Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
ExpandMyMind

Trump son met Russian who promised damaging

981 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

ExpandMyMind

Y'know what's really, truly scary about this whole situation? It's not that Trump and his entire staff could all line up in front of the cameras and press in the White House briefing room, proceed crap all over the floor and then have the cheek to deny it ever happened. It's that Trump supporters would actually believe them.

SO SAD!

Edited by ExpandMyMind
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ExpandMyMind
1 hour ago, RoofGardener said:

I can only repeat Merc14's question, ExpandMyMind. Which US statutes have been broken ? 

From a fellow internetperson:

Quote

He avoided mentioning all of it on his SF-86, which is not only illegal, but causes your clearance to be revoked.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ExpandMyMind
1 hour ago, RoofGardener said:

I can only repeat Merc14's question, ExpandMyMind. Which US statutes have been broken ? 

Also:

https://transition.fec.gov/pages/brochures/contrib.shtml#Foreign_Nationals

Quote

 

Prohibited Contributions

The Act prohibits certain contributions made in connection with or for the purpose of influencing federal elections. The prohibitions listed below apply to contributions received and made by political committees. Note that the prohibitions apply to all contributions, regardless of:

What type of contribution it is (gift of money, in-kind contribution, loan and so on); Whether it is solicited; and How it is ultimately used (such as for advertising, office supplies or independent expenditures13).

 

Definition of a foreign national:

Quote

Foreign Nationals Contributions and donations may not be solicited,14 accepted, or received from, or made directly or indirectly by, foreign nationals who do not have permanent residence in the United States (i.e., those without green cards). This prohibition encompasses all US elections; including federal, state and local elections. 11 CFR 110.20(b).

Clarity on what an 'in-kind' contribution is:

https://www.fec.gov/press/resources-journalists/contributions/

Quote

 

An in-kind contribution is a contribution of goods, services or property offered free or at less than the usual and normal charge. The term also includes things of value that can be sold or that appreciate in value, and payments made on behalf of, but not directly to, candidates and political committees (except for independent expenditures or non-coordinated communications).

 

 

 

This includes all kinds of contributions. Literally any contribution, including advice and information.

This is collusion and quite possibly treason.

Edited by ExpandMyMind
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Helen of Annoy
3 minutes ago, ExpandMyMind said:

Also:

https://transition.fec.gov/pages/brochures/contrib.shtml#Foreign_Nationals

Definition of a foreign national:

 

https://www.fec.gov/press/resources-journalists/contributions/

This includes all kinds of contributions. Literally any contribution, including advice and information.

This is collusion and quite possibly treason.

I sense Trumpkins gathering to tell you that it was only the son, lawyer and son-in-law who did it and the dear leader had no idea... 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ExpandMyMind

Does anyone know or remember what happened when Al Gore was given a dossier on Bush's campaign's strategy? He contacted the FBI immediately. This is what the Bush camp should have done when a foreign national came to them offering information that could influence a US election. Instead, Trump Jr said 'I love it!'. 

Cue, defence . . .

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ExpandMyMind
5 minutes ago, Helen of Annoy said:

I sense Trumpkins gathering to tell you that it was only the son, lawyer and son-in-law who did it and the dear leader had no idea... 

Well he involved Kushner and the team's lawyer so all three had knowledge of this and were even present in the meeting. It's possible, but highly unlikely that senior didn't know of this. Especially unlikely when you consider his praise of Putin and Russia after the meeting took place.

And remember, Jr changed his story three times on this. At this point, who the **** knows what was actually discussed? How can anything this lying sack of **** says be taken seriously? He only released the emails because the NYT told him they were about go ahead with the story and he said 'give me time for a response', then tried to pre empt them!

Edited by ExpandMyMind
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ExpandMyMind

 

This truly is Stupid Watergate. Who would have thought the only person more stupid than Donald Trump would be, eh, Donald Trump. :D

Edited by ExpandMyMind
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alaric

I'll take the triple nothing burger with a double down order of nothing fries and a large nothing soda... make it diet, I'm watching my weight. And make sure the person making it is getting paid $15 an hour or I'm not eating it. (I'll actually eat it 'cause I got the munchies something fierce right now... but I'll be sure complain real loud while doing so).

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ExpandMyMind

President’s son faces calls to testify before Senate over Russia meeting

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jul/10/donald-trump-jr-russia-meeting-clinton-statements

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Will Do

All that the anti-Trumpers are left doing, is playing Russian Roulette. 

