NYT bombshell: E-mail told Donald Jr that Russian government wants to aid Trump's candidacy

[Norman]

Go ahead and explain to us why it is so serious. Go ahead.

First, I know there is nothing I can say that will convince you that any potentially damaging information is serious, so I know I'm wasting my time. I know how the game is played. But I'll lay it out there, just for fun.

The son and key advisor of the President of the United States is told during the presidential campaign that would ultimately elect his father, that Russia (a) wants to help his father win, and (b) has damaging information on his opponent and wants to meet to tell him about it. The son, instead of doing the right thing and contacting the proper authorities, chooses to attend the meeting.

Sounds like a movie. And it's all within the context of a larger story and narrative that the President's group and Russia engaged in some kind of collusion during the campaign.

Yeah, no big deal there.

As I said, if it's true - and I have no idea that it is - any reasonable person would acknowledge this would be damaging.
.

Is it illegal to receive information about the DNC? Don't think so... a nothing burger even if true.

Let's say the country involved was China, the candidate had been Hillary, the child who was contacted was Chelsea, she had attended the meeting, and Hillary, surrounded by layers of China collusion rumors, had won.

That would be a nothing burger too, right?
.

Hillary's daughter met a Chinese lawyer once?

Considering she openly did business with the likes of Saudi Arabia, flooded by Saudi Arabian money... sure, a total nothing burger.

You wouldn't have said a thing, you would not have cared. Okay, great.
.

I do care if foreign nations collude in the elections. But I am not sure that you have shown in any way that the person should have been reported to authorities. I doubt he's connected to the DNC leaks as all that information was made public, defeating the purpose for a meeting. CNN and the likes are complete fake news and do not want to report what actually happened, perhaps because... it's a other nothing-burger.

How many times have we been through this already?

 

[Theowl32]

If this is true (that particular qualifier must always be used when something involves politics), it's serious. One good smoking gun makes all the other accusations much more believable, and you could damn near stick a fork in the whole thing.

Go ahead and explain to us why it is so serious. Go ahead.

First, I know there is nothing I can say that will convince you that any potentially damaging information is serious, so I know I'm wasting my time. I know how the game is played. But I'll lay it out there, just for fun.

The son and key advisor of the President of the United States is told during the presidential campaign that would ultimately elect his father, that Russia (a) wants to help his father win, and (b) has damaging information on his opponent and wants to meet to tell him about it. The son, instead of doing the right thing and contacting the proper authorities, chooses to attend the meeting.

Sounds like a movie. And it's all within the context of a larger story and narrative that the President's group and Russia engaged in some kind of collusion during the campaign.

Yeah, no big deal there.

As I said, if it's true - and I have no idea that it is - any reasonable person would acknowledge this would be damaging.
.

Is it illegal to receive information about the DNC? Don't think so... a nothing burger even if true.

Let's say the country involved was China, the candidate had been Hillary, the child who was contacted was Chelsea, she had attended the meeting, and Hillary, surrounded by layers of China collusion rumors, had won.

That would be a nothing burger too, right?
.

Hillary's daughter met a Chinese lawyer once?

Considering she openly did business with the likes of Saudi Arabia, flooded by Saudi Arabian money... sure, a total nothing burger.

Primarily this highlights the rampant racism in the left.

None of it matters one bit to the left. They could not care less what dirt they found on Trump. Not any of it. Considering ALL of the things they found that was false. Does not matter. Not one single bit. We even have the media openly saying they were fixing things for hillary. They have been caught in lie after lie. They were caught giving questions to that kuuuunt. The democrats were caught fixing their elections.

Does not matter at all.

They should not even be addressed. They need to have shit smeared in their faces. They are literally not worth your time. Engaging with any kind of debate with the losers is useless.

Ignore ALL of them. Seriously. They are completely fucking deranged. They are all lying hypocrites. Is that a broad brush? They fit that narrative. If they all died today, I would pour a glass of scotch and celebrate.

 

[bripat9643]

If this is true (that particular qualifier must always be used when something involves politics), it's serious. One good smoking gun makes all the other accusations much more believable, and you could damn near stick a fork in the whole thing.

