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

[Rubberpigg]

Sad Sack is on fire today.
Wow!

 

[cerebus]

There's nothing to spin until someone gets arrested.

Okay, then the answer is no. Someone can contact you with information; if you agree to accept the information, it's collusion:

Seems we have some time and if it's what you say I love it especially later in the summer. Could we do a call first thing next week when I am back?

 

[buka001]

Looking at the emails in context of the campaign - https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/12/...ection-meeting.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur

I guess no coincidence.

 

[Garson007]

Okay, then the answer is no. Someone can contact you with information; if you agree to accept the information, it's collusion:

There was no exchange of information. He just agreed to a meeting. We cannot use hypotheticals about what would have happened if something was produced. We simply do not know if Don Jr. would have contacted the feds.

Should he have contacted the FBI when he was approached, as per Senator Graham? Probably. Especially before accepting such a meeting. I do not however think it is a fair assessment to assume that Don Jr. intended to break the law or that any law was actually broken.

The assumption in this thread assumes that I struggle to spin the left's narrative, but it's really quite easy; I'm just being honest about how I see things.

 

[cerebus]

There was no exchange of information. He just agreed to a meeting.

Should he have contacted the FBI, as per Senator Graham? Probably. Especially before accepting such a meeting. I do not however think it is a fair assessment to assume that Don Jr. intended to break the law or that any law was actually broken.

The assumption in this thread assumes that I struggle to spin the left's narrative, but it's really quite easy; I'm just being honest about how I see things.

What kind of meeting did he agree to, what was promised, and what was his response? Be realistic now. He was promised damaging information from Russia, and he responded gleefully. Do you really believe he wouldn't have used anything he gained from the meeting? I'm not saying that an actual law was broken - there's some argument that a law could have been broken - but he attempted to collude with Russia. There's just no other way to frame it.

It's like this: if my wife finds messages on my phone from a random woman wanting to meet in a hotel room, and I respond saying "I love it", and I actually met in the hotel room - does it really matter if I say nothing happened?

 

[Unhappy438]

There was no exchange of information.

How do you know that?

 

[OrbitalDawn]

There was no exchange of information. He just agreed to a meeting. We cannot use hypotheticals about what would have happened if something was produced. We simply do not know if Don Jr. would have contacted the feds.

Should he have contacted the FBI when he was approached, as per Senator Graham? Probably. Especially before accepting such a meeting. I do not however think it is a fair assessment to assume that Don Jr. intended to break the law or that any law was actually broken.

The assumption in this thread assumes that I struggle to spin the left's narrative, but it's really quite easy; I'm just being honest about how I see things.

Yeah, you are. Which is admirable, I guess. You don't care about the corruption, incompetence and lies, because he wants to advance the ideology you like.

I mean, I disagree with the ideology, but I respect the honesty on your part.

And btw, how would we know that nothing came of it? They've lied about everything, repeatedly and over a long period of time. Why would we believe them now?

 

[Garson007]

He was promised damaging information from Russia, and he responded gleefully.

He was promised damaging information on Hillary Clinton. Don't ignore the elephant in the room. I highly doubt he was concerned about the source of the information. Should have been more circumspect? Probably.

Do you really believe he wouldn't have used anything he gained from the meeting?

It would have dependent on what he gained. If it was obvious that it was illegally obtained information he would probably have run it through the right channels. We simply do not know.

It's like this: if my wife finds messages on my phone from a random woman wanting to meet in a hotel room, and I respond saying "I love it", and I actually met in the hotel room - does it really matter if I say nothing happened?

It would be more along the lines of a random woman telling you to meet in a hotel room so that she can provide you information on your wife's infidelity. Then when the meeting actually takes place, she proceeds to try and solicit you for sex. Would you then tell your wife about it?

 

[Unhappy438]

Yeah, you are. Which is admirable, I guess. You don't care about the corruption, incompetence and lies, because he wants to advance the ideology you like.

I mean, I disagree with the ideology, but I respect the honesty on your part.

And btw, how would we know that nothing came of it? They've lied about everything, repeatedly and over a long period of time. Why would we believe them now?

