compromised?

 

[Pirata]

Not everyone who gets caught soliciting a prostitute will be arrested, so I am not suggesting Trump Jr will be in jail... I am saying what he did was illegal.

I assume then "I am saying what he did was illegal" is your opinion and you are not stating that as a absolute proven truth. I have yet to find one legal opinion that agrees with you (other than Cern).

Also, perhaps you should change your statement to:

"I am saying what I think he did was illegal" or

"I am saying what I have a hunch he did was illegal"

 

[Merge]

Doesn't the word "solicit" mean you went looking for something (like a prostitute)?

No. I provided the definition when you asked for it. Did you read it?

 

[Merge]

How do you link/conclude that he knew who he was meeting with based on:

Are you kidding me? It's literally in the email.

Wow...

 

[SHUHoopsFan]

Sending them to Russia is entertaining but not practical. Will this be a criminal or a civil investigation? Is the plan simply to bankrupt the DNC with a $100 million dollar fine? Or should Wasserman do jail time? In the worst case scenario are we prepared to conclude that the election was compromised?

I would stick to sending them to Russia so Trump can build over there and Hillary could sell the rest of our uranium. But in an effort to work together, I will come up with a different solution than sending them to Russia. I still think money talks. I have no interest in bankrupting anyone. And neither party would be bankrupt by a $100 million fine. Major donors or super pacs will fund that amount but they will be a little pissed to do it.

 

[knowknow456]

I would stick to sending them to Russia so Trump can build over there and Hillary could sell the rest of our uranium. But in an effort to work together, I will come up with a different solution than sending them to Russia. I still think money talks. I have no interest in bankrupting anyone. And neither party would be bankrupt by a $100 million fine. Major donors or super pacs will fund that amount but they will be a little pissed to do it.

Deal.

And that ladies and gentlemen is how bipartisanship works. SHUHoops stopped worrying about investigating past indiscretions, I agreed to additional current investigations and we move forward.

 

[Pirata]

Are you kidding me? It's literally in the email.

Wow...

Oh, you mean the one about the "Crown Prosecutor"...or was it the the Wizard?

Keep on speculating....

Wow...

 

[SHUHoopsFan]

Deal.

And that ladies and gentlemen is how bipartisanship works. SHUHoops stopped worrying about investigating past indiscretions, I agreed to additional current investigations and we move forward.

Exactly, because not everyone is open to back and forth dialogue. Up next is healthcare. We will leave healthcare to the experts. My opinions will probably annoy too many people. LOL

 

[Merge]

Oh, you mean the one about the "Crown Prosecutor"...or was it the the Wizard?

Keep on speculating....

Wow...

"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 –"

"Hope all is well. Emin asked that I schedule a meeting with you and the Russian government attorney who is flying over from Moscow for this Thursday
"

 

[SPK145]

No. I provided the definition when you asked for it. Did you read it?

Yes and that definition (one of many) states that the receiver must ask for something.

If you offer somethng of value to someone else in exchange for sex, you solicited sex.

If someone asks you if you want to have sex for money, you show up, and don't like the person so you walk away, did you solicit sex?

 

[Merge]

Yes and that definition (one of many) states that the receiver must ask for something.

The one I cited is the one that matters since it's in the law.

Providing the means for acceptance is soliciting by the definition. Saying you want the information and proving a place to meet appears to be (to me and that professor from Georgetown I cited earlier) solicitation.

 

[Pirata]

Oh, you mean the one about the "Crown Prosecutor"...or was it the the Wizard?

Keep on speculating....

Wow...

"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 –"

"Hope all is well. Emin asked that I schedule a meeting with you and the Russian government attorney who is flying over from Moscow for this Thursday
"

And.......Mueller brings charges......when?

BTW, she wasn't a Russian government attorney.

 

[HALL85]

And.......Mueller brings charges......when?

BTW, she wasn't a Russian government attorney.

The attorney had an autograph from Boris and Natasha… For Merge that's good enough.

 

[cernjSHU]

Let's assume SPK's theory on the law is correct. So, because the Russian information was not really good information, it's not a crime.

First, if that is true, how are sting operations prosecuted since the thing the defendant wants is not real.

Second, let's say it's on the fringe but still not illegal. Is this what you expect or want from the President. Someone is certainly willing to work with an enemy foreign government to take down political opposition?

Is it ok for Trump to work with Kim Jon Un of North Korea? Would it be ok for him to take information from ISIS? Where is the line? What are you as an American willing to accept?

