Trump son met Russian lawyer after promise of damaging info. on Clinton

Talking Points Memo has an article describing the growing number of participants in this meeting:

I didn’t realize the music agent was in attendance, but I guess he had to be there since he arranged the meeting. One wonders what was his input in whatever discussion.

This focus has been reported by other sources I’ve read, it naturally arises when the Magnitsky Act is discussed since the ban on Russian adoptions was imposed in retaliation for the act. I don’t know whether there is great demand for Russian orphans, but foreign adoptions reportedly are declining:

Obviously Russian adoptions is far from a priority, “hundreds” of former Russian adoptions might amount to 10% of the yearly totals, discussing the relaxation of Russian restrictions against adoptions clearly was simply in reaction to the Russian attorney’s raising the Magnitsky Act.

The reference to that “Soviet counterintelligence agent” (Rinat Akhmetsin) is much more interesting:

Three issues here; first off, an army draftee serving the cursory two year stint is not “a former officer in Russia’s military intelligence service known as the GRU” (as CNN breathlessly reports); second, the lawyer apparently had some printed details on illicit funds contributed to Hillary’s campaign, but no evidence to back them up, Junior, Kushner and Manafort were evidently uninterested; third, shouldn’t these collusion investigators be more interested in obtaining the evidence the Russian attorney purportedly had?

So far we’ve got Junior, Kushner, Manafort, Goldstone, the “Kremlin lawyer”, the “GRU officer”, a translator and a Russian oligarch “close to Putin” (probably not real estate magnate Arav Agalarov (father of pop star Emin –represented by Goldstone) since he’s Azerbayani).

 

To understand this Trump "Matter",you have to research the Magnitsky Act and why the Russians were lobbying to repeal it.

If you pick up the book "Red Notice...." by Bill Browder, it goes over the entire episode of the post-Soviet economy, Western attempts to break into it, the push back by Russian oligarchs, police fraud and the murder of Sergei Magnitsky.

The Magnitsky Act was passed to punish the Russian Oligarchs who control the Russian economy through corruption.
Basically, Trump was caught up in the lobbying of BOTH the Democrats and Republicans to repeal it.

The only collusion that could have resulted would have been the repeal of the Magnitsky Act.

It is still on the books.

 

Strange, I was very right wing when I was younger but then I started using the fore-mentioned brain and started looking at things objectively and not following propaganda. It's also strange that many of those very successful people are liberal entrepreneurs.

Why is Churchill always mentioned as if he was a great man - there are reasons why he lost his position at a point in time when everyone in this day would think that he would have won easily.

 

Just post whatever you point actually is. To many people are lazy and just post videos that have no relevence and just waste time

 

Which makes it so suspicious, that it was instantly settled as soon as Trump took office.

It didn't. Now it apparently does.

Are you stating that Lynch should have violated the Constitution and denied the defendant his 6th amendment right to counsel? If not, then why bring it up?

Even if it was true, that's not relevant to anything.

What can not be debated is dragging Lynch in is a desperate deflection tactic, being that Lynch's actions were totally Constitutional and proper. Allowing a defendant to exercise his 6th amendment right to counsel is not collusion.

Your argument is that since Jr. didn't engage in collusion specifically concerning the Magnitksy act, he therefore didn't engage in any collusion. That conclusion does not follow from your premise.

 

No, that's a conservative urban legend. It actually goes the other way. People tend to get more liberal as they age. The preceding generations were more conservative, so older people will be more conservative, but that's because they were "born conservative", not because they became more conservative.

https://www.livescience.com/2360-busting-myth-people-turn-liberal-age.html

That's a faked Churchill quote. Churchill never said any such thing. Those familiar with history would know it's nonsense, beinh that Churchill was conservative when young and liberal when old.

 

One truism I have learned is that the less people know about something, the more they want to argue about it.
You were told that this story is about uber wealthy Russians trying to get both Republicans and Democrats to repeal the Magnitsky Act and you don't write a single word asking what it is.

Since you are ignorant of a crucial fact, let's dispose of the rest of your rants. I won't take long.

1. Court cases in New York City (no trump friends there to shortchange a court case) settle old all the time. My family was involved in a court case over a car purchase and it lasted 15 YEARS until the other side quit.

2. No matter how much Trump Haters like to believe in pipe dreams, this Russian attorney had no Constitutional right to a visa. You might find a Trump Hating judge to invoke the 6th Amendment, but the Supreme Court would overturn it as a basis of law

3. The Russian attorney approaching both Demcrats and Republicans to repeal the Magnitsky Act proves this in not about collusion. She was here to LOBBY for a repeal of the act you know nothing about. Lobbying by Americans and foreigners goes on all the time in this country.

4. Dragging Loretta Lynch is into this matter brings up the question of how people can get dragged into into an imaginary story. It is the same tactic Trump Haters have been using since last November.