Go ahead and explain to us why it is so serious. Go ahead.

First, I know there is nothing I can say that will convince you that any potentially damaging information is serious, so I know I'm wasting my time. I know how the game is played. But I'll lay it out there, just for fun.

The son and key advisor of the President of the United States is told during the presidential campaign that would ultimately elect his father, that Russia (a) wants to help his father win, and (b) has damaging information on his opponent and wants to meet to tell him about it. The son, instead of doing the right thing and contacting the proper authorities, chooses to attend the meeting.

Sounds like a movie. And it's all within the context of a larger story and narrative that the President's group and Russia engaged in some kind of collusion during the campaign.

Yeah, no big deal there.

As I said, if it's true - and I have no idea that it is - any reasonable person would acknowledge this would be damaging.
.

You left a couple important things out. It shows intent on the part of the Trump campaign that they are willing to work with Russia in order to win the election. So even if this meeting didn't produce information, they spoke with Russians again after that meeting, and Kushner later wanted to create a back channel with the Russians so they could speak privately. This first meeting just showed how dirty they were willing to get.

And the fact he didn't report the offer at the time? And that he lied about even happening later? In a court of law his credibility would be absolutely shot.

They were willing to "work with the Russians to win the election?" That's just snowflake spin for "they were willing to listen to a Russian who wanted to provide them with perfectly legal information." Notice than an accurate description of what they did mentions nothing criminal or even abnormal for a Presidential campaign, but the snowflakes find a way to cast everything as some sinister conspiracy.

Listen again for the 1000th time, snowflakes: 'A' giving information to 'B' is not a crime, no matter who A and B are.

 

[easyt65]

Another day, another sore-loser 'grasping at straws' story....

 

[bripat9643]

If this is true (that particular qualifier must always be used when something involves politics), it's serious. One good smoking gun makes all the other accusations much more believable, and you could damn near stick a fork in the whole thing.

Go ahead and explain to us why it is so serious. Go ahead.

First, I know there is nothing I can say that will convince you that any potentially damaging information is serious, so I know I'm wasting my time. I know how the game is played. But I'll lay it out there, just for fun.

The son and key advisor of the President of the United States is told during the presidential campaign that would ultimately elect his father, that Russia (a) wants to help his father win, and (b) has damaging information on his opponent and wants to meet to tell him about it. The son, instead of doing the right thing and contacting the proper authorities, chooses to attend the meeting.

Sounds like a movie. And it's all within the context of a larger story and narrative that the President's group and Russia engaged in some kind of collusion during the campaign.

Yeah, no big deal there.

As I said, if it's true - and I have no idea that it is - any reasonable person would acknowledge this would be damaging.
.

Is it illegal to receive information about the DNC? Don't think so... a nothing burger even if true.

Let's say the country involved was China, the candidate had been Hillary, the child who was contacted was Chelsea, she had attended the meeting, and Hillary, surrounded by layers of China collusion rumors, had won.

That would be a nothing burger too, right?
.

One thing we know for sure: the fake media would have never reported it.

 

[Meathead]

Good Lord! Another bombshell!

You'd think this was Hillary Clinton fighting her way through Bosnia!

 

[Mac1958]

First, I know there is nothing I can say that will convince you that any potentially damaging information is serious, so I know I'm wasting my time. I know how the game is played. But I'll lay it out there, just for fun.

The son and key advisor of the President of the United States is told during the presidential campaign that would ultimately elect his father, that Russia (a) wants to help his father win, and (b) has damaging information on his opponent and wants to meet to tell him about it. The son, instead of doing the right thing and contacting the proper authorities, chooses to attend the meeting.

Sounds like a movie. And it's all within the context of a larger story and narrative that the President's group and Russia engaged in some kind of collusion during the campaign.

Yeah, no big deal there.

As I said, if it's true - and I have no idea that it is - any reasonable person would acknowledge this would be damaging.
.

Is it illegal to receive information about the DNC? Don't think so... a nothing burger even if true.