The Mac/Trump Jnr defense.

Trump Jnr: I scheduled sex with a minor online, when i got there she wasn't offering what she promised. #Wasteoftime

 

[OrbitalDawn]

^ That is not an accurate analogy (Garson's)...

 

[OrbitalDawn]

The Mac/Trump Jnr defense.

Trump Jnr: I scheduled sex with a minor online, when i got there she wasn't offering what she promised. #Wasteoftime

Exactly. Trumpets here should really just move on to the next talking point, that there's nothing wrong with collusion etc. Fox News is already there, so might as well join them.

 

[cerebus]

He was promised damaging information on Hillary Clinton. Don't ignore the elephant in the room. I highly doubt he was concerned about the source of the information. Should have been more circumspect? Probably.

So what you're saying is, he was so amoral that he didn't care about whether the source of the information was Russia, even though he probably should have cared. How does that excuse him? The email explicitly talked about a Russian campaign.

It would have dependent on what he gained. If it was obvious that it was illegally obtained information he would probably have run it through the right channels. We simply do not know.

He has never indicated that he would have run it through the right channels. Even if he had done... I mean... WHAT are you even talking about?

It would be more along the lines of a random woman telling you to meet in a hotel room so that she can provide you information on your wife's infidelity. Then when the meeting actually takes place, she proceeds to try and solicit you for sex. Would you then tell your wife about it?

Try harder. Spin spin.

 

[Garson007]

^ That is not an accurate analogy (Garson's)...

But the below is? Pull the other one.

The Mac/Trump Jnr defense.

Trump Jnr: I scheduled sex with a minor online, when i got there she wasn't offering what she promised. #Wasteoftime

 

[Garson007]

So what you're saying is, he was so amoral that he didn't care about whether the source of the information was Russia, even though he probably should have cared. How does that excuse him? The email explicitly talked about a Russian campaign.

Yes, hence him being a moron. Remember this is before the #Russian meme.

He has never indicated that he would have run it through the right channels. Even if he had done... I mean... WHAT are you even talking about?

I'm breaking down your assumption that he wanted to commit a crime.

Try harder. Spin spin.

Wiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiirrrrrrrr.

 

[Unhappy438]

Exactly. Trumpets here should really just move on to the next talking point, that there's nothing wrong with collusion etc. Fox News is already there, so might as well join them.

They kind of have already, we shouldn't criticise collusion because relations with Russia are a good thing.

 

[konfab]

Nothing wrong with good relationships with Russia. That's not what anybody is talking about. But if Russia worked to undermine the US elections, and colluded with Trump's campaign, it goes beyond good relationships into full-on ownership. If Russia has compromised the US president in ways that aren't yet apparent, it's a major problem for US security, and throws the nature of Trump's warmth towards Putin into serious question.

By what? Telling the people that Hillary's party colluded with the media to knock Sanders out the race?
And this is what Hillary blames her loss on, on the fact that her party was exposed being biased against the underdog.

Maybe instead of blaming the messenger, the Democrats could try and have some integrity for once.

As for Trump being compromised by Russia. I doubt it. His actions against the Syrian government are all the evidence you need. Trump even had the damn platform for doing it FFS. He could have taken a complete non-interventionist route and withdrawn all support, leaving Assad to take over without much effort.
http://edition.cnn.com/2017/06/27/politics/trump-syria-red-line/index.html

If there are countries who the US government is compromised to, it is Israel and Saudi Arabia (probably in different parts).

 

[Garson007]

There still is ZERO proof of collusion.

 

[cerebus]

Yes, hence him being a moron. Remember this is before the #Russian meme.
I'm breaking down your assumption that he wanted to commit a crime.

Ignorantia juris non excusat

 

[Garson007]

Ignorantia juris non excusat

Good thing he broke no law then. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[cerebus]

Good thing he broke no law then. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Oh, that's still TBD. It's hard to prosecute him for intending to gain that information, but if he did gain and use damaging information as a result of his Russian relations, he certainly broke the law, and no amount of calling him a moron can excuse him from that.