Trump's "appeasement" with Putin will lead to more of this...

[nat4900]

Is it really "wrong" in the midst of a campaign to welcome dirt on your opponent? Don't you think they all do it? Of course they do.
Let's keep our feet on the ground, here, folks.

Not just any source ...we are talking of a source linked to a Foreign Nation's intelligence services...this was not National Enquirer providing dirt...then there were the denials of any such meetings....its not an "they all do it"

Imagine Hillary Clinton's inner circle getting Info on Trump from Chinese Communist Intelligence services and using that then denying they did it .

Beat me to it, Tyrone....see post 79......(now some moronic right wingers will speculate that we are the same person....LOL)

 

[nat4900]

There was no appeasement, you fail liar.

Well, based on the previous "intellect" you've shown on here.....your definition of "appeasement" may be some vegetable dish with lots of carrots and onions....

 

[PredFan]

There was no appeasement, you fail liar.

Well, based on the previous "intellect" you've shown on here.....your definition of "appeasement" may be some vegetable dish with lots of carrots and onions....

Your lame deflection doesn't make your lie true dumbass.

 

[OldLady]

Is it really "wrong" in the midst of a campaign to welcome dirt on your opponent? Don't you think they all do it? Of course they do.
Let's keep our feet on the ground, here, folks.

Not just any source ...we are talking of a source linked to a Foreign Nation's intelligence services...this was not National Enquirer providing dirt...then there were the denials of any such meetings....its not an "they all do it"

Imagine Hillary Clinton's inner circle getting Info on Trump from Chinese Communist Intelligence services and using that then denying they did it .

Trump’s Son Met With Russian Lawyer After Being Promised Damaging Information on Clinton

This is the article I read, from the New York Times. She sounds less like a spook and more like a woman who is something of a "lobbyist" for adoption of Russian children. She got her foot in the door for a meeting with this political unknown in hopes of selling her wares. It seems pretty harmless to me and when Kushner earlier said it was "primarily about adoption," he wasn't lying. It was. She didn't actually have dirt on the Hillary campaign.

 

[Care4all]

Is it really "wrong" in the midst of a campaign to welcome dirt on your opponent? Don't you think they all do it? Of course they do.
Let's keep our feet on the ground, here, folks.

Not just any source ...we are talking of a source linked to a Foreign Nation's intelligence services...this was not National Enquirer providing dirt...then there were the denials of any such meetings....its not an "they all do it"

Imagine Hillary Clinton's inner circle getting Info on Trump from Chinese Communist Intelligence services and using that then denying they did it .

Trump’s Son Met With Russian Lawyer After Being Promised Damaging Information on Clinton

This is the article I read, from the New York Times. She sounds less like a spook and more like a woman who is something of a "lobbyist" for adoption of Russian children. She got her foot in the door for a meeting with this political unknown in hopes of selling her wares. It seems pretty harmless to me and when Kushner earlier said it was "primarily about adoption," he wasn't lying. It was. She didn't actually have dirt on the Hillary campaign.

you are too kind!

1 meeting, naive...even two meetings could be....when you have ten plus meetings/ contacts, all undisclosed as if there was something to hide, and with several on the Trump team they even lied about while under oath and or sworn affidavit....

something ain't right with this old lady...something stinks to high heaven with the overall picture....

I sure hope these leaks are not meant to somehow hurt Mueller's investigation....

 

[nat4900]

I sure hope these leaks are not meant to somehow hurt Mueller's investigation....

Oh, rest assured that right wingers are trying every TRAP to catch Mueller in some fake tip.....and if the trap succeeds they'll be all over him and ready to call the investigation a "fraud."

 

[Correll]

Is it really "wrong" in the midst of a campaign to welcome dirt on your opponent? Don't you think they all do it? Of course they do.
Let's keep our feet on the ground, here, folks.

The problem, however my dear, is that in THIS case, it is not only a foreign power doing the dirt digging. but also an adversarial foreign power.........

I don't think that Russia cares a hell of beans if the president is a dem or a rep....Russian are looking for stooges and patsies to manipulate.....and they sure got one.

Except that there is no connection between releasing emails and having control over someone else.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

This is the article I read, from the New York Times. She sounds less like a spook and more like a woman who is something of a "lobbyist" for adoption of Russian children. She got her foot in the door for a meeting with this political unknown in hopes of selling her wares. It seems pretty harmless to me and when Kushner earlier said it was "primarily about adoption," he wasn't lying. It was. She didn't actually have dirt on the Hillary campaign.