Let's say the country involved was China, the candidate had been Hillary, the child who was contacted was Chelsea, she had attended the meeting, and Hillary, surrounded by layers of China collusion rumors, had won.

That would be a nothing burger too, right?
.

Hillary's daughter met a Chinese lawyer once?

Considering she openly did business with the likes of Saudi Arabia, flooded by Saudi Arabian money... sure, a total nothing burger.

You wouldn't have said a thing, you would not have cared. Okay, great.
.

I do care if foreign nations collude in the elections. But I am not sure that you have shown in any way that the person should have been reported to authorities. I doubt he's connected to the DNC leaks as all that information was made public, defeating the purpose for a meeting. CNN and the likes are complete fake news and do not want to report what actually happened, perhaps because... it's a other nothing-burger.

How many times have we been through this already?

I don't know if any of it is true. I'm just saying that (a) it would be serious if the scenario I described actually happened, and (b) Trump's supporters would be screaming if the same accusation had been made about China, Hillary & Chelsea.

I realize each "side" is going to actively downplay any facts that might damage their "side", and I realize that each "side" is going to push any accusations that might damage the other "side". I'm just pointing out the obvious.
.

 

[Mac1958]

If this is true (that particular qualifier must always be used when something involves politics), it's serious. One good smoking gun makes all the other accusations much more believable, and you could damn near stick a fork in the whole thing.

Go ahead and explain to us why it is so serious. Go ahead.

First, I know there is nothing I can say that will convince you that any potentially damaging information is serious, so I know I'm wasting my time. I know how the game is played. But I'll lay it out there, just for fun.

The son and key advisor of the President of the United States is told during the presidential campaign that would ultimately elect his father, that Russia (a) wants to help his father win, and (b) has damaging information on his opponent and wants to meet to tell him about it. The son, instead of doing the right thing and contacting the proper authorities, chooses to attend the meeting.

Sounds like a movie. And it's all within the context of a larger story and narrative that the President's group and Russia engaged in some kind of collusion during the campaign.

Yeah, no big deal there.

As I said, if it's true - and I have no idea that it is - any reasonable person would acknowledge this would be damaging.
.

Is it illegal to receive information about the DNC? Don't think so... a nothing burger even if true.

Let's say the country involved was China, the candidate had been Hillary, the child who was contacted was Chelsea, she had attended the meeting, and Hillary, surrounded by layers of China collusion rumors, had won.

That would be a nothing burger too, right?
.

One thing we know for sure: the fake media would have never reported it.

I think that's probably true, or they would have kept it low on their list of priorities.
.

 

[Norman]

Go ahead and explain to us why it is so serious. Go ahead.

First, I know there is nothing I can say that will convince you that any potentially damaging information is serious, so I know I'm wasting my time. I know how the game is played. But I'll lay it out there, just for fun.

The son and key advisor of the President of the United States is told during the presidential campaign that would ultimately elect his father, that Russia (a) wants to help his father win, and (b) has damaging information on his opponent and wants to meet to tell him about it. The son, instead of doing the right thing and contacting the proper authorities, chooses to attend the meeting.

Sounds like a movie. And it's all within the context of a larger story and narrative that the President's group and Russia engaged in some kind of collusion during the campaign.

Yeah, no big deal there.

As I said, if it's true - and I have no idea that it is - any reasonable person would acknowledge this would be damaging.
.

Is it illegal to receive information about the DNC? Don't think so... a nothing burger even if true.

Let's say the country involved was China, the candidate had been Hillary, the child who was contacted was Chelsea, she had attended the meeting, and Hillary, surrounded by layers of China collusion rumors, had won.

That would be a nothing burger too, right?
.

One thing we know for sure: the fake media would have never reported it.

I think that's probably true, or they would have kept it low on their list of priorities.
.

Well, it is true:

Everybody Is Forgetting That Clinton Allies Did The Same Thing As Don Jr.

Attempting to make Trump's presidency illegitimate because of the witch hunt is laughable.

 

[Mac1958]

First, I know there is nothing I can say that will convince you that any potentially damaging information is serious, so I know I'm wasting my time. I know how the game is played. But I'll lay it out there, just for fun.

