DescentBB

So Donald Trump Jr. eagerly solicits help from a foreign national, a Russian lawyer, who dangles in front of him and his cohorts the juicy tidbit that she's got damaging dirt on Hillary, DURING the campaign last year in June 2016. They actually MEET face to face in Trump Tower. That's an illegal act no matter which way you parse it since all of the people involved were working in Trump's campaign at the time.

http://www.commoncause.org/democracy-wi ... -help.html

Then today, all Chuck Grassley can whine about during the FBI Director conformation hearings this morning is how did this Russian lawyer get into the country in the first place, which makes it Obama's fault because he was president back then. Yes, IMO, that's a valid question since she was refused a VISA months before the meeting at Trump Tower. We need to get an answer to that very question.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/07 ... enial.html

But isn't that beside the point? Isn't the bigger issue here that we have proof of an actual federal crime right in front of our noses? That Trump Jr. and several other Trump campaign people even MET with a foreign national on the pretense that this person was going to ply them with dirt on Hillary DURING an active campaign, potentially influencing an American election, which does happen to be illegal and which Trump Jr. actually admitted to once he released his emails yesterday?

The next question is, did Trump himself have foreknowledge of what his son was doing? It sure sounded like it during a little speech Trump gave on June 7, 2016, just 2 days before Trump Jr. and several other cohorts were to meet with that Russian lawyer in Trump Tower. During the video in the link below, Trump himself brags that he's going to be giving everyone the new lowdown on Hillary Clinton. Coincidence? That's damning enough, but the real kicker is the last sentence of his statement below that's has got to be the absolute epitome of hypocrisy from the Putin-can-do-no-wrong man himself, Donald J. Trump. I guess he should be the one to know.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/trump-to- ... le/2002733

Donald Trump wrote:"I am going to give a major speech on probably Monday of next week and we're going to be discussing all of the things that have taken place with the Clintons,"....

"I think you're going to find it very informative and very, very interesting. I wonder if the press will want to attend. Who knows? Hillary Clinton turned the State Department into her private hedge fund. The Russians, the Saudis, the Chinese all gave money to Bill and Hillary and got favorable treatment in return. It's a sad day in America when foreign governments with deep pockets have more influence in our own country than our great citizens."

preaching to the choir. It is telling watching the GOP elected officials getting a big time case of the waffles. No one is defending this crap anymore, they are all in some form of condemnation and sudden outrage. They have the look of the absolutely fucked, defending what they knew, in their guts, was indefensible, for months, in public. I just fear for the rudderless ship as this clusterfuck plays out.

Wanna bet that Jr. will not be thrown in jail for his "crime"? It WAS a crime by the way. Ignorance of the law is not a defense either and he's actually trying that one on for size. Trump Jr's own email release is pretty damning. His emails even show that Kushner and Manafort KNEW about the meeting! I'll let Jr's emails speak volumes.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/201 ... -text.html

Steven Colbert did the best explanation of the whole mess on Wednesday night.

And the positive bump hopes were just that... hopes.
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/washing ... t=politics

Hey, TC, the question you asked earlier, "what would it take"... is it still valid?

Well, I can tell the Trump natives are starting to get restless. That friend of my husband who likes to call him and rub in his face all things Trump is now staying stony quiet about Trump. Not a peep. Woodchip no longer posts much either. Jobs don't seem to be coming back in droves, Obamacare probably won't get repealed, tax cuts for the wealthy may not happen, the Wall is not looking like a viable prospect and Trump AND his family AND his campaign people are mired in a treasonous scandal that makes Watergate look like tiny footnote in history. On top of that, the U.S. is now the laughingstock of the world.

You're not kidding about that.

Even Hollywood in their wildest dreams couldn't have written a disaster like this.

So now I guess the question goes from "what would it take?" to "how bad is it going to get?"

Tunnelcat wrote:Well, I can tell the Trump natives are starting to get restless. That friend of my husband who likes to call him and rub in his face all things Trump is now staying stony quiet about Trump. Not a peep. Woodchip no longer posts much either. Jobs don't seem to be coming back in droves, Obamacare probably won't get repealed, tax cuts for the wealthy may not happen, the Wall is not looking like a viable prospect and Trump AND his family AND his campaign people are mired in a treasonous scandal that makes Watergate look like tiny footnote in history. On top of that, the U.S. is now the laughingstock of the world.

you can see the same vibe developing among the GOP elected officials. Add to the shortfalls, the travel restrictions have been all tied up in Federal Court, Trump is starting waffle big-time on the Wall(doesn't need to be continuous, shouldn't be all that high, etc) and you have an uneasy crowd, but one I don't feel is ready to bolt just yet. It does have to be unsettling as hell to be a Republican congressperson, who has spent FAR too long defending what becomes more reprehensible by the day. It's one thing for the rabid fanbois on the net, but that crap can kill a political career.