It was a Democrat who allowed her into the country when a visa was denied.

Using the silly semantics of Trump Haters like yourself, that sounds a lot more like treason than someone who gave her a listen for 20 minutes for one thing and found out it was a bait and switch.

We all know the Russian Collusion Illusion has deflated in light of the Comey testimony and the admission by Nancy Pelosi and CNN that there is no evidence of a collusion.

This is just an effort to pump air into a dead horse.

 

Glenn Greenwald, no fan of Trump, details the frivolous absurdity of the latest spurt of Fake News.

“And here’s what I don’t understand. The Steele dossier that everybody got excited about, that claimed that the Russians had incriminating videos of Trump in a Moscow hotel and other dirt on Trump, that came from somebody who was getting first paid by Republicans and then by Democrats, going to Moscow and getting dirt about Donald Trump from Kremlin-affiliated agents in Moscow. In other words, he went to Russia, talked to people affiliated with the Russian government and said, "Give me dirt about Donald Trump," and then, presumably, got it and put it in the memo. Similarly, there’s an amazing Politico article from January of this year that describes how allies of the Clinton campaign, including somebody being paid by the DNC, met with officials of the Ukrainian government, which was desperate to help Hillary Clinton win and Donald Trump lose, and get information incriminating about Trump from Ukrainian officials. In other words, Ukraine was meddling in our election by giving Democrats incriminating information about Trump.”
REAL CLEAR POLITICS, Greenwald: Donald Trump Jr.'s Emails Are Not A "Smoking Gun" Of Anything; Democrats Keep "Moving Goal Posts" For Allegations, By Tim Hains, July 14, 2017.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/v...n_for_anything_not_evidence_of_any_crime.html

 

Ah, the irony.

I didn't have to. I only had to point out it's not relevant. So I did.

And in this case, the case was "settled" because Trump instantly fired the prosecutor, and replaced him with someone who would settle. It has zilch to do with facts of the case. You're claiming coincidence when the evidence indicates it's not coincidence.

So you're sticking to your crazy claim that Lynch should not have allowed in a defendant's attorney. Fascinating, the things that your blind devotion to DearLeader drives you to say.

Trying your bad logic a second time doesn't make it any less bad. The fact that jr. didn't collude on that one specific topic does not automatically make him innocent of all collusion.

That's nice. It still has nothing to do with junior's collusion. It's just an especially transparent deflection. But then, such deflections are all you have, and TheParty has told you to run cover for Trump admin corruption with whatever you have.

By your silly logic, if I try to rob a bank and fail, it means I'm not guilty of robbery. That's why nobody is paying attention to your silly logic.

You do understand that raging on a message board will have no effect at all on the real world, right? You're going to have to return to reality some day. Why not now? That is, unless the Trump cultists all pack up and move to a commune in Guyana. Given their level of fanaticism, delusion and democracy-hatred, I can see that happening. My suggestion? Slip off into the jungle well before they roll out the koolaid vat

 

I'm still looking for this collusion, so far I've got a musical agent who, on behalf of his client's wealthy father acted as intermediary between a Russian lawyer offering, but not proffering much of any substance. It all goes one way; Russians and others expressing support and offering to help, nothing in response from Trump and his team so far.

I will not be convinced there was any collusion until I see something written, a recorded statement, hear a witness state what it was Trump offered in return for whatever his interlocutor delivered.

Show me Kushner, Junior or Manafort told this Russian lawyer they'd get Trump to repeal Magnitsky (lift sanctions, pull out of the Baltics, withdraw from Syria...) if she delievered the dirt on Hillary.

 

The Trump team was highly interested, that is on paper. And thinking Russians or anybody would hand over information for free.... you might as well believe in the tooth fairy if you're that stupidly gullible. lol

 

Many Americans, perhaps rightly, are upset to find a foreign state willing to cooperate with a political candidate to further its objectives. But many of them appear entirely comfortable with the fact that the US openly opposes leaders in various countries, even Russia, and works with a host of leaders (in case of American lackeys) or opposition figures (in case of states run by leaders who the US doesn't approve) in ways that are more nefarious and significantly more influential and interfering in other states political processes than anything that occurred between Russia and Trump.

On the latter, let me also say the following: the Trump-Russia story is in many ways misunderstood and misrepresented by the US media. The real story as it relates to Trump's links to Russia before the actual election campaign relates to Trump's links to questionable Russian characters who, financially were either connected to openly criminal, mob, run figures or in other cases to Russian oligarchs who had amassed riches through corruption following the heyday of crony capitalism and corruption of the Yeltsin years. These folks helped Trump raise much of his capital and helped his businesses when they faced bankruptcy. While most of these links were not political, the political links that existed were between those who favored bringing Russia and the US closer in an alliance with Israel and against Iran. These were figures who at the ears of Putin and had links to the Russian government, but they were not the Russian government itself. During the campaign, a long shot candidate (Trump) was openly willing to encourage the Russians to help him find dirt on Hillary and cheered revelations that damaged her. The Russians were equally interested in damaging Hillary, thinking that a damaged Hillary will be better for them than an undamaged one as president. Few among them thought Trump would win but certainly if he did, they didn't mind what this kind of "collusion" meant for their relations with Trump. To suggest more in the relationship is dishonest and to suggest less is disingenuous as well.