The son and key advisor of the President of the United States is told during the presidential campaign that would ultimately elect his father, that Russia (a) wants to help his father win, and (b) has damaging information on his opponent and wants to meet to tell him about it. The son, instead of doing the right thing and contacting the proper authorities, chooses to attend the meeting.

Sounds like a movie. And it's all within the context of a larger story and narrative that the President's group and Russia engaged in some kind of collusion during the campaign.

Yeah, no big deal there.

As I said, if it's true - and I have no idea that it is - any reasonable person would acknowledge this would be damaging.
.

Is it illegal to receive information about the DNC? Don't think so... a nothing burger even if true.

Let's say the country involved was China, the candidate had been Hillary, the child who was contacted was Chelsea, she had attended the meeting, and Hillary, surrounded by layers of China collusion rumors, had won.

That would be a nothing burger too, right?
.

One thing we know for sure: the fake media would have never reported it.

I think that's probably true, or they would have kept it low on their list of priorities.
.

Well, it is true:

Everybody Is Forgetting That Clinton Allies Did The Same Thing As Don Jr.

Attempting to make Trump's presidency illegitimate is because of the witch hunt is laughable.

It's a story that was reported but has not yet been proven, just as the one we're talking about here.
.

 

[easyt65]

BOMBSHELL:

Putin's mama's neighbor's cousin's daughter read of Facebook Jr. Met with a Russian businessman's daughter-in-law's uncle's UK lawyer who, rumor has it, had dirt on Hillary!

BOOM - RUSSIAN CONNECTION PROVED.

 

[Lewdog]

If this is true (that particular qualifier must always be used when something involves politics), it's serious. One good smoking gun makes all the other accusations much more believable, and you could damn near stick a fork in the whole thing.

Go ahead and explain to us why it is so serious. Go ahead.

First, I know there is nothing I can say that will convince you that any potentially damaging information is serious, so I know I'm wasting my time. I know how the game is played. But I'll lay it out there, just for fun.

The son and key advisor of the President of the United States is told during the presidential campaign that would ultimately elect his father, that Russia (a) wants to help his father win, and (b) has damaging information on his opponent and wants to meet to tell him about it. The son, instead of doing the right thing and contacting the proper authorities, chooses to attend the meeting.

Sounds like a movie. And it's all within the context of a larger story and narrative that the President's group and Russia engaged in some kind of collusion during the campaign.

Yeah, no big deal there.

As I said, if it's true - and I have no idea that it is - any reasonable person would acknowledge this would be damaging.
.

You left a couple important things out. It shows intent on the part of the Trump campaign that they are willing to work with Russia in order to win the election. So even if this meeting didn't produce information, they spoke with Russians again after that meeting, and Kushner later wanted to create a back channel with the Russians so they could speak privately. This first meeting just showed how dirty they were willing to get.

And the fact he didn't report the offer at the time? And that he lied about even happening later? In a court of law his credibility would be absolutely shot.

Jr failed to report someone offering him negative, damaging information on Hillary...and you say that is 'illegal'?

No one had to give the Trump's anything negative about Hillary....there are decades worth of damaging information available in recorded history / press to choose from, going all the way back to Watergate...

It's not just anyone. It's a foreign government and he was told they would help Trump win the election. That's collusion. That's the entire premise of the investigation. If you can't understand that then you are dumber than I already thought you were.

 

[Lewdog]

If this is true (that particular qualifier must always be used when something involves politics), it's serious. One good smoking gun makes all the other accusations much more believable, and you could damn near stick a fork in the whole thing.

Go ahead and explain to us why it is so serious. Go ahead.

First, I know there is nothing I can say that will convince you that any potentially damaging information is serious, so I know I'm wasting my time. I know how the game is played. But I'll lay it out there, just for fun.

The son and key advisor of the President of the United States is told during the presidential campaign that would ultimately elect his father, that Russia (a) wants to help his father win, and (b) has damaging information on his opponent and wants to meet to tell him about it. The son, instead of doing the right thing and contacting the proper authorities, chooses to attend the meeting.