In a statement on Sunday, Donald Trump Jr. said he had met with the Russian lawyer at the request of an acquaintance. “After pleasantries were exchanged,” he said, “the woman stated that she had information that individuals connected to Russia were funding the Democratic National Committee and supporting Ms. Clinton. Her statements were vague, ambiguous and made no sense. No details or supporting information was provided or even offered. It quickly became clear that she had no meaningful information.”

He said she then turned the conversation to adoption of Russian children and the Magnitsky Act, an American law that blacklists suspected Russian human rights abusers. The law so enraged President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia that he retaliated by halting American adoptions of Russian children.

“It became clear to me that this was the true agenda all along and that the claims of potentially helpful information were a pretext for the meeting,” Mr. Trump said.

Read that last part again: “the claims of potentially helpful information were a pretext for the meeting.”


Trump Jr. confirmed that he went into the meeting expecting to receive information from the Russian lawyer that could hurt Clinton. That is a breathtaking admission.

Analysis | Donald Trump Jr.’s stunningly incriminating statement to the New York Times


‘This isn’t quite the truth yet’: Ex-US attorney says Trump Jr. is still lying about Russian lawyer

A former U.S. attorney told MSNBC on Sunday that President Donald Trump’s son, Donald Jr. is still lying when it comes to the meeting in June with Russian attorney Natalia Veselnitskaya, who reportedly told Trump Jr. that she had damaging intelligence on Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.

Ex-U.S. Attorney Joyce Vance said, “So, it looks like Trump Jr. is now engaging in what prosecutors call incremental truth telling — when you have a problem that you’re sitting on top of, you tell just as much as you think you have to tell to put yourself into the clear. And then you tell a little bit more, and a little bit more.”

Trump Jr. has given conflicting stories about what Veselnitskaya said in their meeting. At first, he said the conversation was about adoption. Then, on Sunday he admitted that Veselnitskaya had offered to reveal compromising information to him about Clinton, but says that the claims didn’t make sense and that he dismissed them.

Vance said that whatever Trump Jr.’s intentions were, he should have contacted law enforcement when approached by a foreign agent offering access to stolen information.

 

[OldLady]

Is it really "wrong" in the midst of a campaign to welcome dirt on your opponent? Don't you think they all do it? Of course they do.
Let's keep our feet on the ground, here, folks.

Not just any source ...we are talking of a source linked to a Foreign Nation's intelligence services...this was not National Enquirer providing dirt...then there were the denials of any such meetings....its not an "they all do it"

Imagine Hillary Clinton's inner circle getting Info on Trump from Chinese Communist Intelligence services and using that then denying they did it .

Trump’s Son Met With Russian Lawyer After Being Promised Damaging Information on Clinton

This is the article I read, from the New York Times. She sounds less like a spook and more like a woman who is something of a "lobbyist" for adoption of Russian children. She got her foot in the door for a meeting with this political unknown in hopes of selling her wares. It seems pretty harmless to me and when Kushner earlier said it was "primarily about adoption," he wasn't lying. It was. She didn't actually have dirt on the Hillary campaign.

you are too kind!

1 meeting, naive...even two meetings could be....when you have ten plus meetings/ contacts, all undisclosed as if there was something to hide, and with several on the Trump team they even lied about while under oath and or sworn affidavit....

something ain't right with this old lady...something stinks to high heaven with the overall picture....

I sure hope these leaks are not meant to somehow hurt Mueller's investigation....

You know, as I was typing that post, I was thinking to myself, "I've had to argue this a lot" for them. I like people to be treated fairly, even the Trump team, but you're right--it is happening a lot. I'll take your word for it there's something fishy here--at least I'm willing to wait and see what the investigation says.
I still believe a lot of it is very intentional hype by the Dems and Trump haters. Look at the Big Deal they made out of that meeting the Russians had with Jeff Sessions in his senate office with an aide present. Good glory. That was an embarrassment to the Dems. That kind of stuff just weakens the whole argument and makes me wonder how fair some of this is.
But I'm waiting. Not jumping to conclusions either way.

