Confirmed: Trump Jr. Was Told Hoped-for Dirt Was Coming from Russian Government
Well, well. The recent @FAKENEWS!! from the New York Times — claiming that Trump Jr. was told that the hoped-for dirt on Hillary was coming from the Russian government — turns out to be more accurate than the denials by people with names. How do we know? Because Jr. himself tweeted out the emails telling him that. His response to the claim that the Russian government had dirt on Hillary? “I love it.”
The June 3, 2016, email sent to Donald Trump Jr. could hardly have been more explicit: One of his father’s former Russian business partners had been contacted by a senior Russian government official and was offering to provide the Trump campaign with dirt on Hillary Clinton.
The documents “would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father,” read the email, written by a trusted intermediary, who added, “This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump.”
If the future president’s eldest son was surprised or disturbed by the provenance of the promised material — or the notion that it was part of a continuing effort by the Russian government to aid his father’s campaign — he gave no indication.
He replied within minutes: “If it’s what you say I love it especially later in the summer.”
The emails can be read in their entirety here.
This does not show collusion, of course. It appears to remain true that the meeting did not immediately result in usable information. It may, however, have been a feeler put out by the Russians to see if the Trump campaign was interested in getting dirt on Hillary from the Russian government. Jr.’s “I love it” response suggests that the message was a loud and clear “yes.”
The Trump administration and its hack defenders are now claiming that Trump Jr. was “transparent” in releasing the emails himself. Um, except that the New York Times was about to release them and he knew it. “Since you’re about to release it, I guess I will” is the New Model of Transparency in Trump Propagandaland.
Andrew Breitbart used to dribble out damaging information a little bit at a time, to see if his targets would lie, based on a false assumption that he had nothing else. It was a great technique — and Andrew used it to catch liars like Anthony Weiner with their pants down, both figuratively and sometimes literally.
I wonder if the New York Times learned something from him.
[Cross-posted at The Jury Talks Back — likely the only place I will appear in comments.]
Ding.
Patterico (115b1f) — 7/11/2017 @ 5:46 pm‘Intent’ is a biggie Mr Prosecutor..
Ben burn (b3d5ab) — 7/11/2017 @ 5:56 pmhillary clinton is an odious (that means smelly for those of you who can’t order a sandwich) *pig* (keyword pig) who sold a huge chunk of america’s uranium (keyword uranium) to the russians in exchange for donations to the Clinton Global Criminal Cartel
dry pampers all around
but now we’re supposed to piss ourselves cause dorkus junior had a meeting with someone who said they had evidence that Hillary was colluding with the russians?
me i will pee decorously in the toilet, lest number one i give the wrong impression of enthusiastic glee over this oh-so-orgasmically wonderful and incontinence-inspiring evidence against a Trump campaign staffer… who did nothing wrong much less illegal
number two I don’t want to provide fodder for a dossier that Meghan McCain’s torture-turd daddy will seize upon and deliver to failmerica’s corrupt sleazy wholly-politicized joke of an FBI, thus only inflaming this CNN fake news Jake Tapper propaganda slut fueled dumpster fire
happyfeet (28a91b) — 7/11/2017 @ 6:12 pmSuppose instead of giving them to Wikileaks, whoever did the hacking of the DNC servers and the phishing of Podesta’s emails — assume it’s the FSB or some other Russian agency, ultimately — had instead contacted Trump. Assume the email reads like the pitch to Donnie, and says in so many words that this is damaging stuff that might hurt Hillary and therefore benefit Trump. And the email offers to turn them over to Trump.
Is Trump obviously wrong to take them? If he’s violating a criminal law, what crime, with what elements? If he’s violating a political norm, what are the relevant precedents, and how is this different and worse than those which have occurred in the past?
What’s the source of the duty — legal or political — which Trump would be breaching if he posted all those same emails on his own campaign website?
Beldar (fa637a) — 7/11/2017 @ 6:19 pmNone of those questions are rhetorical.
Beldar (fa637a) — 7/11/2017 @ 6:19 pmdid the Trump campaign have a civic, moral, or legal duty to avoid communicating with people that had evidence of rampant criminality committed by a presidential candidate
that’s a goddamn thumbsucker
happyfeet (28a91b) — 7/11/2017 @ 6:25 pmAgain:
Suppose after she narrowly wins the 2016 election, it comes out that Hillary’s daughter had met with a lawyer with Mexican government ties who claimed to have dirt on her opponent’s dealings in Latin America and how some Colombian millionaires were funneling money into his campaign. Further, the official had made it clear that the Mexican government despise Trump and offered to help her with the Mexican-American community. And since the margin of victory in WI, MI and PA was only due to widespread turnout from Hispanic citizens, the Republicans cry foul.
Would the Washington Post give a sh1t?
Kevin M (752a26) — 7/11/2017 @ 6:25 pmhappyfeet,
As I point out elsewhere, Russians have cooties. So yes.