Sounds like a movie. And it's all within the context of a larger story and narrative that the President's group and Russia engaged in some kind of collusion during the campaign.

Yeah, no big deal there.

As I said, if it's true - and I have no idea that it is - any reasonable person would acknowledge this would be damaging.
.

You left a couple important things out. It shows intent on the part of the Trump campaign that they are willing to work with Russia in order to win the election. So even if this meeting didn't produce information, they spoke with Russians again after that meeting, and Kushner later wanted to create a back channel with the Russians so they could speak privately. This first meeting just showed how dirty they were willing to get.

And the fact he didn't report the offer at the time? And that he lied about even happening later? In a court of law his credibility would be absolutely shot.

They were willing to "work with the Russians to win the election?" That's just snowflake spin for "they were willing to listen to a Russian who wanted to provide them with perfectly legal information." Notice than an accurate description of what they did mentions nothing criminal or even abnormal for a Presidential campaign, but the snowflakes find a way to cast everything as some sinister conspiracy.

Listen again for the 1000th time, snowflakes: 'A' giving information to 'B' is not a crime, no matter who A and B are.

It wasn't just a Russian. If the email is real, he was told the Russian GOVERNMENT wanted to help his father win.

 

[bripat9643]

If this is true (that particular qualifier must always be used when something involves politics), it's serious. One good smoking gun makes all the other accusations much more believable, and you could damn near stick a fork in the whole thing.

Go ahead and explain to us why it is so serious. Go ahead.

First, I know there is nothing I can say that will convince you that any potentially damaging information is serious, so I know I'm wasting my time. I know how the game is played. But I'll lay it out there, just for fun.

The son and key advisor of the President of the United States is told during the presidential campaign that would ultimately elect his father, that Russia (a) wants to help his father win, and (b) has damaging information on his opponent and wants to meet to tell him about it. The son, instead of doing the right thing and contacting the proper authorities, chooses to attend the meeting.

Sounds like a movie. And it's all within the context of a larger story and narrative that the President's group and Russia engaged in some kind of collusion during the campaign.

Yeah, no big deal there.

As I said, if it's true - and I have no idea that it is - any reasonable person would acknowledge this would be damaging.
.

You left a couple important things out. It shows intent on the part of the Trump campaign that they are willing to work with Russia in order to win the election. So even if this meeting didn't produce information, they spoke with Russians again after that meeting, and Kushner later wanted to create a back channel with the Russians so they could speak privately. This first meeting just showed how dirty they were willing to get.

And the fact he didn't report the offer at the time? And that he lied about even happening later? In a court of law his credibility would be absolutely shot.

Jr failed to report someone offering him negative, damaging information on Hillary...and you say that is 'illegal'?

No one had to give the Trump's anything negative about Hillary....there are decades worth of damaging information available in recorded history / press to choose from, going all the way back to Watergate...

It's not just anyone. It's a foreign government and he was told they would help Trump win the election. That's collusion. That's the entire premise of the investigation. If you can't understand that then you are dumber than I already thought you were.

"He was told" something is "collusion?" Since when is somebody telling you something a crime, eh Mr. great legal expert? Please show me a statute where I have committed a crime by listening to someone talk. We'd all really like to see that.

 

[Billo_Really]

Russian Government Sought to Aid Trump’s Candidacy, According to Email

THERE IS LITERALLY AN EMAIL WHERE RUSSIA OFFERS TO COLLUDE WITH THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN AND TRUMP JR SAYS ABSOLUTELY LETS SET UP A MEETING

hoo boy, you're in some shit, Trump.

"HE did it, not me!"

Donald Trump has gone from being the worst President in the history of this country, to one of the worst human beings on the planet today. The damage he is doing to this country is rising greater than our national debt. He has done more shit in office in just a half year, than all the made up bullshit the right did on Obama for the last 8 years. And yet, there are still people who defend him, just like the folks in Wiemar who defended Hitler.

You can file this period in our history as "The American Romanoff's".