 

[Merge]

BTW, she wasn't a Russian government attorney.

Oy vey.... so your issue was that I said he knew who he was meeting with and why. He did, I showed how I know that to be true.

now you changed it so your ok with him taking a meeting with someone he believed to be a Russia attorney, delivering information about Hillary from the Russian government because she turned out to not be a government attorney?

 

[HALL85]

Let's assume SPK's theory on the law is correct. So, because the Russian information was not really good information, it's not a crime.

We don't know if it was good, bad or any information to begin with.

 

[Merge]

We don't know if it was good, bad or any information to begin with.

Yeah we just don't know if any information was shared. Impossible to tell except for Trump Jr saying there was of course...

We had a meeting in June 2016. After pleasantries were exchanged, the woman stated that she had information that individuals connected to Russia were funding the Democratic National Committee and supporting Ms. Clinton.

 

[HALL85]

Yeah we just don't know if any information was shared. Impossible to tell except for Trump Jr saying there was of course...

That doesn't say information was shared...you're better than that.

 

[Pirata]

YOU CAN NOT ACCEPT ANYTHING OF VALUE FROM A FOREIGN NATIONAL. That is the law.

We had a meeting in June 2016. After pleasantries were exchanged, the woman stated that she had information that individuals connected to Russia were funding the Democratic National Committee and supporting Ms. Clinton.

I did not say that. I posted a copy of Trumps Jr's statement which you conveniently shortened.

I also posted in the same post that the statement immediately went on to say:

It quickly became clear that she had no meaningful information. She then changed subjects and began discussing the adoption of Russian children and mentioned the Magnitsky Act.

And so "no meaningful information" means what. Are you saying that was the thing of value.

And...Mueller is bringing charges.....when ?????

 

[Pirata]

Oy vey.... so your issue was that I said he knew who he was meeting with and why. He did, I showed how I know that to be true.

now you changed it so your ok with him taking a meeting with someone he believed to be a Russia attorney, delivering information about Hillary from the Russian government because she turned out to not be a government attorney?

How do you know he believe that? You don't. You are speculating that he believed it.

You like to speculate.

And....Mueller is bringing charges......when?

 

[SHUHoopsFan]

Oy vey.... so your issue was that I said he knew who he was meeting with and why. He did, I showed how I know that to be true.

now you changed it so your ok with him taking a meeting with someone he believed to be a Russia attorney, delivering information about Hillary from the Russian government because she turned out to not be a government attorney?

The whole thing stinks of something the democrats cooked up to take advantage of the political inexperience of the Trumps. How easy is it for anyone to get an exception to come into this country without a visa? How easy is it for a so called enemy of this country to get an exception to come into this country without a visa? How easy is it for a someome who many believe to be connected with a so called enemy government to get an exception to come into this country without a visa? What was the extraordinary circumstance Loretta Lynch let this person in the country? Does anyone know. Politics is dirty and I believe these types of things happen more than any of us want to believe. But for those who think politics is an honest and high integrity sport there are a lot of questions to be answered on how she entered our boarders to begin with. Maybe we should build a bigger wall. Why weren't intelligence people on top of this woman's every move? Something smells like the Passaic River down on 21.

 

[Merge]

How do you know he believe that? You don't. You are speculating that he believed it.

You like to speculate.

And....Mueller is bringing charges......when?

"If it’s what you say I love it" that's how I know he believed the meeting was for dirt. That's literally why they had the meeting.

We will see what happens. We are still early in this investigation.

 

[Merge]

The whole thing stinks of something the democrats cooked up to take advantage of the political inexperience of the Trumps.

Brilliant. Lets entrap him and then let him be president for like 6 months before we use this information. That will show em... lol

 

[Pirata]

"If it’s what you say I love it" that's how I know he believed the meeting was for dirt. That's literally why they had the meeting.

We will see what happens. We are still early in this investigation.

Did you happen to notice the little "If" in there. Actually, its big "If".

Sounds to me like he didn't exactly believe it at that point.

 

[SHUHoopsFan]

Brilliant. Lets entrap him and then let him be president for like 6 months before we use this information. That will show em... lol

Way to answer 0 of the questions.

 

[Merge]

Did you happen to notice the little "If" in there. Actually, its big "If".

Sounds to me like he didn't exactly believe it at that point.

And why did he take the meeting? To get whatever it was... right?

He was told she has x. He took the meeting to get x.