Kevin M (752a26) — 7/11/2017 @ 6:26 pmIs Trump obviously wrong to take them?
Yes.
If he’s violating a criminal law, what crime, with what elements?
Receiving stolen goods. Accessory after the fact under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. McCain-Feingold prohibition against campaigns receiving anything of tangible value from foreign nationals.
If he’s violating a political norm, what are the relevant precedents, and how is this different and worse than those which have occurred in the past?
nk (dbc370) — 7/11/2017 @ 6:27 pmThe political norms and precedents would be to steer the hackers to a friendly news outlet who would then do all the dirty work for him under the protection of the First Amendment.
I’m a ton more outraged at Barack Obama telling the Dmitri Medvedev that Obama would have more flexibility after his reelection than I am by Donnie taking a meeting with someone who claimed to have dirt on Hillary to dish.
If Donnie were shown to have said, for example, “My dad will have more flexibility in dealing with the Russians than Hillary, especially when dealing with someone who’s given us some campaign assistance,” then that would be a whole ‘nuther kettle of fish.
I can imagine Donnie saying something exactly that stupid. But so far there’s no evidence that he did, except for the inference which Team Trump continues to feed every time they evade or tell a new version of events.
Beldar (fa637a) — 7/11/2017 @ 6:27 pmnk, is there precedent showing that digital duplicates of such emails — a form of intellectual property in some contexts, like copyright — are “stolen goods” or something of value under those laws?
Beldar (fa637a) — 7/11/2017 @ 6:29 pmWhat’s the source of the duty — legal or political — which Trump would be breaching if he posted all those same emails on his own campaign website?
And what if, instead, he refuses the information out of principle, and the FSB gives them to Wikileaks. Is Trump wrong for refusing, just as he’d be wrong for not refusing?
Kevin M (752a26) — 7/11/2017 @ 6:29 pmI’m gonna shut up and let Beldar talk. He’s landing blows.
Kevin M (752a26) — 7/11/2017 @ 6:30 pmDonald Trump, Jr. you are under arrest for having intent to win a Presidential Election.
It was Her turn!!!!
You intentionally attended a meeting with a person who offered you information–and you don’t even deny the charges! You confessed! You’re finished now.
Meetingry with attempted receivery of information, in the fifth degree!!
You intentionally went to meet someone who might have links to a foreign government who offered you proof that your opponent’s campaign was colluding with the Russian government. Hillary would NEVER have done that. (Apart from taking information from Ukrainians about her opponent’s campaign supposedly colluding with the Russian government, but that’s different because RUSSIA IS EVIL WAR WITH RUSSIA NOW!!!)
You intentionally went to meet someone who offered you official Russian government documents. Documents that were never actually provided to you. And if they had been provided to you, they would not have been hacked out of anyone’s server. The person you were meeting would have had the right to possess them, because we’re talking about official government documents of Russia. And the documents didn’t exist.
It was very clever of you to put this meeting two weeks BEFORE “muh russia hacking muh putin personally directed it muh 17 agencies” even became a thing. You thought you could create plausible deniability by meeting with a Russian before anyone even knew about Russian hacking. But you were wrong!!!! We have you now!! Attempted collusion, meetingry, emailism, and attempted receivery of information of a type and description similar to what Hillary, blessed be her name, received from a foreign government but that’s different. Shame!!!
Impeachment in 10… 9… 8…
Daryl Herbert (7be116) — 7/11/2017 @ 6:30 pmI’ve done some civil litigation under 18 USC § 1030, but I haven’t bumped into any cases that would try to hold someone else criminally liable as an “accessory after the fact” for receiving digital copies after an unauthorized access. How’s Glenn Greenwald not in prison, if that’s a crime?
Beldar (fa637a) — 7/11/2017 @ 6:31 pmtaking a meeting with someone who claimed to have dirt on Hillary to dish
in the context of a democratic election in which the propaganda slut fake news Jake Tapper media absolutely refused to vet, investigate, or scrutinize the hard-left candidate in the race
happyfeet (28a91b) — 7/11/2017 @ 6:32 pmTrade secrets comes to mind right away for the common law charge. For the hacking charge, the crime is complete when the computer is breached no matter what’s taken. I’d use the campaign’s own budget to demonstrate that oppo research is a thing of tangible value under McCain-Feingold.
nk (dbc370) — 7/11/2017 @ 6:33 pmHow’s Glenn Greenwald not in prison, if that’s a crime?
That’s a good question. Prosecutorial discretion or the Pentagon Papers case since the Snowden information was from government documents? Notice that he was quick to turn in Reality Winner in the recent classified leak.
nk (dbc370) — 7/11/2017 @ 6:38 pmI’d use the campaign’s own budget to demonstrate that oppo research is a thing of tangible value under McCain-Feingold.
BUT – please understand – our corrupt Attorney General Rod Rosenstein is only interested in prosecuting Republicans.
Is the campaign you suspect of having received “oppo research” a Republican campaign?