 

[OldLady]

This is the article I read, from the New York Times. She sounds less like a spook and more like a woman who is something of a "lobbyist" for adoption of Russian children. She got her foot in the door for a meeting with this political unknown in hopes of selling her wares. It seems pretty harmless to me and when Kushner earlier said it was "primarily about adoption," he wasn't lying. It was. She didn't actually have dirt on the Hillary campaign.

In a statement on Sunday, Donald Trump Jr. said he had met with the Russian lawyer at the request of an acquaintance. “After pleasantries were exchanged,” he said, “the woman stated that she had information that individuals connected to Russia were funding the Democratic National Committee and supporting Ms. Clinton. Her statements were vague, ambiguous and made no sense. No details or supporting information was provided or even offered. It quickly became clear that she had no meaningful information.”

He said she then turned the conversation to adoption of Russian children and the Magnitsky Act, an American law that blacklists suspected Russian human rights abusers. The law so enraged President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia that he retaliated by halting American adoptions of Russian children.

“It became clear to me that this was the true agenda all along and that the claims of potentially helpful information were a pretext for the meeting,” Mr. Trump said.

Read that last part again: “the claims of potentially helpful information were a pretext for the meeting.”


Trump Jr. confirmed that he went into the meeting expecting to receive information from the Russian lawyer that could hurt Clinton. That is a breathtaking admission.

Analysis | Donald Trump Jr.’s stunningly incriminating statement to the New York Times


‘This isn’t quite the truth yet’: Ex-US attorney says Trump Jr. is still lying about Russian lawyer

A former U.S. attorney told MSNBC on Sunday that President Donald Trump’s son, Donald Jr. is still lying when it comes to the meeting in June with Russian attorney Natalia Veselnitskaya, who reportedly told Trump Jr. that she had damaging intelligence on Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.

Ex-U.S. Attorney Joyce Vance said, “So, it looks like Trump Jr. is now engaging in what prosecutors call incremental truth telling — when you have a problem that you’re sitting on top of, you tell just as much as you think you have to tell to put yourself into the clear. And then you tell a little bit more, and a little bit more.”

Trump Jr. has given conflicting stories about what Veselnitskaya said in their meeting. At first, he said the conversation was about adoption. Then, on Sunday he admitted that Veselnitskaya had offered to reveal compromising information to him about Clinton, but says that the claims didn’t make sense and that he dismissed them.

Vance said that whatever Trump Jr.’s intentions were, he should have contacted law enforcement when approached by a foreign agent offering access to stolen information.

I saw this article. It didn't say (1) she was a foreign agent or (2) she said anything about "stolen" information. Anywhere.
Is everyone from Russia a spy? Is that what every international businessman is supposed to assume? If she had information on Clinton, did it necessarily mean it was stolen? Could it have been something she knew based on being an international attorney or something to do with the Foundation, which did business with many foreign countries?
I KNOW Trump Jr. agreed to the meeting on the pretext that she had stuff damaging to Clinton's campaign. That leads back to my first question--would anyone running a campaign actually say no to having that conversation? I think not. You think yes. You have a lot more faith in human nature than I do, I guess.

 

[Auld Phart]

This is the article I read, from the New York Times. She sounds less like a spook and more like a woman who is something of a "lobbyist" for adoption of Russian children. She got her foot in the door for a meeting with this political unknown in hopes of selling her wares. It seems pretty harmless to me and when Kushner earlier said it was "primarily about adoption," he wasn't lying. It was. She didn't actually have dirt on the Hillary campaign.

In a statement on Sunday, Donald Trump Jr. said he had met with the Russian lawyer at the request of an acquaintance. “After pleasantries were exchanged,” he said, “the woman stated that she had information that individuals connected to Russia were funding the Democratic National Committee and supporting Ms. Clinton. Her statements were vague, ambiguous and made no sense. No details or supporting information was provided or even offered. It quickly became clear that she had no meaningful information.”

He said she then turned the conversation to adoption of Russian children and the Magnitsky Act, an American law that blacklists suspected Russian human rights abusers. The law so enraged President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia that he retaliated by halting American adoptions of Russian children.

“It became clear to me that this was the true agenda all along and that the claims of potentially helpful information were a pretext for the meeting,” Mr. Trump said.

Read that last part again: “the claims of potentially helpful information were a pretext for the meeting.”