Tunnelcat wrote:Wanna bet that Jr. will not be thrown in jail for his "crime"? It WAS a crime by the way. Ignorance of the law is not a defense either and he's actually trying that one on for size. Trump Jr's own email release is pretty damning. His emails even show that Kushner and Manafort KNEW about the meeting! I'll let Jr's emails speak volumes.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/201 ... -text.html

Steven Colbert did the best explanation of the whole mess on Wednesday night.

I keep forgetting. Is Colbert a comedy show or a leftist propaganda arm?

Yes, Trump and his Trumptards are fools- but did we see David Letterman or Jay Leno go night after night, hour after hour dissecting and propagandizing against either of the Bushes? No. They were late night comedy shows.

Colbert is straight up political propaganda.

Yes NS, Colbert tends towards leftie spin comedy, I'll admit that. He did have his very leftie Colbert Report before this gig. But is anything he's talked about in these 2 videos factually incorrect? Sure, he laces his comedy with a very leftie spin, but intermixed in all those jokes, jokes that obviously bother conservatives, is a large amount of fact. Also, there's more that came out just yesterday on this little Trump Jr. meeting at Trump Tower. It's getting messier and more involved with Russian spycraft by the day. Somewhere in all this laughter, this country should start worrying about the integrity and honesty of it's president, his family and his confidants. Russia is not our friend currently because Putin is not our friend. Since Russians like Putin, that's not going to change soon unless someone else comes along to oust him. Putin is out for Putin, not the U.S. Let's not ever forget that.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/rus ... am-n782851

If you don't already know, try and guess who is the conservative and who is the liberal in this discussion.

I can't really tell. They're both going after Trump in the interview. Actually, don't most conservatives call BOTH Brooks and Shields "liberal"? I know that Shields is supposed to be a liberal columnist and that Brooks is "supposed" to be a conservative, but I've also heard that Brooks has been called a "pseudo conservative" and also recently came out as a closet liberal.

Shields is a frothing at the mouth liberal and Brooks is a moderate conservative, chosen because the station didn’t want any real balance.

Well, the ultra right wing of the Republican Party believes otherwise.

http://www.redstate.com/diary/racebanno ... al-closet/

http://dailycaller.com/2011/07/08/kraut ... servative/

Opinions are like buttholes, everyone has one and they all stink.

Including conservatives when it comes to liberals and visa versa.

Let's see... An American civilian talks to a Russian civilian about a way to defeat a political opponent. Granted that may not be the ideal approach, but talking to a Russian non-government-related lawyer is about as legal as talking to a Russian McDonald's employee.

May I also point out that Trump Jr. apparently commited treason by talking to some Russian person, yet Clinton is innocent. Tied in to that is that the evidence is much stronger in the Clinton case. It never made sense to me that Liberals can do no wrong, yet going to McDonalds and ordering the Fillet O' Fish as a conservative is highly illegal.

Spidey wrote:Shields is a frothing at the mouth liberal and Brooks is a moderate conservative, chosen because the station didn’t want any real balance.

It's not about sides anymore. It's about what's true and what's false.

Saying 'Don't listen to him/her because they're x' is what got you guys into this mess in the first place.

American civilian talks to a Russian civilian about a way to defeat a political opponent

That's not true man. The 'american civilian' was the son of a man running for president, and was immersed in politics as they could get. And this russian 'civilian' just so happened to be in possession of sensitive and valuable intelligence on an opposing party, and the only way to get that is to be a part of the russian government. Thinking otherwise is simply dishonest.

LightWolf also conveniently leaves out that the meeting was replete with Russians with VARIOUS levels of connection to the Russian government, and moreover, discussing quid pro quo with them. That is illegal. As I stated elsewhere, anyone who goes to a public fallback of 'but, Clinton' or 'but Obama' at this point ought to be deported to permanent exile for working against the national interest.

Also saying there is more compelling evidence against the Clintons without anyone being able to actually present said evidence makes one wonder if it even exists in the first place. Where are the emails? Where are the visitor logs? Where did Hillary say she did this on national television?

I see Putin is taking over.

Yea, we better deport…our jails are full.

the National Review. Not exactly a Commie Lie Mill:
http://www.nationalreview.com/g-file/44 ... t-now-gone

Krom wrote:Also saying there is more compelling evidence against the Clintons without anyone being able to actually present said evidence makes one wonder if it even exists in the first place. Where are the emails? Where are the visitor logs? Where did Hillary say she did this on national television?

I'll play devil's advocate here since I'm no fan of the Clintons anyway. Maybe he's referring to this:

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/c ... mpany.html

But then, there's this in rebuttal, seemingly downplaying the severity of what the NY Times claimed:

http://www.businessinsider.com/everythi ... dal-2015-4

Of course, we also have the Panama Papers, and the Podesta Group.

http://www.salon.com/2016/04/08/with_sa ... ma_papers/