If so your legal theory is very likely sound.
happyfeet (28a91b) — 7/11/2017 @ 6:38 pmhe refuses the information out of principle
Trump do something out of principle? Are you running a fever?
But the principled action would be, as nk pointed out, say, “sorry, we can’t deal with you, but here’s some news people who would be very interested in this stuff. How about I give them a call to let them know you’re coming to see them?”
kishnevi (4a5f25) — 7/11/2017 @ 6:39 pmnk, 18 USC § 1030 might very well apply to the hacker. How does it apply to someone who merely receives a copy of the copied information, though? And what makes you think any of this had anything to do with a trade secret? I’m not sure you’re wrong, but I’m not yet convinced you’re right, either. Regardless, I always enjoy your views!
Beldar (fa637a) — 7/11/2017 @ 6:42 pmThe Trump administration and its hack defenders are now claiming that Trump Jr. was “transparent” in releasing the emails himself. Um, except that the New York Times was about to release them and he knew it. “Since you’re about to release it, I guess I will” is the New Model of Transparency in Trump Propagandaland.
Andrew Breitbart used to dribble out damaging information a little bit at a time, to see if his targets would lie, based on a false assumption that he had nothing else. It was a great technique — and Andrew used it to catch liars like Anthony Weiner with their pants down, both figuratively and sometimes literally.
Patrick, you just explained that Don Jr. was astute enough to recognize the game being played against him (that the Times was going to dribble out information about the emails, including selectively quoting parts of them in a misleading way, for the next month) and he headed them off by releasing the whole thing.
In other words, Don Jr. made a smart play. You write that up in the most negative terms possible, which makes it look like you are desperate to find fault with him, any way that you can.
When there’s no substance to a story (a/k/a, a nothingburger) the media can try to make it into a “process” story, to find a way to attack Republicans.
Daryl Herbert (7be116) — 7/11/2017 @ 6:44 pmAnd why do you think they’re being so dishonest? Habit?
I have a question for you in the other thread by the way.
Patterico (9f866e) — 7/11/2017 @ 6:48 pmI’m winging it. You asked for an example of how intellectual property might be stolen, besides copyright violation, and trade secrets came to mind. I don’t even know that there is a federal accessory after the fact law, but generally it applies to persons who help the criminal dispose, convert, or conceal the products or instrumentalities of the crime.
nk (dbc370) — 7/11/2017 @ 6:48 pmI agree, it is time for high-fiving when it turns out a NYT story is not a lie.
I’m a little unclear how this story isn’t just another installment in what has become charitably known as the “collusion comedy.” If anything, as you essentially acknowledge, it is a refutation of the collusion narrative.
But, yeah, the NYT thing is yuge.
ThOR (c9324e) — 7/11/2017 @ 6:53 pmI’m with Kevin M @13
More helpful insights.
Thank you, Beldar.
ThOR (c9324e) — 7/11/2017 @ 6:56 pmFair enough, nk, thanks. I’m winging it too.
Patterico, none of my opinions about Trump or his veracity have changed since the 1980s. I rate his veracity at zero and continue to multiply the credibility of everything he says by zero, resulting in zero. He lies to conceal, but he also lies to exaggerate, and even when he’s not trying to lie, his word salad generates contradictions and inconsistencies. You may very well be right about how they’re being played and strung along, quite possibly by multiple sources and opponents acting (i.e., leaking) either with or without coordination. And I’ll check the other thread now for your pending question. 😀
Beldar (fa637a) — 7/11/2017 @ 6:56 pmI have a theory that our CIA and/or FBI have a lot more on Trump, they’re just letting it ooze out slowly to let people accommodate to the unsettling news over time. Otherwise, large sections of the country would lose it and there would be riots everywhere. This slow drip, drip, drip prevents that.
Tillman (a95660) — 7/11/2017 @ 6:58 pmnone of my opinions about Trump or his veracity have changed since the 1980s
That’s sad cause if anyone in our lifetimes has “grown in office” it’s President Donald Trump.
happyfeet (28a91b) — 7/11/2017 @ 6:59 pmmaybe Tom Cotton too
but goober only had one way to go
happyfeet (28a91b) — 7/11/2017 @ 7:00 pmhttp://twitter.com/yashar/status/884934036946169856
The promised speech did not deliver the promised goods.
Patterico (9f866e) — 7/11/2017 @ 7:03 pmDonald Trump
doing the job the CNN fake news Jake Tapper propaganda sluts won’t do
God love him
happyfeet (28a91b) — 7/11/2017 @ 7:06 pmAll of the help Carlos Slim gave Hillary through the NY Times was an illegal Mexican donation, right?
P.S. This is before the alleged hacking took place, right?
NJRob (6ed6c1) — 7/11/2017 @ 7:06 pmNJRob @33. The campaign finance laws have been struck down how many times on First Amendment grounds? Many, right? That’s why the smart, and legal, thing would be to steer such informants to friendly media outlets.
nk (dbc370) — 7/11/2017 @ 7:11 pmSo thie week a spokesperson said Trump has only known about Jr’s meeting “a couple of days,” and now there is video of Trump announcing they had dirt on Hillary the same day as the meeting?