Trump Jr. confirmed that he went into the meeting expecting to receive information from the Russian lawyer that could hurt Clinton. That is a breathtaking admission.

Analysis | Donald Trump Jr.’s stunningly incriminating statement to the New York Times


‘This isn’t quite the truth yet’: Ex-US attorney says Trump Jr. is still lying about Russian lawyer

A former U.S. attorney told MSNBC on Sunday that President Donald Trump’s son, Donald Jr. is still lying when it comes to the meeting in June with Russian attorney Natalia Veselnitskaya, who reportedly told Trump Jr. that she had damaging intelligence on Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.

Ex-U.S. Attorney Joyce Vance said, “So, it looks like Trump Jr. is now engaging in what prosecutors call incremental truth telling — when you have a problem that you’re sitting on top of, you tell just as much as you think you have to tell to put yourself into the clear. And then you tell a little bit more, and a little bit more.”

Trump Jr. has given conflicting stories about what Veselnitskaya said in their meeting. At first, he said the conversation was about adoption. Then, on Sunday he admitted that Veselnitskaya had offered to reveal compromising information to him about Clinton, but says that the claims didn’t make sense and that he dismissed them.

Vance said that whatever Trump Jr.’s intentions were, he should have contacted law enforcement when approached by a foreign agent offering access to stolen information.

I saw this article. It didn't say (1) she was a foreign agent or (2) she said anything about "stolen" information. Anywhere.
Is everyone from Russia a spy? Is that what every international businessman is supposed to assume? If she had information on Clinton, did it necessarily mean it was stolen? Could it have been something she knew based on being an international attorney or something to do with the Foundation, which did business with many foreign countries?
I KNOW Trump Jr. agreed to the meeting on the pretext that she had stuff damaging to Clinton's campaign. That leads back to my first question--would anyone running a campaign actually say no to having that conversation? I think not. You think yes. You have a lot more faith in human nature than I do, I guess.

Just saw this on Yahoo.

Russian thrust into Trump campaign scandal unknown at home

"MOSCOW (AP) — The Russian lawyer who has been thrust into the spotlight following reports of her meeting with President Donald Trump's eldest son was a largely unknown figure until she began to represent the son of a Russian official in a major money-laundering trial."

 

[TNHarley]

Good gawd nat.. EVERY fucking thread... Are you dotcoms sock? Or just a complete fucking idiot?
PROOF mean anything to you?

 

[OldLady]

This is the article I read, from the New York Times. She sounds less like a spook and more like a woman who is something of a "lobbyist" for adoption of Russian children. She got her foot in the door for a meeting with this political unknown in hopes of selling her wares. It seems pretty harmless to me and when Kushner earlier said it was "primarily about adoption," he wasn't lying. It was. She didn't actually have dirt on the Hillary campaign.

In a statement on Sunday, Donald Trump Jr. said he had met with the Russian lawyer at the request of an acquaintance. “After pleasantries were exchanged,” he said, “the woman stated that she had information that individuals connected to Russia were funding the Democratic National Committee and supporting Ms. Clinton. Her statements were vague, ambiguous and made no sense. No details or supporting information was provided or even offered. It quickly became clear that she had no meaningful information.”

He said she then turned the conversation to adoption of Russian children and the Magnitsky Act, an American law that blacklists suspected Russian human rights abusers. The law so enraged President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia that he retaliated by halting American adoptions of Russian children.

“It became clear to me that this was the true agenda all along and that the claims of potentially helpful information were a pretext for the meeting,” Mr. Trump said.

Read that last part again: “the claims of potentially helpful information were a pretext for the meeting.”


Trump Jr. confirmed that he went into the meeting expecting to receive information from the Russian lawyer that could hurt Clinton. That is a breathtaking admission.

Analysis | Donald Trump Jr.’s stunningly incriminating statement to the New York Times


‘This isn’t quite the truth yet’: Ex-US attorney says Trump Jr. is still lying about Russian lawyer

A former U.S. attorney told MSNBC on Sunday that President Donald Trump’s son, Donald Jr. is still lying when it comes to the meeting in June with Russian attorney Natalia Veselnitskaya, who reportedly told Trump Jr. that she had damaging intelligence on Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.

Ex-U.S. Attorney Joyce Vance said, “So, it looks like Trump Jr. is now engaging in what prosecutors call incremental truth telling — when you have a problem that you’re sitting on top of, you tell just as much as you think you have to tell to put yourself into the clear. And then you tell a little bit more, and a little bit more.”

