Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Donald Trump Jr.’s Two Different Explanations for Russian Meeting

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • This is not confusing, here's the perfect equivalent.

    Imagine if Nixon had said on live TV: Hey if someone wants to break in and bug the Democratic Party's headquarters, you might be rewarded mightily.

    Imagine if Nixon had an idiot son, who secretly met with these burglars, lied about meeting them, had his daddy compose a false statement about that meeting.

    Imagine if a handful of Nixon staffers pleaded guilty to lying about their meetings with such burglars.

    Imagine if Nixon wanted to order the Attorney General to fire the independent special prosecutor. Imagine if Nixon's own AG had recused himself for undisclosed meetings with burglars. Imagine if Nixon instead wanted to fire the Deputy AG and/or to fire the independent special prosecutor himself. Imagine if Nixon was a moron and had a twitter account. The similarities with Watergate are astounding, but you have to give it to Trump, he makes even Nixon look like a criminal mastermind.

    Just like Stormy Daniels, his absent tax records, I don't think any of us have any doubts, Trump is crooked and guilty as sin. The only question that matters is: Can GOP and Russia protect him from Mueller? Russia will do their best to disrupt the midterms and GOP wants to stall Trump's impeachment to install Kavanaugh, so the Supreme Court finally have an old testament majority.

    Comment


    • I love how after 2 years of this “investigation” not turning up a shred of anything to implicate Trump in “collusion with Russia” it went from “let’s see if this investigation will turn up anything” to:

      Originally posted by Fargin
      I don't think any of us have any doubts, Trump is crooked and guilty as sin. The only question that matters is: Can GOP and Russia protect him from Mueller? Russia will do their best to disrupt the midterms and GOP wants to stall Trump's impeachment to install Kavanaugh, so the Supreme Court finally have an old testament majority.
      Hahahahaha

      lulz “Trump impeachment.” News must travel slowly to reach Denmark. Even our resident libtards gave up on that dumbassery (unfortunately). Here’s Chief Libtard Pelosi:
      https://www.rollingstone.com/politic...erview-696750/

      What’s your thinking on impeachment?
      I think it’s a gift to the Republicans.

      This election cannot be about impeachment. I don’t think it’s in the interest of America’s working families to focus on that, unless we have more to go on, which we don’t at this time. You get the power of subpoena, you don’t know where it takes you. I wouldn’t not impeach the president for political reasons. But I wouldn’t impeach him for political reasons, either.
      Last edited by Jonathan; 10-08-2018, 05:12 AM.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Marsch View Post
        Now apply this to Trump and you know from where the wind blows.
        "From where the wind blows"? Bollocks. Did you even read my post beyond the quoted bit? It's not Trump who made lying like a trooper acceptable for a President of the United States. For the love of God, he used literally the same sleights to win the presidency which Obama had used to beat Clinton in the primaries.

        Take off your blinders. The reason why I mock Trump's critics and fans alike as cheerfully as I do is that there's way more of Obama in him than both groups wanna admit.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by budgie View Post


          If it was no biggie they could have admitted it from the start. Perhaps the question now should be, is that as far as it goes or what else are they hiding?
          who could've? the MSM? hell no there's only on right aligned news company and that's fox, all the others lean left and I'm just talking mainstream, I won't even get into the indies and the outlaw news.

          it's been a reverse gangbang of EBF fapping over Obama and fox screaming about his birth certificate bullshit.....

          Comment


          • Originally posted by sgt_g View Post

            who could've? the MSM? hell no there's only on right aligned news company and that's fox, all the others lean left and I'm just talking mainstream, I won't even get into the indies and the outlaw news.

            it's been a reverse gangbang of EBF fapping over Obama and fox screaming about his birth certificate bullshit.....

            I see my use of pronouns, though blatantly obvious, provides for some silly sport, so I'll be clearer:

            The Trump Campaign operatives and managers could have admitted it from the start if it was 'no biggie' that they met a Russian agent to get dirt stolen in a cyber-espionage operation conducted against the United States' electoral process.

            The fact that the Trump team kept lying, obfuscating and changing the story about their intention to receive such illegally obtained data suggests they - sorry that is either some or all of Trump, his staff and his sons - knew what they were doing is wrong and likely have even more to hide that the prosecutors know about but haven;t released yet.