DRJ (15874d) — 7/11/2017 @ 7:14 pmThat’s sad cause if anyone in our lifetimes has “grown in office” it’s President Donald Trump.
You think so? I thought he’d lost a few pounds.
nk (dbc370) — 7/11/2017 @ 7:15 pmhe picked up that hat Mr. nk
he’s no Barack O’EffingSorosButtboyBama
he’s becoming something special and wonderful
he’s gonna live forever
happyfeet (28a91b) — 7/11/2017 @ 7:18 pmNk,
So media personnel hold superior 1st Amendment rights to other American citizens?
NJRob (6ed6c1) — 7/11/2017 @ 7:18 pmForeign media personnel*
NJRob (6ed6c1) — 7/11/2017 @ 7:19 pmNo implausiblity, DRJ. Someone may have said they had been offered dirt but not specified the source of the dirt.
Also remember this is the Clintons we are talking about. With all the sleaze they carry with them, it’s quite possible some other source was offering dirt, and that’s what Trump was talking about.
kishnevi (4a5f25) — 7/11/2017 @ 7:20 pm“Well well……..This does not show collusion, of course.”
Broke it down to what matters.
harkin (a91251) — 7/11/2017 @ 7:24 pm38 & 39. Well, no. Only to the candidates and their campaign staffs. You would have just as much right as the NYT to support the candidate of your choice. There is a lot of deference paid to the “professional journalists”, but a year (or two) back Eugene Volokh got a decision (out of the Ninth Circuit of all places) that all persons in the United States have equal freedom of the press and not only guys “who buy ink by the barrel”.
nk (dbc370) — 7/11/2017 @ 7:26 pmI don’t know why Patterico says it does not show collusion, unless Donald Jr. is considered not part of Trump’s campaign. In criminal law, conspiracy is an agreement, and it can be only one conspirator’s agreement, to commit a crime and one overt act in furtherance of that agreement. What’s missing here? That there was not going to be any dirt coming from the Russian government? I don’t think that’s needed.
nk (dbc370) — 7/11/2017 @ 7:34 pmWell Lookie Here=> Russian Lawyer Veselnitskaya is Pictured with Obama Ambassador to Russia – 8 Days After Trump Jr. Mtg.
how does this not show collusion
happyfeet (28a91b) — 7/11/2017 @ 7:35 pmYou made me click on Gatewaypundit by masking the IP. Tsk, tsk.
nk (dbc370) — 7/11/2017 @ 7:38 pmi’m a pooper!
happyfeet (28a91b) — 7/11/2017 @ 7:38 pmmasking the *URL*
nk (dbc370) — 7/11/2017 @ 7:39 pmS’alright. I know how to clear adware.
nk (dbc370) — 7/11/2017 @ 7:40 pmPatterico:
NOT the New York Times.
They’re not that cagey.
It’s the New York Times’ sources , who dribbled out the leaks, who adopted that stategy and they, or others, also did it with regard to Mike Flynn’s conversation(s) with Sergei Kislyak in December (probably in part because they broke the law in leaking it)
The fact of the meeting with the Russian lawyer became public because of Jared Kushner’s amended disclosurebut even making that public probably violated the law (the Privacy Act of 1974) and I don’t know where or how anyone would have obtained a copy of the emails Goldstone sent to Trump Jr. A lawyer had them?
Sammy Finkelman (54fb9c) — 7/11/2017 @ 8:07 pm43. nk (dbc370) — 7/11/2017 @ 7:34 pm
Sammy Finkelman (54fb9c) — 7/11/2017 @ 8:11 pmhappyfeet,
I think the Gateway Pundit may be wrong. Here is video of that hearing. Amb McFall speaks starting at around the 5 minute mark. I don’t know who the woman is but I think the boys sitting on each side of her may be McFaul’s two sons. Google it if you want but I won’t link their photos here.
DRJ (15874d) — 7/11/2017 @ 8:13 pmThank you, Sammy. I was thinking along the lines that where the term “collusion” is used legally, in price-fixing and bid-rigging cases, the parties are usually acting in concert and not merely conspiring to act in concert.
nk (dbc370) — 7/11/2017 @ 8:17 pm33. NJRob (6ed6c1) — 7/11/2017 @ 7:06 pm
After the hacking of the DNC but before anybody but the Democratic National Committee and a few investigators including maybe some at the FBI knew about it.
The Podesta Gmail breach was still going strong. It seems to have been detected and stopped by Podesta in August and was reveaked in October.
Sammy Finkelman (54fb9c) — 7/11/2017 @ 8:17 pmThe Trump campaign was offered “some official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia . . . as part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump.”
Even assuming Goldstone could speak for all of Russia and its government, there’s no statement that the documents and information were illegally obtained.