Trump Jr. has given conflicting stories about what Veselnitskaya said in their meeting. At first, he said the conversation was about adoption. Then, on Sunday he admitted that Veselnitskaya had offered to reveal compromising information to him about Clinton, but says that the claims didn’t make sense and that he dismissed them.

Vance said that whatever Trump Jr.’s intentions were, he should have contacted law enforcement when approached by a foreign agent offering access to stolen information.

I saw this article. It didn't say (1) she was a foreign agent or (2) she said anything about "stolen" information. Anywhere.
Is everyone from Russia a spy? Is that what every international businessman is supposed to assume? If she had information on Clinton, did it necessarily mean it was stolen? Could it have been something she knew based on being an international attorney or something to do with the Foundation, which did business with many foreign countries?
I KNOW Trump Jr. agreed to the meeting on the pretext that she had stuff damaging to Clinton's campaign. That leads back to my first question--would anyone running a campaign actually say no to having that conversation? I think not. You think yes. You have a lot more faith in human nature than I do, I guess.

Just saw this on Yahoo.

Russian thrust into Trump campaign scandal unknown at home

"MOSCOW (AP) — The Russian lawyer who has been thrust into the spotlight following reports of her meeting with President Donald Trump's eldest son was a largely unknown figure until she began to represent the son of a Russian official in a major money-laundering trial."

Why stop there, Will?

Natalia Veselnitskaya's name has not been linked to government officials, the pro-Kremlin political party or major pro-Kremlin NGOs. The law firm where she is listed as managing partner, Kamerton Consulting, is based in a Moscow suburb and does not even have a website. A staff member at Kamerton told The Associated Press Veselnitskaya was unavailable for comment on Monday.

A New York Times story over the weekend cited advisers to the White House as saying that Donald Trump Jr., Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner and then-campaign chairman Paul Manafort had a meeting in June last year with Veselnitskaya, who promised damaging information about Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton.

Trump Jr. said in a statement on Sunday that he had agreed to the meeting after he was told the lawyer might have information that would be "helpful" to the Trump campaign. He said she claimed during the discussion to have information that "individuals connected to Russia were funding the Democratic National Committee" and supporting Clinton but said "it quickly became clear that she had no meaningful information."

Saying she might have information "helpful" to the campaign does not mean "stolen" information.

Jesus, I hate defending these guys. I can't help myself. What is wrong with me?

 

[Auld Phart]

This is the article I read, from the New York Times. She sounds less like a spook and more like a woman who is something of a "lobbyist" for adoption of Russian children. She got her foot in the door for a meeting with this political unknown in hopes of selling her wares. It seems pretty harmless to me and when Kushner earlier said it was "primarily about adoption," he wasn't lying. It was. She didn't actually have dirt on the Hillary campaign.

In a statement on Sunday, Donald Trump Jr. said he had met with the Russian lawyer at the request of an acquaintance. “After pleasantries were exchanged,” he said, “the woman stated that she had information that individuals connected to Russia were funding the Democratic National Committee and supporting Ms. Clinton. Her statements were vague, ambiguous and made no sense. No details or supporting information was provided or even offered. It quickly became clear that she had no meaningful information.”

He said she then turned the conversation to adoption of Russian children and the Magnitsky Act, an American law that blacklists suspected Russian human rights abusers. The law so enraged President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia that he retaliated by halting American adoptions of Russian children.

“It became clear to me that this was the true agenda all along and that the claims of potentially helpful information were a pretext for the meeting,” Mr. Trump said.

Read that last part again: “the claims of potentially helpful information were a pretext for the meeting.”


Trump Jr. confirmed that he went into the meeting expecting to receive information from the Russian lawyer that could hurt Clinton. That is a breathtaking admission.

Analysis | Donald Trump Jr.’s stunningly incriminating statement to the New York Times


‘This isn’t quite the truth yet’: Ex-US attorney says Trump Jr. is still lying about Russian lawyer

A former U.S. attorney told MSNBC on Sunday that President Donald Trump’s son, Donald Jr. is still lying when it comes to the meeting in June with Russian attorney Natalia Veselnitskaya, who reportedly told Trump Jr. that she had damaging intelligence on Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.

