|
Post by Vince524 on Jul 14, 2017 6:20:25 GMT -5
Hello folks, first post here. Hoping I'm not stepping into a lions (lioness?) den, but here's my toes. I was curious as to where the NYT come up with Jr's e-mail. Was it a Russian hack? Seriously, how does a news agency come up with someones e-mails? Mike Hi Mikey. I don't bite. Much. Welcome. And may God have mercy on your soul.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 14, 2017 8:47:03 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 14, 2017 8:51:57 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Jul 14, 2017 12:04:29 GMT -5
<abbr title="Jul 10, 2017 12:38:59 GMT -4" class="o-timestamp time" data-timestamp="1499704739000">Jul 10, 2017 12:38:59 GMT -4</abbr> robeiae said: What treason? Are we just throwing that word out now, just because someone says "Russian"? What collusion? She's a private lawyer, not a KGB agent or former KGB agent (as far as we know, of course). The infamous Trump dossier was compiled by an actual former agent (British) at the behest of a group--Fusion GPS--that was funded my Dem and Repub alike. Is there treason in there somewhere? Collusion? Opposition research is actually a legitimate thing, even in junior high politics. And I think that if this very same woman had told people associated with Clinton that she had some damaging info on Trump, they would have met with her in a heartbeat. Ditto for the teams of every Presidential candidate since...well, forever. Taking a meeting with someone like her isn't collusion, much less treason. It's not even in the ballpark. Nothing in the NYT story comes close to making this case at all. Ya don't say? Still think this is normal opposition research, robeiae? Or is your response more of the " There's nothing there" or " Yes, but Clinton..." stuff you've been peddling in this thread?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 14, 2017 14:07:42 GMT -5
Oh, for pity's sake. That's still not all. CNN is reporting that there were at least EIGHT people in that meeting. OK. Apparently Jared and Trump's attorneys have been aware of the emails for weeks. I guarantee they talked to their clients about them. I also guarantee they knew that the emails, and hence the meeting, would come out eventually, both because there's a paper trail and because so many damn people had info about the meeting. I also guarantee the lawyers felt that this would, at a minimum, look really, really bad. And of course, it's not just a matter of criminal liability. It's how it looks to the public. IF the meeting wasn't any worse than they claim (still pretty bad, IMO, but...), and there's nothing more to hide, the thing to do is come clean. Tell people before the news media does. Get ahead of the story. This drip drip drip is making me more certain by the day that there's something seriously YUUGE they're hiding. Either that, or they and/or their lawyers are incompetent. ETA: LOL. I hope this is one Fox newscast Trump doesn't miss... Of course, Trumo probably doesn't watch them -- these two (Shep Smith and Chris Wallace) are about the only real journalists at Fox.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 14, 2017 15:32:44 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by michaelw on Jul 14, 2017 18:06:26 GMT -5
Or maybe she's just too disgusted to represent him anymore.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 14, 2017 18:34:30 GMT -5
Or maybe she's just too disgusted to represent him anymore. It could indeed be something like that. I don't like to speculate too much because I think the Mueller connection is probably enough to explain it, given how the Russia story has heated up. That said, I do find it interesting that neither she nor Jared, as far as I can find, so far seem to have given any sort of statement about "potential conflict of interest could emerge, abundance of caution, avoid appearance of impropriety, yada yada," or something of the kind, given that an awful lot of people are likely to jump to the conclusion she just doesn't want to soil herself. This is a pretty high profile withdrawal, coming at a time when it is bound to draw attention. If it had happened a couple of weeks back, likely no one would have noticed much. But now, there is bound to be speculation. ETA: I just did another search for articles on it. FYI, Gorelick did indeed say it was because of the Mueller connection. www.politico.com/story/2017/07/14/kushner-lawyer-gorelick-drops-russia-240576And honestly, that is a totally reasonable explanation. I probably would have left sooner under those circumstances, if possible. One should be scrupulous about appearances of impropriety. (Ya hear that, Trump administration?)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 15, 2017 9:17:12 GMT -5
Just to note -- with all the bombshells going off and the arm-waving about collusion, people seem to have lost sight somewhat that this whole thing was kicked off by concerns about obstruction of justice. But that's still sitting on Mueller's table, and IMO, the case for it is a good bit stronger.