Proud Prolifer (e38d6c) — 7/11/2017 @ 8:44 pmIt looks more like an attempt to do something covert with our enemy for political purposes as opposed to a completed act.
Patterico (0e0c78) — 7/11/2017 @ 8:53 pmnk: “trade secrets”??!!
Damn straight, Trump has no business knowing how Hillary kills people, makes fantastic cattle futures investments, loses and finds billing records, sells uranium to Russians and so on ad infinitum.
The bastard Trump better learn to do those things on his own.
Fred Z (05d938) — 7/11/2017 @ 9:33 pmRenaissance capital gave bill Clinton 500k as a a result a third of the uranium stockpile was snapped by Russians then we have the need about belhadj.
narciso (d1f714) — 7/11/2017 @ 9:40 pmAfter the ALLEGED hacking of the DNC, but still during the Podesta gmail breach. Nothing has ever been shown regarding hacking the DNC as they wouldn’t release their computers for investigation. Don’t forget that.
NJRob (7f4bec) — 7/11/2017 @ 9:42 pmi no kremlin you stupid amerikanski dogs
no kremlin
happynatalia (28a91b) — 7/11/2017 @ 9:47 pmThis is my congressman:
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/370598.php
narciso (d1f714) — 7/11/2017 @ 9:49 pm58. I read that they actually did release their server or rather a carbon copy. The attribution anyway came from an analysis of the hacking software, and where else it had been used.
Sammy Finkelman (54fb9c) — 7/11/2017 @ 10:04 pmIs no Glorious Russian People’s Government involvement is what you say, da, tovarich?
narodnyi kommisariat (dbc370) — 7/11/2017 @ 10:06 pmThey want to leave OT to the rizzito tray carriers:
narciso (d1f714) — 7/11/2017 @ 10:06 pmhttps://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/kristine-marsh/2017/07/11/fec-commissioner-now-going-after-right-wing-media-over-russia?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=marketing&utm_campaign=fec-russia
Also from the fact that the public leaks of the hacked emails clearly came from Russia, even if you exclude the Wikileaks leak. Guccifer 2.0 is/was not what he said he was. It wasn’t by any Rumanians or Ukrainians in Ukraine or Rumania.
Sammy Finkelman (54fb9c) — 7/11/2017 @ 10:09 pmWhere did you read that? I’d be interested in learning more if they really gave it to authorities.
NJRob (7f4bec) — 7/11/2017 @ 10:21 pmThanks for that narciso.
I guess you and I and a few others realize the left is at war with us. Rules change in a time of war. Others still believe otherwise.
NJRob (7f4bec) — 7/11/2017 @ 10:25 pmIt really is striking there was no penalty for all thosecdestroyed device, 13 would suggest extra sauce of obstruction of justice
narciso (d1f714) — 7/11/2017 @ 10:27 pmNarrative formationnis the key:
narciso (d1f714) — 7/11/2017 @ 10:28 pmhttp://invisibleserfscollar.com
Well it want as significant as tine an men:
narciso (d1f714) — 7/11/2017 @ 10:46 pmbabalublog.com/2017/07/11/13-minute-vigil-this-july-13th-at-fiu-for-cubas-july-martyrs-13-de-marzo-tugboat-massacre-and-oswaldo-paya-and-harold-cepero
As others have pointed out, it doesn’t make sense for Russia to reach out to the Trumps this way. Would Putin really send one of his top lawyers out in the open, discussing “terms” over email and disclosing ultra sensitive info at Trump Tower? Knowing Trump was under the microscope?
Plus they can’t throw Clinton under the bus without some blowback. Putin can’t reveal colluding with Clinton without admitting to his own role.
Did the NY Times have the entire email chain? I read their coverage and it seemed to me like they were still speculating.
lee (13a73a) — 7/11/2017 @ 11:10 pmIt looks more like an attempt to do something covert with our enemy for political purposes as opposed to a completed act.
ISIS is our enemy. Russia is a competitor, like China or maybe France.
Kevin M (752a26) — 7/12/2017 @ 12:08 amclinton campaign colluded with ukraine to get dirt on trump campaign (paul manafort) and bubba clinton fixed the 1996 russian election to favor his client.
don ho (2b0b4d) — 7/12/2017 @ 1:07 amAnd, once again, the Trump White House is unable to swat this weak sh1t down. Instead they look like an overturned ant hill. It really doesn’t matter how baseless the charges are; the newspapers will act as if they were shipping Jews to camps, and the Trump folks will act like they are hiding the shipping of Jews to camps.
It’s like watching a bullfight, with a particularly clueless bull.