            I had nothing to say in that post about the media so I don't know what you're on about there and frankly not really interested in chasing the discussion down that particular rabbit hole because I don't think there's any merit to it.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Jonathan View Post
              I love how after 2 years of this “investigation” not turning up a shred of anything to implicate Trump in “collusion with Russia” it went from “let’s see if this investigation will turn up anything” to:
              'No evidence' at this stage is not even subjectively true let alone objectively.

              It is generally understood that 'anything you say can and will be used against you...' means words are also evidence. Aside from what is known so far, every statement or tweet - true, false or somewhere in between - is also evidence.

              On that vein we have the President admitting on live TV to obstructing justice, publicly changing his story over the intent of the meeting (also admitting the true purpose in at least one iteration) and constantly tweeting about the case to cover his tracks, contradict himself, through baseless accusations or otherwise muddy the waters, thereby interfering with the investigation as it happens.

              No evidence? That is flatly false. There is a mountain of it so far.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by budgie View Post

                No evidence? That is flatly false. There is a mountain of it so far.
                Ah yes.

                “Mountain of evidence.”
                “Bombshell after bombshell.”

                CNN told me. And yet, after more than two years of a whole team of people given ridiculous unprecedented access, interviewing hundreds of people, reviewing their tax returns, etc, not a single person connected to Trump so much as even indicted over “conspiring with the Russians.”

                Sooooo much of that there evidence. So much. I’m sure Mueller is about to announce something so very very soon. Any day now. Any day. Derp.

                #liberals

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Jonathan View Post
                  Ah yes.

                  “Mountain of evidence.”
                  “Bombshell after bombshell.”

                  CNN told me. And yet, after more than two years of a whole team of people given ridiculous unprecedented access, interviewing hundreds of people, reviewing their tax returns, etc, not a single person connected to Trump so much as even indicted over “conspiring with the Russians.”

                  Sooooo much of that there evidence. So much. I’m sure Mueller is about to announce something so very very soon. Any day now. Any day. Derp.

                  #liberals

                  If the only defense left is 'it's taking a long time,' that's a weak one. Watergate took a couple of years (actually 26 months) to translate into Nixon's resignation and we're not at the 24 month mark yet. Even then I don't think 'takes time' is a valid argument here. Lots of criminal investigations take years.

                  Likewise setting the bar for some grand announcement by Mueller. Investigations culminate in interviews and charges not TV spots. In those terms since they're already 'negotiating' the conditions of a sit-down with the president sounds like the investigation is moving at a steady pace.

                  Moreover anyone who thinks the president shouldn't sit down and answer questions at this point is basically admitting they know he's guilty of something: there's no reason an innocent man shouldn't answer questions.

                  But I'll throw you a bone. Trump has a way out of this:

                  By playing public opinion - refusing an interview and challenging a subpoena in court - he could drag it out till after the midterms. If the dems underperform and don't get a majority their hand will be weaker and his will be stronger. If Trump succeeds in getting a supreme court pick who believes in defending the president against criminal charges, that might ensure a [partisan] win when the subpoena request goes all the way to the top. At this point he could easily shut down the investigation and fire Mueller (perhaps via removing Rosenstein first) and as bad as it will look there'll be nobody to stop him.

                  It's as good as an admission of guilt in my book but that's his path out of this.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by budgie View Post


                    If the only defense left is 'it's taking a long time,' that's a weak one. Watergate took a couple of years (actually 26 months) to translate into Nixon's resignation and we're not at the 24 month mark yet. Even then I don't think 'takes time' is a valid argument here. Lots of criminal investigations take years.
                    yeah but Nixon's whole thing happened because *gasp* the press had evidence...hard evidence via the tapes right out the door and it was...and this is important kiddies... during Nixon's presidency this is a big thing because as president you are supposed to be held to a higher standard

                    getting dirt on another candidate is not illegal at least last I checked, if that's the case no one would be president and we'd probably have a confederate states of america

                    just because its dirt from Russia again, this is not illegal, selling state secrets that's a different thing, hell even if you are running and doing a deal on Trump hotel Moscow that's not a crime, that's just good back up business

                    Trump basically is a first time candidate, from the civilian sector, this is all new uncharted territory for the status quo of polichickens, they don't like it they wanted what they wanted in office and just want to continue to fuck us over until we cant say no more but baaaaaa....