Keep spinning

 

[Pirata]

 

[Merge]

Way to answer 0 of the questions.

You're more convinced Trump Jr willingly taking a meeting that would be illegal has more to do with democrats than Trunp Jr himself.

It's pointless going further with you.

 

[Merge]

Ok guys @HALL85 ,@Pirata @SPK145 @SHUHoopsFan . I'm done opinjng.

I've said what I'm gonna say on the issue. I'll be back when there is news either way.

 

[HALL85]

Something smells like the Passaic River down on 21.

Having grown up on the Passaic right across the river from Rutt's Hut, I know what you mean. Since Merge can't stop playing conspiracy theory, I do think there is a better chance that this was orchestrated by HRC or Obama to trick Trump (visa for the attorney approved by Lynch), and that Don Jr. perhaps smelled a rat and played along to flush them out. One thing we've learned from this election is that the DNC and HRC were much dumber than anyone thought and Trump and his team (for being political neophytes) were a lot smarter than anyone ever gave them credit.

 

[SHUHoopsFan]

You're more convinced Trump Jr willingly taking a meeting that would be illegal has more to do with democrats than Trunp Jr himself.

It's pointless going further with you.

Or maybe the fact you have no answers when democrats are irresponsible.

 

[SPK145]

Second, let's say it's on the fringe but still not illegal. Is this what you expect or want from the President. Someone is certainly willing to work with an enemy foreign government to take down political opposition?

Not what I want in a president, the 2016 election presented two morally bankrupt, corrupt candidates. One had already sold off vital national security minerals to that hated enemy Russia in exchange for $$$.

Is it ok for Trump to work with Kim Jon Un of North Korea? Would it be ok for him to take information from ISIS? Where is the line? What are you as an American willing to accept?

I not willing to accept such hysterical theatrics like this.

 

[cernjSHU]

Not what I want in a president, the 2016 election presented two morally bankrupt, corrupt candidates. One had already sold off vital national security minerals to that hated enemy Russia in exchange for $$$.



I not willing to accept such hysterical theatrics like this.

When asking about Trump is it always necessary to bring up Hillary? The subject is Trump.
Second, she did not sell the mines. The mining company was based in Toronto and the sale needed approval to go through. The sale was approved not only by the Secretary of State Clinton, but the Department of Defense, Treasury, Homeland Security in total nine US agencies. So she did not sell off anything.

Third, hysterical theatrics? no. You just don't want to answer the question so you deflect. That's ok., if I was defending Trump, I would not want to answer those questions either.

 

[HALL85]

When asking about Trump is it always necessary to bring up Hillary? The subject is Trump.
Second, she did not sell the mines. The mining company was based in Toronto and the sale needed approval to go through. The sale was approved not only by the Secretary of State Clinton, but the Department of Defense, Treasury, Homeland Security in total nine US agencies. So she did not sell off anything.

Third, hysterical theatrics? no. You just don't want to answer the question so you deflect. That's ok., if I was defending Trump, I would not want to answer those questions either.

It is because it flushes out your blind partisanship and have two sets of standards based on ideology.

You also conveniently left out the way the Clinton Foundation profited from the uranium sale.

 

[cernjSHU]

Not what I want in a president, the 2016 election presented two morally bankrupt, corrupt candidates. One had already sold off vital national security minerals to that hated enemy Russia in exchange for $$$.



I not willing to accept such hysterical theatrics like this.

You say Trump is morally bankrupt yet you defend him and his campaigns actions like an ardent supporter. Yet, any chance you can, you attack Hillary Clinton. If they are two morally bankrupt people and you dislike what Trump is doing why defend him? Why are you not attacking Trump? Why aren't you saying these things are highly suspicious borderline criminal and demonstrates that he should not be President?

I am sure if this was Obama, you would not Be jumping to his defense and being "objective".

 

[SPK145]

You say Trump is morally bankrupt yet you defend him and his campaigns actions like an ardent supporter. Yet, any chance you can, you attack Hillary Clinton. If they are two morally bankrupt people and you dislike what Trump is doing why defend him? Why are you not attacking Trump? Why aren't you saying these things are highly suspicious borderline criminal and demonstrates that he should not be President?

I am sure if this was Obama, you would not Be jumping to his defense and being "objective".

To show your blatant hypocrisy and partisanship.

You've been on here a lot and have never attacked anyone other than Trump. I've been on here commenting on all who have done wrong including Bush and his spending and Obama and his myriad of controversies. Never a peep from you until now.