Click Click Click Click Click Click Click Click Click Click Click Click Click Click Click Click Click CLICK! CLICK!! CLICK!!!

Boom

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gary Meadows
On Monday, July 10, 2017 at 8:21 AM, ExpandMyMind said:

Yeah, this was the response expected.

Denial is a powerful thing.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
preacherman76
6 hours ago, ExpandMyMind said:

Seriously? You really don't consider working with an agent of a foreign government to undermine and potentially sway a national election treason? 

With the House and Senate as they are, if Trump had run as Democrat he would have already been impeached. Anyone who tries to deny this is simply being dishonest. If the Dems had all these connections with the Russians, the entire right would be united in much the same way and for the same reasons as the left.

I don't see how that happened at all. Exposing corrupt people like Hillary is as democratic as it gets. Gives people a better ability to make a informed choice. 

What do you mean IF the Dems had all these connections with Russia?? Hillary and Obama had serious connections. So much so that they were dealing in bomb material that can destroy whole countries. I'd say that's a much bigger connection then a Russian lawyer that had nothing. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ExpandMyMind
6 minutes ago, preacherman76 said:

I don't see how that happened at all. Exposing corrupt people like Hillary is as democratic as it gets. Gives people a better ability to make a informed choice. 

What do you mean IF the Dems had all these connections with Russia?? Hillary and Obama had serious connections. So much so that they were dealing in bomb material that can destroy whole countries. I'd say that's a much bigger connection then a Russian lawyer that had nothing. 

Not to derail this thread but do you mean this deal? I'm not sure how the two things are in any way comparable, especially since 'Moreover, the State Department was one of nine government agencies that had to sign off on the deals. '. This seems more like a straight up trade deal. The US does have trade with Russia, y'know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
F3SS

Treason? So when something like when the NYT gets a story about a candidate (or any sitting official for that matter) from a foreign source and publishes it with intent to affect public perception is that treason? Can candidate obtain political dirt only from domestic sources? I mean that's what all of this is about. It's about dirt. It's not like fighting for an enemy or supplying them with state secrets (something a candidate's son shouldn't have anyhow) to undermine ones own country.  It all sounds like, oh I don't know, a modern day election process that all candidates take part in. I don't see how anything was undermined here no matter what. And about all this undermining talk, that boldly assumes minds were changed and votes were swayed from HRC when the truth was plain as day for the whole campaign and that truth is that she never was winning and was never going to. Trump had support where it mattered and she never stood a chance. She's slimy and cold and people don't like her. 

 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gromdor
15 hours ago, Manfred von Dreidecker said:

So basically you're quite happy with deranged sabre-rattling, that doesn't seem to worry you at all, because at least it would be accompanied by the dignity appropriate to the office

You think Pence will be a deranged sabre rattler? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Agent0range
17 minutes ago, F3SS said:

Treason? So when something like when the NYT gets a story about a candidate (or any sitting official for that matter) from a foreign source and publishes it with intent to affect public perception is that treason? Can candidate obtain political dirt only from domestic sources? I mean that's what all of this is about. It's about dirt. It's not like fighting for an enemy or supplying them with state secrets (something a candidate's son shouldn't have anyhow) to undermine ones own country.  It all sounds like, oh I don't know, a modern day election process that all candidates take part in. I don't see how anything was undermined here no matter what. And about all this undermining talk, that boldly assumes minds were changed and votes were swayed from HRC when the truth was plain as day for the whole campaign and that truth is that she never was winning and was never going to. Trump had support where it mattered and she never stood a chance. She's slimy and cold and people don't like her. 

 

For months, we kept hearing that no one on the campaign met with Russians.  No one in the campaign colluded with Russia to help sway the election.  We have hundreds of pages in threads of denial, and cries of fake news.  People talking about the made up democratic narrative of the campaign and Russia to undermine Trump.  Now, we have Trump Jr.  agreeing to meet with a lawyer for the Russian government (whether she is or not is irrelevant, that's what was stated in the email) to share damaging information while pledging Russia's support of Trump in the election.  Whether or not collusion occurred in this meeting is one thing, but what the emails do show was the absolute willingness of the top officials of a Presidential campaign to accept favors from a foreign government to sway an election.  That, my friend, is illegal.  Your opinion of the laws of this country, and how a person is expected to conduct themselves does not matter.  The rules are clear.  