Ex-U.S. Attorney Joyce Vance said, “So, it looks like Trump Jr. is now engaging in what prosecutors call incremental truth telling — when you have a problem that you’re sitting on top of, you tell just as much as you think you have to tell to put yourself into the clear. And then you tell a little bit more, and a little bit more.”

Trump Jr. has given conflicting stories about what Veselnitskaya said in their meeting. At first, he said the conversation was about adoption. Then, on Sunday he admitted that Veselnitskaya had offered to reveal compromising information to him about Clinton, but says that the claims didn’t make sense and that he dismissed them.

Vance said that whatever Trump Jr.’s intentions were, he should have contacted law enforcement when approached by a foreign agent offering access to stolen information.

I saw this article. It didn't say (1) she was a foreign agent or (2) she said anything about "stolen" information. Anywhere.
Is everyone from Russia a spy? Is that what every international businessman is supposed to assume? If she had information on Clinton, did it necessarily mean it was stolen? Could it have been something she knew based on being an international attorney or something to do with the Foundation, which did business with many foreign countries?
I KNOW Trump Jr. agreed to the meeting on the pretext that she had stuff damaging to Clinton's campaign. That leads back to my first question--would anyone running a campaign actually say no to having that conversation? I think not. You think yes. You have a lot more faith in human nature than I do, I guess.

Just saw this on Yahoo.

Russian thrust into Trump campaign scandal unknown at home

"MOSCOW (AP) — The Russian lawyer who has been thrust into the spotlight following reports of her meeting with President Donald Trump's eldest son was a largely unknown figure until she began to represent the son of a Russian official in a major money-laundering trial."

Why stop there, Will?

Natalia Veselnitskaya's name has not been linked to government officials, the pro-Kremlin political party or major pro-Kremlin NGOs. The law firm where she is listed as managing partner, Kamerton Consulting, is based in a Moscow suburb and does not even have a website. A staff member at Kamerton told The Associated Press Veselnitskaya was unavailable for comment on Monday.

A New York Times story over the weekend cited advisers to the White House as saying that Donald Trump Jr., Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner and then-campaign chairman Paul Manafort had a meeting in June last year with Veselnitskaya, who promised damaging information about Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton.

Trump Jr. said in a statement on Sunday that he had agreed to the meeting after he was told the lawyer might have information that would be "helpful" to the Trump campaign. He said she claimed during the discussion to have information that "individuals connected to Russia were funding the Democratic National Committee" and supporting Clinton but said "it quickly became clear that she had no meaningful information."

Saying she might have information "helpful" to the campaign does not mean "stolen" information.

Jesus, I hate defending these guys. I can't help myself. What is wrong with me?

Why stop there, Will?

Teaser.

If you were interested, you'd click on the link.

If you weren't, you wouldn't bother reading the post anyway

 

[OldLady]

This is the article I read, from the New York Times. She sounds less like a spook and more like a woman who is something of a "lobbyist" for adoption of Russian children. She got her foot in the door for a meeting with this political unknown in hopes of selling her wares. It seems pretty harmless to me and when Kushner earlier said it was "primarily about adoption," he wasn't lying. It was. She didn't actually have dirt on the Hillary campaign.

In a statement on Sunday, Donald Trump Jr. said he had met with the Russian lawyer at the request of an acquaintance. “After pleasantries were exchanged,” he said, “the woman stated that she had information that individuals connected to Russia were funding the Democratic National Committee and supporting Ms. Clinton. Her statements were vague, ambiguous and made no sense. No details or supporting information was provided or even offered. It quickly became clear that she had no meaningful information.”

He said she then turned the conversation to adoption of Russian children and the Magnitsky Act, an American law that blacklists suspected Russian human rights abusers. The law so enraged President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia that he retaliated by halting American adoptions of Russian children.

“It became clear to me that this was the true agenda all along and that the claims of potentially helpful information were a pretext for the meeting,” Mr. Trump said.

Read that last part again: “the claims of potentially helpful information were a pretext for the meeting.”


Trump Jr. confirmed that he went into the meeting expecting to receive information from the Russian lawyer that could hurt Clinton. That is a breathtaking admission.