Kevin M (752a26) — 7/12/2017 @ 1:29 amTrump/Pence/2020
mg (31009b) — 7/12/2017 @ 2:54 amthanks, obama.
mg (31009b) — 7/12/2017 @ 3:07 amhttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4686714/Illegal-immigrant-drunk-crashed-killing-man.html
WebiProg company specialize in e-commerce solution, responsive web design, custom web development and creation of online stores, the development of individual software. We have big experience with the successful implementation of online stores, but also improvements of custom projects, create your own extensions and modules for the systems. Contact us for a free consultation on the website http://webiprog.com or e-mail info@webiprog.com
Sam Stayer (cff1bf) — 7/12/2017 @ 3:18 amKevin,
The New York Times just proved that the Trump family’s communications where being monitored by the FBI or NSA during the election and that copies of their emails where being shared around the White House. If this was through a FISA court order, then the names of US citizens were purposefully unmasked when these emails were shared. On top of that, the emails where then shared with the Times unredacted.
Xmas (3a75bb) — 7/12/2017 @ 4:45 am“It really doesn’t matter how baseless the charges are; the newspapers will act as if they were shipping Jews to camps,”
If they’ve got you playing defense, you can’t play offense.
The American people in November gave a huge F U to the entrenched govt and media establishment.
The election was bad enough for these elites but things like the confirmation of Gorsuch, the move on federal judgeships and Trump’s cabinet, pulling out of the Paris trillion $ giveaway etc. just can not continue. The will of the people will not be tolerated.
There’s also the control of the world’s largest cash distribution center involved here. Never doubt the importance of that fact.
Trump not only has to overcome the overwhelming difficulty of becoming presidential, he also has to do it while snipers from both right and left look to convince the citizens that everything he does is based on incompetence, hate and bad intentions. Some even take shots at him for things he might do in the future.
The only thing right now that shows there is hope he gets a fair shake is that when you talk to people on the street they don’t give a flick for all the breathless BREAKING NEWS that is being flung at the wall every hour on the hour.
They want jobs, safe streets, secure borders, fair-minded and honest, efficient government and kids that are educated to be responsible adults.
One party has already shown it’s not only are incapable of delivering but that it’s against most of the above.
The other has so much self-interest to do anything to stay in power, it may be too late. I’m not sure if enough of them realize the size of the stakes here.
harkin (a91251) — 7/12/2017 @ 5:05 amat the end of the day sleazy corrupt fbi turdboy Robert Mueller is gonna have to twist these facts into nevertrump crimes and prosecute them in accord with harvardtrash ted’s highly fetishized constitution
and harvardtrash elitist Ben Sasse will nod sagely and say yes yes Robert Mueller oh you do it so good
and filthy cowardly torture-turd John McCain will nod sagely and say yes yes Robert Mueller oh you do it so good
and Republican Main Street bimbo Susan Collins will nod sagely and say yes yes Robert Mueller oh you do it so good
happynatalia (28a91b) — 7/12/2017 @ 5:42 amugh you guys that was actually me at #79
happyfeet (28a91b) — 7/12/2017 @ 5:44 amhey filthy ex-navy coward-turd John McCain – got any thoughts on this, little man?
happyfeet (28a91b) — 7/12/2017 @ 5:52 amTrump will have to nuke Moscow, now. To demonstrate conclusively that he is not a Putin puppet. I don’t see any other way out for him.
nk (dbc370) — 7/12/2017 @ 5:54 am“ugh you guys that was actually me at #79”
Why would you admit that?
harkin (a91251) — 7/12/2017 @ 5:57 amhave to nuke Moscow now yes yes
happyfeet (28a91b) — 7/12/2017 @ 5:57 amcause of honesty is the best policy Mr. harkin
happyfeet (28a91b) — 7/12/2017 @ 5:58 ami’m a pooper!
No, just an insufferable, pseudo-edgy bore.
ugh you guys that was actually me at #79
Jack Klompus (f1f212) — 7/12/2017 @ 6:20 amOh, thank God you clarified. Please continue your marvelously original and clever shtick.
Yes queens Hillary’s war, it reminds of that 90s film with Rebecca demornay and the late powers boothe where a small nuclear exchange triggered by Russian nationalist who targeted the Ukraine gets out of hand, Martin lamdau played the president blinded in the evacuation from Washington, Darren mcgavim plays the interior secretary.
narciso (617ef2) — 7/12/2017 @ 6:30 amNo it would seem Xmas, curious how goldstones communications,were designed to flag the nsa monitors
narciso (617ef2) — 7/12/2017 @ 6:33 amam too sufferable
happyfeet (28a91b) — 7/12/2017 @ 7:21 amI am reminded of Tom DeLay’s exhortation ” they are trying to outlaw politics”
urbanleftbehind (847a06) — 7/12/2017 @ 7:27 amJust in time for his Titanic Majesty’s travesties.
http://www.projectmidas.org/blog/calving/
Ben burn (b3d5ab) — 7/12/2017 @ 7:28 amE-mail chain, as sorted into chronological order by the New York Times, with Donald J. Trump Jr.’s Twitter comment or statement of July 11, 2017 appended:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/07/11/us/politics/donald-trump-jr-email-text.html
On the front page today, the New York Times chose to highlight in yellow the words
from the June 3, 2016, message from Rob Godstone at 10:36 AM
AND
from Donald J. Trump Jr.’s reply 17 minutes later.
and, later,
Sammy Finkelman (02a146) — 7/12/2017 @ 7:32 amYou know they’re serious when they throw a Committee pity party.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/print/senate-republicans-eager-to-hear-from-donald-trump-jr./article/2008785
Ben burn (b3d5ab) — 7/12/2017 @ 7:34 amLots and lots of lawyers think the Russian side of this is too dicey. Emoluements is the linchpin.