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by budgie View Post


                      If the only defense left is 'it's taking a long time,' that's a weak one. Watergate took a couple of years (actually 26 months) to translate into Nixon's resignation and we're not at the 24 month mark yet. Even then I don't think 'takes time' is a valid argument here. Lots of criminal investigations take years.

                      Likewise setting the bar for some grand announcement by Mueller. Investigations culminate in interviews and charges not TV spots. In those terms since they're already 'negotiating' the conditions of a sit-down with the president sounds like the investigation is moving at a steady pace.

                      Moreover anyone who thinks the president shouldn't sit down and answer questions at this point is basically admitting they know he's guilty of something: there's no reason an innocent man shouldn't answer questions.

                      But I'll throw you a bone. Trump has a way out of this:

                      By playing public opinion - refusing an interview and challenging a subpoena in court - he could drag it out till after the midterms. If the dems underperform and don't get a majority their hand will be weaker and his will be stronger. If Trump succeeds in getting a supreme court pick who believes in defending the president against criminal charges, that might ensure a [partisan] win when the subpoena request goes all the way to the top. At this point he could easily shut down the investigation and fire Mueller (perhaps via removing Rosenstein first) and as bad as it will look there'll be nobody to stop him.

                      It's as good as an admission of guilt in my book but that's his path out of this.
                      lol any day now bud. Any day.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by sgt_g View Post

                        getting dirt on another candidate is not illegal at least last I checked, if that's the case no one would be president and we'd probably have a confederate states of america

                        just because its dirt from Russia again, this is not illegal,
                        That's going to be a matter for the courts. This particular dirt was stolen from DNC servers in a hacking operation which was part of a broader effort on Russia's part to sway the election through various means including cyber-attacks.

                        Just a few weeks ago the Trumpies were arguing it wasn't to get the dirt - presumably because they knew that looked bad. Now their defense is that it's 'not illegal'? Yeah i'll wait for the verdict on that one.

                        Oh and come on, be honest, would you have accepted this from the Clinton Camp? You can't even handle the Steele Dossier which was genuine opposition research.

                        face it if trump gets away with this it won't be because the courts deemed it 'not illegal'. It'll be by shutting the investigation down and not being punished by congress. If it goes until the end it'll finish the same as Watergate.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by sgt_g View Post

                          yeah but Nixon's whole thing happened because *gasp* the press had evidence...hard evidence via the tapes right out the door and it was.
                          ..
                          And I keep arguing that Trump's own words are equally hard evidence at this point - and that's not even considering whatever tapes, files and paper trail tangentially related the special counsel already has under wraps. The only thing stopping impeachment now is a sympathetic (or spineless) congress. If it had been Obama would you tolerate him admitting on TV to firing the FBI for investigating him and then admitting to colluding with russian agents who are trying to sway the election? Honestly?

                          Comment


                          • Any day now bud. Keep that dream alive.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Jonathan View Post
                              Any day now bud. Keep that dream alive.

                              You can taunt me that justice won't come so enough or even at all. have a laugh on me, I really don't mind. But can you honestly deny the President is guilty of something? Can you honestly say he has nothing to hide? If so I presume you're comfortable with him either answering Mueller's questions or being subpoenaed before a grand jury?

                              Come on, honest answer.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by budgie View Post
                                But can you honestly deny the President is guilty of something?
                                Guilty of “something?” lol 😂 I’m sure he is. I wouldn’t be surprised if he tried drugs, hired hookers, or jaywalked at some point of his life.

                                Was that the goal of this investigation then? To try to find if Trump is guilty of “something?”

                                Desperate much?

                                Originally posted by budgie
                                If so I presume you're comfortable with him either answering Mueller's questions or being subpoenaed before a grand jury?
                                If I was asked to go answer random questions in front of the FBI so they can determine if “I might be guilty of something” I’d tell them to go fuck themselves, as would any person who isn’t a complete moron. If you don’t understand why, ask a trusted adult to explain.

                                Any day now bud. I just wish most of our libtards were as naive as you and wouldn’t be already moving on from this dumbassery (see Pelosi). It’s been truly awesome seeing libtards self-implosion through this.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X