Analysis | Donald Trump Jr.’s stunningly incriminating statement to the New York Times


‘This isn’t quite the truth yet’: Ex-US attorney says Trump Jr. is still lying about Russian lawyer

A former U.S. attorney told MSNBC on Sunday that President Donald Trump’s son, Donald Jr. is still lying when it comes to the meeting in June with Russian attorney Natalia Veselnitskaya, who reportedly told Trump Jr. that she had damaging intelligence on Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.

Ex-U.S. Attorney Joyce Vance said, “So, it looks like Trump Jr. is now engaging in what prosecutors call incremental truth telling — when you have a problem that you’re sitting on top of, you tell just as much as you think you have to tell to put yourself into the clear. And then you tell a little bit more, and a little bit more.”

Trump Jr. has given conflicting stories about what Veselnitskaya said in their meeting. At first, he said the conversation was about adoption. Then, on Sunday he admitted that Veselnitskaya had offered to reveal compromising information to him about Clinton, but says that the claims didn’t make sense and that he dismissed them.

Vance said that whatever Trump Jr.’s intentions were, he should have contacted law enforcement when approached by a foreign agent offering access to stolen information.

I saw this article. It didn't say (1) she was a foreign agent or (2) she said anything about "stolen" information. Anywhere.
Is everyone from Russia a spy? Is that what every international businessman is supposed to assume? If she had information on Clinton, did it necessarily mean it was stolen? Could it have been something she knew based on being an international attorney or something to do with the Foundation, which did business with many foreign countries?
I KNOW Trump Jr. agreed to the meeting on the pretext that she had stuff damaging to Clinton's campaign. That leads back to my first question--would anyone running a campaign actually say no to having that conversation? I think not. You think yes. You have a lot more faith in human nature than I do, I guess.

Just saw this on Yahoo.

Russian thrust into Trump campaign scandal unknown at home

"MOSCOW (AP) — The Russian lawyer who has been thrust into the spotlight following reports of her meeting with President Donald Trump's eldest son was a largely unknown figure until she began to represent the son of a Russian official in a major money-laundering trial."

Why stop there, Will?

Natalia Veselnitskaya's name has not been linked to government officials, the pro-Kremlin political party or major pro-Kremlin NGOs. The law firm where she is listed as managing partner, Kamerton Consulting, is based in a Moscow suburb and does not even have a website. A staff member at Kamerton told The Associated Press Veselnitskaya was unavailable for comment on Monday.

A New York Times story over the weekend cited advisers to the White House as saying that Donald Trump Jr., Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner and then-campaign chairman Paul Manafort had a meeting in June last year with Veselnitskaya, who promised damaging information about Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton.

Trump Jr. said in a statement on Sunday that he had agreed to the meeting after he was told the lawyer might have information that would be "helpful" to the Trump campaign. He said she claimed during the discussion to have information that "individuals connected to Russia were funding the Democratic National Committee" and supporting Clinton but said "it quickly became clear that she had no meaningful information."

Saying she might have information "helpful" to the campaign does not mean "stolen" information.

Jesus, I hate defending these guys. I can't help myself. What is wrong with me?

Why stop there, Will?

Teaser.

If you were interested, you'd click on the link.

If you weren't, you wouldn't bother reading the post anyway

Nah, stick their noses in it, that's my theory.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

basically....according to both Lavrov and Tillerson......Trump told Putin...."well,OK, let bygones be bygones about your hacking.........do you want to have a big mac with me?]"


But, here's an unpleasant reality that escapes both Trump and his ass kissers on this forum.


RUSSIA IS THE CHIEF SUSPECT IN U.S. NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS HACK

Alright internet tough-guy, what do you want Trump to do exactly about unsubstantiated allegations? And, why didn't you demand Obama do something? All this shit happened under his watch, not Trump's.

 

[postman]

Saying she might have information "helpful" to the campaign does not mean "stolen" information.

As soon as she said the information was from a foreign source, it would be a violation of election law to accept a contribution of any value.

If the information was as Trump Jr first described it, he should have gone to the FBI, the FEC, etc, and reported the foreign agent's allegations to the authorities.

The fact that he didn't, says volumes.

 

[postman]

He said she claimed during the discussion to have information that "individuals connected to Russia were funding the Democratic National Committee" and supporting Clinton

What, there was no Benghazi style congressional investigation of this accusation.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Do you know who left the butter out overnight? The Russians!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Do you know why I forgot to take the garbage to the curb this morning? The Russians!