Ben burn (b3d5ab) — 7/12/2017 @ 7:38 amour hedgey nullset pals do the good explains on the NYT fake news story about Donald Trump Jr.
it’s so weird how the NYT fake news propaganda sluts were unable to publish this background huh
isn’t that weird?
it’s SO weird
happyfeet (28a91b) — 7/12/2017 @ 7:43 amTyler Durden used to hate the name Goldman Sacks.
Ben burn (b3d5ab) — 7/12/2017 @ 7:46 amIn Trumpworld, if the son of the Leader admits that the NYT story is true, tweets out the evidence that the NYT story is true, is it still FAKE NEWS?
Appalled (96665e) — 7/12/2017 @ 7:47 ambut this new background detail makes it very clear that the idea this was a Russian government operation to do colludes with the Trump campaign is feverish poopy-twaddle
happyfeet (28a91b) — 7/12/2017 @ 7:49 am77. Xmas (3a75bb) — 7/12/2017 @ 4:45 am
I don’t have any idea where they came from, but I don’t think that’s the only possibility. It could have come from a lawyer’s office. Or someone associated with the special prosecutor. It could have been turned over by now.
Interestingly, the New York Times has no doubt as to the authenticity of all the words in those emails, not suspectinmg anyone associated with Trump, or against Trump, of altering a single letter, but they don’t trust what Donald J. trump Jr and oteherrs said about the meeting because they write:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/11/world/europe/natalia-veselnitskaya-donald-trump-jr-russian-lawyer.html
So, no trust in Donald J. Trump Jr. or Rob Goldstone, or (by consent) Jared Kushner. (I would think his version could be given some corraboration if, for instance, an email or other communication by Rob Goldstone could be produced expressing anger or disappointment at being set up. It surely must exist.)
Now I think the New York Times does not dispute the emails because their version is exactly inaccord with and dentical with Donald J. Trump’s.
But why is it identical?
Why did no anti-Trump person, and the anti-Trump people don’t seem to have any trouble with making false or miseleading legal arguments and insinuations – why didn’t they forge a little something?
I think there are two big reasons for that:
1) If they inserted any lie, it might be disproven by some other evidence.
2) The authenticity of any emails can probably be proven, for moist practical purposes, by forenesic examination of computers or other devices where the messages might have bene stored. It would be almost impossible to fake. It not only would require great computer knowledge, and technique, it would be extremely time consuming and difficult to do – and even then someone might slip up.
So no attempt to alter the emails.
Even the small lower case d mistakenly typed by Donald Trump Jr. at the end of one of his emails (Jun 6, 2016, at 15:38) is preserved.
Sammy Finkelman (02a146) — 7/12/2017 @ 7:51 amWhat is he thinking, appalled? Is he?
Ben burn (b3d5ab) — 7/12/2017 @ 7:52 amGoing DARK as Nixon.
http://shareblue.com/trump-goes-awol-hasnt-shown-up-to-work-all-week/
Ben burn (b3d5ab) — 7/12/2017 @ 7:53 amThe New York Times has got some sources who were on Air Force One this weekend, and might be working with or included in President Trump’s inner circle, it seems: (or otherwise with Trump Jrs inner circle.)
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/11/us/politics/russia-trump.html
We learn from this anyway, that the original statement of Donald J. Trump Jr, whch mentioned nothing about what was the original premise of the meeting was written by his father, or his fatehr’s people, and not by him.
This is where Donald Trump Jr says:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/08/us/politics/trump-russia-kushner-manafort.html
No, just that she was some lawyer coming over from Moscow, presumably from the Prosecutor General’s office, with some of the fruits of a Russian investigation of Russians who had had some illegal or corrupt dealings with Hillary.
The statement looks technically true as far it goes. It just leaves out some important things.
By the way, the only way anything like this would make sense would be is if Vladimir Putin was preparing a purge of Dmitry Medvedev, but nobody there with Donald Trump Jr has even any curiosity, or their curiosity consists of: What will we hear?.
Sammy Finkelman (02a146) — 7/12/2017 @ 8:03 amTalk about the emoluments clause or about the offer of information being a thing of value is a prime illustration of the dishonest hyperpartisanship of important people in the Democratic Party.
The Democratic Party strategy is based on asserteed they are good and the Republicans are evil.