 

Trump and his campaign team would be naturally interested in documentation detrimental to Hillary, this would be a very basic interest and presumed "natural" in any candidate of his opponent, it explains why Hillary would commission Fusion GPS to hire Steele to produce that Russian "dossier" replete with alleged Russian government intelligence detrimental to Trump.

Not for a moment do I think Putin or Russians would deliver useful detrimental information about Hillary for 'free', something would be demanded in exchange, a concession, relief, money.... This "Kremlin lawyer" allegedly sent by Putin himself, sought repeal of the Magnitsky Act, "mainstream media" has suggested a wide variety of likely Russian demands for such information; Flynn was said to have discussed lifting sanctions over Crimea and Ukrainian intervention, others have speculated on some cooperation in Syria or the removal of NATO deployments in the Baltics and Poland.

We've seen nothing to suggest any quid pro quo, rather than any concessions it seems like the opposite has resulted since Trump's election; Magnitsky remains in effect, sanctions over Ukraine have been enhanced, instead of cooperating in Syria the US has bombed Russia's ally Assad's airbases, shot down his air force jets, bombed his tanks, continues to support insurgents and Kurdish secessionists against him, instead of withdrawing NATO forces from Russia's borders we see additional deployments in Poland and the Baltics.

This is why I ask for evidence of collusion, what has Trump done that could suggest that quid pro quo, what has Trump done for Russia in appreciation for their help in his election?

 

Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA):

Schiff is “the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee” (and evidently quite a moron too). There is nothing extraordinary in a candidate welcoming dirt on a rival contender. What remains to be seen is how the Russian government was “richly rewarded”. That, and only that, would be evidence of collusion. It does not suffice to show Russians obtained evidence of Hillary’s wrongdoing, and that they provided this evidence to Trump, or even that he (or they) used such evidence against Hillary –we need to see how Trump promised Russia would be “richly” (or even miserably) rewarded.

 

Here's the concrete evidence conservatives have been insisting was missing. Have American voters elected a Russian mole into the White House?

 

All I see is that you completely agree with me.

You think Trump or the Russians would share this information, ever?
You got a bigger chance in seeing a unicorn.
Your demands are just childishly stupid.

 

I'm not seeing it. No information was exchanged.

Just watched a five minute segment on the topic on TV. 100 time the label of "Collusion" is used.

"secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy, especially in order to cheat or deceive others".

An exchange of information isn't collusion EVEN if it had occurred.

 

Hey, did you see on TV, during Putin and Trump meeting, they both exchanged secret signs, and Putin slipped an envelope with bribe to Trump?

 

The "collusion" is the willingness and intention to work in secret with a long established enemy of our nation to exchange information that helps Trump personally at the expense of our American democracy. It is compounded by a long, public record of lying about the process repeatedly until the media exposes those lies.

You define collusion as "secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy, especially in order to cheat or deceive others". What's in the news now qualifies under your own definition. The Trump people kept the meetings "secret." They were "illegal" because they were a form of payment originating from a foreign country. They constitute a "conspiracy" because the Trump people cooperated with the Russians for personal gain, and clearly attempted to deceive others about it with their lies. And, the purpose of the whole enterprise was to "cheat" in the election and convince the voters that Hillary was somehow not to be trusted. That's COLLUSION.

 

Would you define what 700 lb Democrat guerrilla Ted Kennedy did a "collusion"? Or, are you gonna say, we're not discussing treacherous, antiAmerican Ted Kennedy here, and suggest I start another tread just on that, which you will, of course, avoid?

 

If you think all the good guys are one side, and the bad guys are on the other, you factually do not understand politics, or the issues that divide us.

 

No, you are wrong. It's not an urban legend. Ever notice how old people are almost all conservative? Ever heard of the baby boom? Ever heard of the civil rights movement? These are all the same people. They started out as one of the most Liberal young generations in history, and they are retiring as overwhelmingly Conservative. This is true of any generation.

 

To a degree. There are plenty Conservative youth, most likely the kids of a Conservative parents. And there are plenty of Liberal old folks, most likely not taught what's right and what's wrong by their parents

 

Another strange observation from your post. There is not one reference in my post where I stated any differences regarding good or bad guys!

 

So, in your mind, "started looking at things objectively and not following propaganda" is not at all a partisan statement of good guys versus bad guys? LOL WHAT?