Donald J. Trump: President of the USA Part II Covfefe

Status
Not open for further replies.

OrbitalDawn

Ulysses Everett McGill
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
47,031
Where's the confirmation btw? That there was an email trail and a meeting was never disputed in this thread so a confirmation would be quite the waste of time. That it has been connected to the Kremlin has not been confirmed. So what exactly are you on about?

Oh, it was never disputed? lol.

Here's you disputing everything:

WTF are you on about?!? They're not offering any hard facts or evidence, no fringe loonie site is saying that, I am saying that, as can anyone who is able to read English. It is not exactly difficult.

In this day and age it makes the entire story suspect until proven otherwise, the media has sunk to the level where skepticism comes first when they don't offer evidence, simple as that.

You, like the Trumps, were claiming it's all a hoax and nothing happened. Now the meeting (among many others that were repeatedly lied about) have been confirmed. The email preceding the meeting was also confirmed.

Just get on with it and jump to the new spinning narrative - that there's nothing wrong with collusion. Hannity is already there.
 

NarrowBandFtw

Honorary Master
Joined
Feb 1, 2008
Messages
27,727
Oh good grief. The email CLAIMS to make an explicit connection with the Kremlin, and Trump Jr APPEARS to believe it wholeheartedly, and there PROBABLY is such a connection despite denials - but the last is my own inference. That's the full extent of the NYT article. Here's the article; would you like to point to where it makes a single false claim, given what we now know of the email's contents?
Right in the opening line, the best place to put your media lies:
Before arranging a meeting with a Kremlin-connected Russian lawyer he believed would offer him compromising information

Stating something as fact which is demonstrably false in the full context and raw evidence is making a false claim. Now I hasten to add I understand your obvious bias blinds you to this simple fact, but that does not change the facts I'm afraid.
 

NarrowBandFtw

Honorary Master
Joined
Feb 1, 2008
Messages
27,727
You, like the Trumps, were claiming it's all a hoax and nothing happened. Now the meeting (among many others that were repeatedly lied about) have been confirmed. The email preceding the meeting was also confirmed.

Any hard facts or evidence of the Kremlin link, indeed, I stand by it, thank you for also opting to prove my point rather than yours. You and cerebus are on fire today :crylaugh:
 

greg0205

Honorary Master
Joined
Apr 18, 2010
Messages
28,863
I've deliberately been avoiding what I knew would be laughable hackery and spin from the Pepes in this thread since the story broke. I knew there would be no debate, rather wave after wave of denial, whataboutism and gaslighting. Without going back for pages, folk on the left, am I right?

Just popped in to say this 'tho. Fredo's mails on this meeting are now in the public domain... If we have this much, how much more does Robert Muller have?

I'll see myself out, but before I go, folk on the right, well done for backing the smartest Donald Trump in the world. Would have been embarrassing if you had money on the other horse in that race.
 

cerebus

Honorary Master
Joined
Nov 5, 2007
Messages
49,122
Right in the opening line, the best place to put your media lies:


Stating something as fact which is demonstrably false in the full context and raw evidence is making a false claim. Now I hasten to add I understand your obvious bias blinds you to this simple fact, but that does not change the facts I'm afraid.

And the article does a pretty good job of establishing her Kremlin connected credentials:

A quick internet search reveals Ms. Veselnitskaya as a formidable operator with a history of pushing the Kremlin’s agenda. Most notable is her campaign against the Magnitsky Act, which provoked a Cold War-style, tit-for-tat row with the Kremlin when President Barack Obama signed it into law in 2012.

Under the law, some 44 Russian citizens have been put on a list that allows the United States to seize their American assets and deny them visas. The United States asserts that many of them are connected to fraud exposed by Mr. Magnitsky, who after being jailed for more than a year was found dead in his cell. A Russian human rights panel found that he had been assaulted. To critics of Mr. Putin, Mr. Magnitsky, in death, became a symbol of corruption and brutality in the Russian state.

An infuriated Mr. Putin has called the law an “outrageous act,” and, in addition to banning American adoptions, compiled what became known as an “anti-Magnitsky” blacklist of United States citizens.