 

[bripat9643]

If this is true (that particular qualifier must always be used when something involves politics), it's serious. One good smoking gun makes all the other accusations much more believable, and you could damn near stick a fork in the whole thing.

Go ahead and explain to us why it is so serious. Go ahead.

First, I know there is nothing I can say that will convince you that any potentially damaging information is serious, so I know I'm wasting my time. I know how the game is played. But I'll lay it out there, just for fun.

The son and key advisor of the President of the United States is told during the presidential campaign that would ultimately elect his father, that Russia (a) wants to help his father win, and (b) has damaging information on his opponent and wants to meet to tell him about it. The son, instead of doing the right thing and contacting the proper authorities, chooses to attend the meeting.

Sounds like a movie. And it's all within the context of a larger story and narrative that the President's group and Russia engaged in some kind of collusion during the campaign.

Yeah, no big deal there.

As I said, if it's true - and I have no idea that it is - any reasonable person would acknowledge this would be damaging.
.

You left a couple important things out. It shows intent on the part of the Trump campaign that they are willing to work with Russia in order to win the election. So even if this meeting didn't produce information, they spoke with Russians again after that meeting, and Kushner later wanted to create a back channel with the Russians so they could speak privately. This first meeting just showed how dirty they were willing to get.

And the fact he didn't report the offer at the time? And that he lied about even happening later? In a court of law his credibility would be absolutely shot.

They were willing to "work with the Russians to win the election?" That's just snowflake spin for "they were willing to listen to a Russian who wanted to provide them with perfectly legal information." Notice than an accurate description of what they did mentions nothing criminal or even abnormal for a Presidential campaign, but the snowflakes find a way to cast everything as some sinister conspiracy.

Listen again for the 1000th time, snowflakes: 'A' giving information to 'B' is not a crime, no matter who A and B are.

It wasn't just a Russian. If the email is real, he was told the Russian GOVERNMENT wanted to help his father win.

So where's the crime, asshole?

 

[Lewdog]

Go ahead and explain to us why it is so serious. Go ahead.

First, I know there is nothing I can say that will convince you that any potentially damaging information is serious, so I know I'm wasting my time. I know how the game is played. But I'll lay it out there, just for fun.

The son and key advisor of the President of the United States is told during the presidential campaign that would ultimately elect his father, that Russia (a) wants to help his father win, and (b) has damaging information on his opponent and wants to meet to tell him about it. The son, instead of doing the right thing and contacting the proper authorities, chooses to attend the meeting.

Sounds like a movie. And it's all within the context of a larger story and narrative that the President's group and Russia engaged in some kind of collusion during the campaign.

Yeah, no big deal there.

As I said, if it's true - and I have no idea that it is - any reasonable person would acknowledge this would be damaging.
.

You left a couple important things out. It shows intent on the part of the Trump campaign that they are willing to work with Russia in order to win the election. So even if this meeting didn't produce information, they spoke with Russians again after that meeting, and Kushner later wanted to create a back channel with the Russians so they could speak privately. This first meeting just showed how dirty they were willing to get.

And the fact he didn't report the offer at the time? And that he lied about even happening later? In a court of law his credibility would be absolutely shot.

Jr failed to report someone offering him negative, damaging information on Hillary...and you say that is 'illegal'?

No one had to give the Trump's anything negative about Hillary....there are decades worth of damaging information available in recorded history / press to choose from, going all the way back to Watergate...

It's not just anyone. It's a foreign government and he was told they would help Trump win the election. That's collusion. That's the entire premise of the investigation. If you can't understand that then you are dumber than I already thought you were.

"He was told" something is "collusion?" Since when is somebody telling you something a crime, eh Mr. great legal expert? Please show me a statute where I have committed a crime by listening to someone talk. We'd all really like to see that.

He was told the Russians would help his father win the election and he set up a meeting with them. THAT'S CALLED COLLUSION. You don't even understand simple vocabulary, and here you are trying to argue law. He didn't report the offer, and then he lied about the meeting ever happening in the first place.