Back in those halcyon days before we knew for sure the president's son and son-in-law were meeting with Russians to get dirt from the Russian government (and do we really believe Trump didn't know?), the Comey firing was dismissed by many as "oh, it was about the way he handled Hillary's emails." His bragging to Russian officials that the Russian investigation was now off the table was "oh, he's just glad to have that nothingburger out of the way." His asking Comey to go see his way clear to dropping it -- meh, he just thinks Flynn is a good guy.
At this point, though, isn't it pretty stinking obvious he fired Comey to prevent him from digging into the highest levels of his campaign trying to get info from the Russian government to influence the election?
Look, I know the GOP isn't going to impeach the guy unless things get monstrously bad. Alas, this is not 1974 -- things are far more partisan and integrity is scarce on the ground.
But I do have to ask -- does anyone still think Comey was fired because of the Hillary email thing or because the FBI had lost faith in him?
Just saying -- I don't, at all. I think it's painfully clear it was all about obstruction -- it was all about stopping the Russia investigation.
I also don't think that meeting was either the beginning or the end of it. Those emails strongly imply other conversations. All those contacts so many of his campaign and associates had with Russians...that back channel Jared was trying to set up -- that is NOT business as usual. If I were a betting woman, I'd bet that at least some in the Trump campaign know a lot more about the hacking and dumping of emails, and encouraged, if not assisted it. I don't think that's a crazy conspiracy theory anymore -- I think it's where the evidence is pointing.
|
|
|
Post by Angie on Jul 15, 2017 10:39:03 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 15, 2017 10:43:09 GMT -5
What a deep, inscrutable, multi-dimensional chess game Hillary was playing, setting all of this up and failing to use any of it, instead waiting for the press to unleash it five months into Trump's administration! Poor little hapless innocent Trump campaign, falling into her devious trap!
And the sheer genius of her getting the Russians to hack her emails and interfere in ways that helped Trump so that no one would suspect her nefarious plot!
|
|
|
Post by Angie on Jul 15, 2017 10:47:43 GMT -5
Verily, she is a mastermind of epic proportions.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 15, 2017 10:52:25 GMT -5
She's not quite as Machiavellian as you are, Angie, but she's close. Keep the matches and gasoline away from her, that's all I'm saying.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 15, 2017 11:32:06 GMT -5
SMDH. The National Review, a voice once venerated by the right, is freaking done with Trump. See, e.g., this piece by Jonah Goldberg, which is quite the read: www.nationalreview.com/g-file/449516/donald-trump-russia-benefit-doubt-now-gone . A snippet I particularly enjoyed: Read the rest. It's fun stuff. And then scroll down to the comments. Again, SMDH. The good news: polls are showing independents are increasingly getting off the Trump train. And more and more of what I think if as the intellectual conservative pundits are, too -- some, like Max Boot and Joe Scarborough, going so far as to cast off their GOP affiliation rather than try to save it from within. The bad news: GOP leaders, while comparatively few are actively defending this shit, are too afraid of the part of the GOP base that will never desert Trump to do a damn thing. GOP loyalists who know damn well thus reeks are silent or making increasingly feeble excuses. The alt-right gets bolder in its lies and misdirection, defending what they can't deny as "business as usual." And once-venerated conservative voices who speak up to condemn it, making excellent, forceful, supported arguments, are jeered at and cast off as libtard sheep. It is incredibly depressing.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Jul 15, 2017 14:01:50 GMT -5
As I said before, to the faithful, beating liberals is everything. I literally do not think there is anything Trump could do, short of becoming a liberal himself, that would cause the true believer to turn against him. Suitcases full of cash from Putin? Revelations that he raped underaged Miss America contestants in their dressing rooms? Nope - I don't think even that would get him impeached at this point. I really don't.
|
|