Among those blacklisted was Preet Bharara, then the United States attorney in Manhattan, who led high-profile convictions of Russian arms and drug dealers. Mr. Bharara was abruptly fired in March, after previously being asked to stay on by Mr. Trump.

One of Ms. Veselnitskaya’s clients is Denis Katsyv, the Russian owner of a Cyprus-based investment company called Prevezon Holdings. He is the son of Petr Katsyv, the vice president of the state-owned Russian Railways and a former deputy governor of the Moscow region. In a civil forfeiture case prosecuted by Mr. Bharara’s office, the Justice Department alleged that Prevezon had helped launder money tied to a $230 million corruption scheme exposed by Mr. Magnitsky by parking it in New York real estate and bank accounts. As a result, the government froze $14 million of its assets. Prevezon recently settled the case for $6 million without admitting wrongdoing.

Ms. Veselnitskaya and her client hired a team of political and legal operatives that has worked unsuccessfully in Washington to repeal the Magnitsky Act. They also tried but failed to keep Mr. Magnitsky’s name off a new law that takes aim at human-rights abusers across the globe.

Besides the private investigator whose firm produced the Trump dossier, the lobbying team included Rinat Akhmetshin, an émigré to the United States who once served as a Soviet military officer and who has been called a Russian political gun for hire.

Ms. Veselnitskaya was also deeply involved in the making of an anti-Magnitsky film that premiered just weeks before the Trump Tower meeting. Titled “The Magnitsky Act — Behind the Scenes,” the film echoes the Kremlin line that the widely accepted version of Mr. Magnitsky’s life and death is wrong. The film claims that he was not assaulted and alleges that he never testified that government officials conspired to steal $230 million in fraudulent tax rebates.

In the film’s telling, the true culprit of the fraud was William F. Browder, an American-born financier who hired Mr. Magnitsky to investigate the fraud after he had three of his investment funds companies in Russia seized. On RussiaTV5, a station whose owners are known to be close to Mr. Putin, Ms. Veselnitskaya was lauded as “one of those who gave the film crew the real proofs and records of testimony.”

Mr. Browder, who stopped the screening of the film in Europe by threatening libel suits, called the film a state-sponsored smear campaign.

“She’s not just some private lawyer,” Mr. Browder said of Ms. Veselnitskaya. “She is a tool of the Russian government.”
 

Unhappy438

Honorary Master
Joined
May 25, 2011
Messages
24,915
People who think this doesn't add to the case others are trying to build against Trump are delusional. If Trump does get tried for collusion this will almost certainly be used as part of that. Instead of flat out dismissing these emails and the meeting or trying to spin it, we should wait and see what happens.
 

OrbitalDawn

Ulysses Everett McGill
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
47,031
Right in the opening line, the best place to put your media lies:


Stating something as fact which is demonstrably false in the full context and raw evidence is making a false claim. Now I hasten to add I understand your obvious bias blinds you to this simple fact, but that does not change the facts I'm afraid.

How is it demonstrably false?

Any hard facts or evidence of the Kremlin link, indeed, I stand by it, thank you for also opting to prove my point rather than yours. You and cerebus are on fire today :crylaugh:

Keep spinning, Mac 2.0 :crylaugh:
 

buka001

Honorary Master
Joined
Oct 16, 2009
Messages
16,981
Oh please. Sooooo much spinning.

Now that he has been caught he claims nothing of substance was offered in the meeting? How are we to believe him?

So convinient given he first forgot about this meeting, then claimed it was about adoptions and now indicates that the meeting was directly and explicitly held with someone he thought had direct connections with the Russian government offering direct assisstance from the government to support his father.

Of course noting that this information was only part of all the assisstance that the government was offering.

Now to get out of the web of lies he claims it was a wasted meeting and the lawyer claims she has no connection to the government.

I know this doesn't prove anything but its quite an interesting turn of events, especially within the context of how Trumps campaign behaved after this event.

And for a lawyer who claims no connection with the Kremlin to have a picture of Putin on her fridge is quite funny.
 

buka001

Honorary Master
Joined
Oct 16, 2009
Messages
16,981
439e0a2e29db90ba5f1a2d985d4ceaec.jpg


Lol
 

OrbitalDawn

Ulysses Everett McGill
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
47,031
I've deliberately been avoiding what I knew would be laughable hackery and spin from the Pepes in this thread since the story broke. I knew there would be no debate, rather wave after wave of denial, whataboutism and gaslighting. Without going back for pages, folk on the left, am I right?