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
F3SS
7 minutes ago, Agent0range said:

For months, we kept hearing that no one on the campaign met with Russians.  No one in the campaign colluded with Russia to help sway the election.  We have hundreds of pages in threads of denial, and cries of fake news.  People talking about the made up democratic narrative of the campaign and Russia to undermine Trump.  Now, we have Trump Jr.  agreeing to meet with a lawyer for the Russian government (whether she is or not is irrelevant, that's what was stated in the email) to share damaging information while pledging Russia's support of Trump in the election.  Whether or not collusion occurred in this meeting is one thing, but what the emails do show was the absolute willingness of the top officials of a Presidential campaign to accept favors from a foreign government to sway an election.  That, my friend, is illegal.  Your opinion of the laws of this country, and how a person is expected to conduct themselves does not matter.  The rules are clear.  

It sure isn't treason but what if the French pm was found to give HRC a dirty scoop about some Trump visit or business dealing in France? Our law here states that such an offer must be refused?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Agent0range
1 minute ago, F3SS said:

It sure isn't treason but what if the French pm was found to give HRC a dirty scoop about some Trump visit or business dealing in France? Our law here states that such an offer must be refused?

We can build strawmen all day.  This isn't about Hillary Clinton.  This isn't about Barack Obama.  If they thought it was so innocent, why have they lied about it for months?  Why did they leave it off of security clearance paperwork?  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Paranormal Panther
2 hours ago, preacherman76 said:

I don't see how that happened at all. Exposing corrupt people like Hillary is as democratic as it gets. Gives people a better ability to make a informed choice. 

What do you mean IF the Dems had all these connections with Russia?? Hillary and Obama had serious connections. So much so that they were dealing in bomb material that can destroy whole countries. I'd say that's a much bigger connection then a Russian lawyer that had nothing. 

I have no firm or real opinion on this right now since it's so new. I'll wait for the full story before I decide what to think. If there's something nefarious, I'll admit it. I won't hold my breath waiting for the Clinton cultists to admit her corrupt dealings, one of which you mention in your post.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gromdor

If we weren't fighting a proxy war against them in Syria, they stopped aiding North Korea, or had sanctions against them for Crimea and Ukraine, Russia wouldn't be in the "enemy of America" category.  But unfortunately they are.

I don't understand why the Trumps insist on being friends and trusting them if they are truly for America and not for themselves to be honest.

Edited by Gromdor
autocorrect
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
4 hours ago, ExpandMyMind said:

Y'know what's really, truly scary about this whole situation? It's not that Trump and his entire staff could all line up in front of the cameras and press in the White House briefing room, proceed crap all over the floor and then have the cheek to deny it ever happened. It's that Trump supporters would actually believe them.

SO SAD!

Yeah this part of the scenario really tears me up. It's kind of a hope for the future killer 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
F3SS
33 minutes ago, Agent0range said:

We can build strawmen all day.  This isn't about Hillary Clinton.  This isn't about Barack Obama.  If they thought it was so innocent, why have they lied about it for months?  Why did they leave it off of security clearance paperwork?  

It's not a strawman it's a legit question. It's seems to be a perfect comparison question albeit hypothetical. Do you have an answer for it? You seem to know everything about every law concerning anything government related. I don't have an answer for your questions.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
thedutchiedutch
16 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

Yeah this part of the scenario really tears me up. It's kind of a hope for the future killer 

It almost feels like Hillary Clinton's evil far exceeds Putin's, therefore everything is legitimate as a tool to stop her. Including selling out an election and the legitimacy of the Democratic process.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Agent0range
7 minutes ago, F3SS said:

It's not a strawman it's a legit question. It's seems to be a perfect comparison question albeit hypothetical. Do you have an answer for it? You seem to know everything about every law concerning anything government related. I don't have an answer for your questions.

Well, according to the letter of the law, that sounds like an illegal hypothetical.  I think you also need to consider the fact that there is an active investigation involving the campaign and collusion with Russia.  Read the emails.  Can you honestly say that Trump Jr. didn't think he was meeting with someone connected to the Russian government who had "highly sensitive" damaging information on Hillary Clinton?  And they were willing to give it to them because of the Russian government's support for Trump?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
3 minutes ago, Agent0range said:

Well, according to the letter of the law, that sounds like an illegal hypothetical.  I think you also need to consider the fact that there is an active investigation involving the campaign and collusion with Russia.  Read the emails.  Can you honestly say that Trump Jr. didn't think he was meeting with someone connected to the Russian government who had "highly sensitive" damaging information on Hillary Clinton?  And they were willing to give it to them because of the Russian government's support for Trump?

LOL

 

Quote

Goldstone: "This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump."

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.