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

Firstly, I stated that 'I' started looking at things objectively and not following propaganda. Secondly there are many on both sides that don't look at things objectively and just do follow propaganda. Thirdly, doing this does not make a person a good or bad guy.

 

TRUTH would never be at the expense of American democracy. One could make the argument that the Russian dossier created by Fusion GPS, which at this point seems to be nothing but disinformation from the Russians, IS at the expense of American democracy. Fabricated BS usually is.

 

We don't know what mainstream media will reveal tomorrow, for the time being we've got more of the same; innuendo, suggestion, implication...

This is still a "developing story", it could be that Junior actually did break "American campaign law" (I need a statute and some facts to figure that out). Trump allegedly was in the same building when the meeting took place, whether he knew of what Junior, Kushnher and Manafort were up to is not clear.

 

Fake News is anti-Democratic.

 

Yes, you are factually casting a moral judgement on a left/right scale. That is so pants on head retarded, I don't even....

 

Point out where and why someone that believes propaganda is a "bad guy"?

 

It doesn't seem like you fundamentally understand my point that morality is not a left/right scale, and that there are good and bad guys on both sides. So, I'm going to pass on discussing this further, as it's like talking to a wall.

 

Why have you just repeated what I wrote in post 351? I think I know who is the wall!

 

Relax, he is not calling you The Wall - just another brick in The Wall.

 

Collusion, under federal law, is the solicitation for, acceptance or receipt of any item of value from a foreign government.
No solicitation, acceptance or receipt took place, thus no law was broken.

 

If you have a point, I'm ready to hear it.

 

Saw an article about this new "whataboutism". The general idea is that "nevertrumpers" denounce whatever Trmp does in terms that seem so extreme, as though whatever outrage they denounce Trump for doing -has never happened before. Then the "deplorables" respond with "what about...." followed by some example of a previous presidential outrage. In these threads there has been reference to Kennedy's well-documented secret dealings with Russia during his successful campaign, also of Hillary's own and extensive Russian contacts. While this 'whataboutism' doesn't address the substance or import of whatever denounced Trump outrage, it does show us there's a lot of exaggeration and that much of what is complained of in Trump has been tolerated in past presidents; it's ok to have your brother in law as Attorney General (if you're Kennedy) but not to have your son in law as White House Advisor (if you're Trump)?

The article I read concluded the net effect is a sort of tolerance for this sort of thing, that a precedent is established where some nepotism, some Russian contacts, some foreign contributions, some foreign policy favor... becomes tolerable -none of this is good, and it will detrimentally increase. The other effect is the increasing perception Trump's critics just complain too much.

 

I'm not familiar with the event you are citing, but is changing the focus onto a "liberal Democrat" your way of avoiding the current discussion?

 

Trump himself made a public, televised speech asking the Russians to hack Hillary's server and "find the missing emails." That's solicitation. It is now known that the Russian government attorney that met with Trump, Jr. in June 2016, gave him a set of papers with info regarding Hillary. That's "acceptance. Hillary was badgered and harassed by Republicans for using a private server that was NEVER hacked. What Trump and his son and his campaign leaders have done with Russia is a far, far more serious infraction.

 

Trump's public request to the Russians that they find Hillary's missing emails was not serious, it was a humorous reaction to the difficulty in getting her to release them. I recall she claimed they were about her yoga classes and personal matters. I suspect they also contained classified and compromising information and that they were relevant to the investigation of her illicit use of a private server to send classified information to people not authorized to receive it. Hillary told us her lawyers had determined those emails need not be released, she complained of the investigation, said there was nothing there, denied access to the FBI, employed an IT firm to destroy any records... Trump in jest asked if maybe "the Russians" (already accused by Hillary) might help.

 

Even if that was true,what benefit did Clinton get out of using a private server? She would not have needed to send any emails if she wanted to hide some nefarious act - she could have just sent hard copies

 

You're not familiar with Ted Kennedy Soviet gambit? Google "Ted Kennedy's Soviet Gambit".

 

Well... it got her NOT elected

 

That won't knock any sense into your head. But keep trying.

 

As usual, the excuse for Trump is to ignore everything he said. Golly gee wilikers, he didn't mean it! He was just joshin.

Luckily the special prosecutor isn't so gullible and won't ignore these things.

You are tossing off the real possibility of treason, by the president, as a joke. At what point do you start getting serious.

 

That emoji is all some of the posts deserves, my friend

 

Were you watching televised meeting between Trump and Putin, and did you notice how they made secret signs to each other and Putin slipped an envelope to Trump? The special prosecutor should not ignore these things!

 

I agree. That was the reason she did not get elected. It was Comey's announcement a few days before the election about the server that lost her election. Swing voters just didn't comprehend how unimportant the use of a private server was but were swayed by the constant propaganda against her use of the server. As an aside, her server was not hacked, the server that she was supposed to use was hacked which means that 'we' would been able to see all her emails if she used the government server

 

Au contraire. They understood that the russkies and the Chinese most likely got hold to all that secret information, transmitted by Hillary in the open, and made correct decisions.