Just popped in to say this 'tho. Fredo's mails on this meeting are now in the public domain... If we have this much, how much more does Robert Muller have?

I'll see myself out, but before I go, folk on the right, well done for backing the smartest Donald Trump in the world. Would have been embarrassing if you had money on the other horse in that race.

Spot on. ;)
 

NarrowBandFtw

Honorary Master
Joined
Feb 1, 2008
Messages
27,727
And the article does a pretty good job of establishing her Kremlin connected credentials:
We have wildly different standards for what proper proof is, I see nothing but conjecture. You might as well assert that any private lawyer that ever worked for Sahara is a guaranteed Zuma puppet.

While the chance exists, you cannot make such a blanket statement without actual evidence.
 

NarrowBandFtw

Honorary Master
Joined
Feb 1, 2008
Messages
27,727
How are we to believe him?
You don't have to believe him, just prove him to be lying in this instance instead of flinging more mud at the wall hoping something sticks.

And for a lawyer who claims no connection with the Kremlin to have a picture of Putin on her fridge is quite funny.
Putin has a 90%+ approval rating in Russia, do you have any idea how many millions of fridges have his picture on them? I'm a huge fan of Margot Robbie's body and have her pics all over my faproom wall, can I now claim to be connected to her? :D
 

NarrowBandFtw

Honorary Master
Joined
Feb 1, 2008
Messages
27,727
How is it demonstrably false?
Posted multiple times, so I can only assume you're being deliberately obtuse, but whatever:
- the email mentions a position that doesn't even exist
- the meeting happened with a person that doesn't have any connection to the position that doesn't even exist

ergo: the Kremlin-connected statement is false
 

cerebus

Honorary Master
Joined
Nov 5, 2007
Messages
49,122
We have wildly different standards for what proper proof is, I see nothing but conjecture. You might as well assert that any private lawyer that ever worked for Sahara is a guaranteed Zuma puppet.

While the chance exists, you cannot make such a blanket statement without actual evidence.

Everything in the article is true, the lawyer's Kremlin bona fides are pretty well established just by the fact that she has been such a major opponent of the Magnitsy Act, you're just spinning like a ferris wheel.
 

Unhappy438

Honorary Master
Joined
May 25, 2011
Messages
24,915
Fox corrects story suggesting Comey released ‘top’ secrets.

Fox News Channel has corrected its story suggesting that former FBI Director James Comey publicly leaked classified material relating to his conversations with President Donald Trump.

A supportive Trump had retweeted the story after its original airing on Monday.

https://apnews.com/d15a3f05d3a04dab...story-suggesting-Comey-released-'top'-secrets.

Do we get Fox Fraud memes now? Or is that only good for certain forum members selective outrage following White House propaganda?
 

NarrowBandFtw

Honorary Master
Joined
Feb 1, 2008
Messages
27,727
Everything in the article is true, the lawyer's Kremlin bona fides are pretty well established just by the fact that she has been such a major opponent of the Magnitsy Act
While representing a private client that is partially owned by the Russian government, so what? That does not make HER Kremlin-connected. That makes her a lawyer that represented a private client that is partially owned by the Russian government.

Is it somehow her doing that the client paid her and instructed her to proceed with perfectly legal litigation that happens to align with the Kremlin? Reread the Zuma example, in no way can you claim a lawyer doing the legal bidding of a dodgy client is directly connected to that client's other interests.

You can say it is possible, you cannot state it as fact.
 

OrbitalDawn

Ulysses Everett McGill
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
47,031
Posted multiple times, so I can only assume you're being deliberately obtuse, but whatever:
- the email mentions a position that doesn't even exist
- the meeting happened with a person that doesn't have any connection to the position that doesn't even exist

ergo: the Kremlin-connected statement is false

That does not remotely prove it's false.
 

konfab

Honorary Master
Joined
Jun 23, 2008
Messages
36,120
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top