Sammy Finkelman (02a146) — 7/12/2017 @ 8:06 am58. 61. 65. SF:
NJRob (7f4bec) — 7/11/2017 @ 10:21 pm
IIn a newspaper. Probably here:
http://nypost.com/2017/07/06/republicans-want-answers-from-private-firm-with-access-to-hacked-dnc-server/
The Washington Times story is here:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jul/5/dnc-email-server-most-wanted-evidence-for-russia-i/
Senator Lindsey graham wants to find out what their full findings were.
Most likely, there is good reason for believing, just from forensic evidence that it waa the Russians – I think Crowdstrike and the DNC said there were two penetrations. the earlier and better one was done by the GRU which is more expert in such things. Then it was again penetrated by a group that maybe is the FSB or maybe is more independent. They were less expert. They were detected.
And examination of the computer then led to the detection of the earlier and ongoing hack.
The two penetrations did not know of each other – which you could easily surmise because let’s say they downloaded the same files.
The reason the DNC was very careful whom it let examine the computer is because they didn’t want any leaks of what was on the computer. They trusted Crowdstrike and the FBI (because Comey obviously favored the Hillary campaign and the Democrats)
Sammy Finkelman (02a146) — 7/12/2017 @ 8:20 amAnd yet, Obama ACTUALLY colluded with Russia. On tape. And nothing.
Of course Obama didn’t keep tweeting about it. Maybe there’s a lesson there.
Kevin M (752a26) — 7/12/2017 @ 8:31 amGood qurstion
https://mobile.twitter.com/foxandfriends/status/885155803778342912
narciso (d1f714) — 7/12/2017 @ 8:42 am106 — she was denied a visa, which would have given her a specific amount of time, and freedom to do anything she wanted while in the US>
Instead she was “paroled in” to the country, which is authorization to enter for a specific purpose, and once that purpose is accomplish, the person is expected to depart.
So, for example, when foreign nationals are wanted to be brought into the US for purposes of testifying for the government in a criminal case, they are “paroled in” by the State Department at the request of the Justice Department. They are allowed to enter for the purpose of testifying, and nothing else. Once they are no longer needed, they are expected to return to their own country.
They are not given a visa, which would allow them to remain in the country to do whatever they want during the period covered by the visa.
From what I’ve read, she applied for a visa to do some legal work and it was denied. So she made an application through the court to be “paroled in” so she could enter for the limited purpose of working on a particular court case. Apparently that did happen.
Without knowing the terms of her parole, its impossible to know if she had overstayed when she met with Trump Jr. in June 2016.
Her application for parole status was filed in January, 2016, but I have not seen it reported when she was actually paroled into the country.
shipwreckedcrew (56b591) — 7/12/2017 @ 9:53 amSenator Grassley has questions, too, swc:
Did she never leave the US or was she given another parole in June 2016?
DRJ (15874d) — 7/12/2017 @ 10:14 amoh poopy-sticks this is awful news
in a tweet the onetime Republican says this:
so those are the four senators upholding the values of people who hate the Republican Party
good to know i guess
happyfeet (28a91b) — 7/12/2017 @ 10:30 amPolitics makes for strange bedfellows, hf.
DRJ (15874d) — 7/12/2017 @ 10:40 ami saw white supremers one time at Dairy Queen
happyfeet (28a91b) — 7/12/2017 @ 10:53 amTalk about the emoluments clause or about the offer of information being a thing of value is a prime illustration of the dishonest hyperpartisanship of important people in the Democratic Party.
The Democratic Party strategy is based on asserteed they are good and the Republicans are evil…
I see your hyper-generalization. Where would a Libertarian fit?
Ben burn (b3d5ab) — 7/12/2017 @ 11:38 am20. kishnevi (4a5f25) — 7/11/2017 @ 6:39 pm
It might not really be any different and could maybe be seen as the opposite of principled.
Change that a tiny littlet, and his would be exactly what they’ve accusing them for about a year.
“Sorry, we can’t deal with you. Go to Wikileaks. I’ll give them a call to let them know you’re coming.”
Sammy Finkelman (c4acf8) — 7/12/2017 @ 9:09 pmKeep in mind that Fusion GPS (the Democrat oppo research arm who brought us the absurd Trump ‘golden showers’ dossier) is the same pack of leftist jackals that Planned Parenthood paid big bucks to manufacture ways to discredit the videos of PP big shots negotiating on tape to trade the remains of dead babies for fancy sports cars.
ropelight (a7d89c) — 7/13/2017 @ 12:13 pmSo maybe she thought Jr. Would be alone in the meeting and something nefarious could be claimed by it, which, she could be sure, the MSM would buy wholesale.
Richard Aubrey (0d7df4) — 7/13/2017 @ 6:11 pmSo perhaps she was disappointed that he had two others with him.
Curses. Foiled again.
Anyway, perhaps–since nobody knows and that includes partisans–he was cagier than some give him credit for.
Keep in mind she had nicht to give him and so…what would have been the point of the meeting? Even thee NYT can’t make this other than a nothingburger and she must have known it would have been a nothingburger since she had nicht. So the point was…something else and having a couple of other guys show up ended that.