Numbnuts this is a specific event not something you would ever have to deal with. If your friend calls you up and tells you to come over while he explains how to have sex with a tree, and you go, that's not illegal, that just makes you a sick fuck. But when it comes to a Presidential election? There are specific laws about it, like you can't collude with a foreign power to win an election... especially one that hacks servers, emails, and voting offices and then releases information.

Here's the law. It's been posted already.

11 CFR 110.20 - Prohibition on contributions, donations, expenditures, independent expenditures, and disbursements by foreign nationals (52 U.S.C. 30121, 36 U.S.C. 510).

 

[Norman]

Russian Government Sought to Aid Trump’s Candidacy, According to Email

THERE IS LITERALLY AN EMAIL WHERE RUSSIA OFFERS TO COLLUDE WITH THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN AND TRUMP JR SAYS ABSOLUTELY LETS SET UP A MEETING

hoo boy, you're in some shit, Trump.

"HE did it, not me!"

Donald Trump has gone from being the worst President in the history of this country, to one of the worst human beings on the planet today. The damage he is doing to this country is rising greater than our national debt. He has done more shit in office in just a half year, than all the made up bullshit the right did on Obama for the last 8 years. And yet, there are still people who defend him, just like the folks in Wiemar who defended Hitler.

You can file this period in our history as "The American Romanoff's".

^^CNN viewer.

 

[Meathead]

It wasn't just a Russian. If the email is real, he was told the Russian GOVERNMENT wanted to help his father win.

That carries all the weight of a USMB post or a CNN report.

Really dire stuff!

 

[Norman]

First, I know there is nothing I can say that will convince you that any potentially damaging information is serious, so I know I'm wasting my time. I know how the game is played. But I'll lay it out there, just for fun.

The son and key advisor of the President of the United States is told during the presidential campaign that would ultimately elect his father, that Russia (a) wants to help his father win, and (b) has damaging information on his opponent and wants to meet to tell him about it. The son, instead of doing the right thing and contacting the proper authorities, chooses to attend the meeting.

Sounds like a movie. And it's all within the context of a larger story and narrative that the President's group and Russia engaged in some kind of collusion during the campaign.

Yeah, no big deal there.

As I said, if it's true - and I have no idea that it is - any reasonable person would acknowledge this would be damaging.
.

You left a couple important things out. It shows intent on the part of the Trump campaign that they are willing to work with Russia in order to win the election. So even if this meeting didn't produce information, they spoke with Russians again after that meeting, and Kushner later wanted to create a back channel with the Russians so they could speak privately. This first meeting just showed how dirty they were willing to get.

And the fact he didn't report the offer at the time? And that he lied about even happening later? In a court of law his credibility would be absolutely shot.

Jr failed to report someone offering him negative, damaging information on Hillary...and you say that is 'illegal'?

No one had to give the Trump's anything negative about Hillary....there are decades worth of damaging information available in recorded history / press to choose from, going all the way back to Watergate...

It's not just anyone. It's a foreign government and he was told they would help Trump win the election. That's collusion. That's the entire premise of the investigation. If you can't understand that then you are dumber than I already thought you were.

"He was told" something is "collusion?" Since when is somebody telling you something a crime, eh Mr. great legal expert? Please show me a statute where I have committed a crime by listening to someone talk. We'd all really like to see that.

He was told the Russians would help his father win the election and he set up a meeting with them. THAT'S CALLED COLLUSION. You don't even understand simple vocabulary, and here you are trying to argue law. He didn't report the offer, and then he lied about the meeting ever happening in the first place.

Numbnuts this is a specific event not something you would ever have to deal with. If your friend calls you up and tells you to come over while he explains how to have sex with a tree, and you go, that not illegal, that just makes you a sick fuck. But when it comes to a Presidential election? There are specific laws about it, like you can't collude with a foreign power to win an election... especially one that hacks servers, emails, and voting offices and then releases information.

Here's the law. It's been posted already.

11 CFR 110.20 - Prohibition on contributions, donations, expenditures, independent expenditures, and disbursements by foreign nationals (52 U.S.C. 30121, 36 U.S.C. 510).

"IF IF IF IF..."