Donald Trump Jr. just posted the e-mails

[Shalcker]

Uhm... if it's nothing, why was it discussed with jr? You do know he revealed his buttery males?

Because this specific lawyer he met with had client that was affected by this specific Magnitsky-act-related case (you know, the one we have other thread about it being settled).

It's her case and she looked at every option to resolve it.

[Toppy]

Why is this still being discussed with someone who denies anything given to them while simultaneously providing nothing?

Walls are not for arguing with.

[Grapemask]

Why is this still being discussed with someone who denies anything given to them while simultaneously providing nothing?

Walls are not for arguing with.

Man, that's why I gave up talking to Trump supporters before the election was even over. Also sort of why I feel certain absolutely nothing will happen as a result of any of this.

[Mayhem]

While I am not particularly fond of Trump (or the Clintons, or the Bushes, whatever) I am deeply and sincerely fascinated with American history, its truly heroic founders (who put enough checks and balances to ensure the prosperity of the state five hundred years ago after its foundation, a feat no other country successfully achieved), its stunningly diverse cultural legacy, its natural beauty and so on. I have plenty of American friends. Does all of it stop me from rolling eyes at the American government when it decides to kick sand into some other nation's face again? No. But I certainly do not wish death, famine, war and pestilence on their people.

The US wasn't founded 500 years ago. Obviously their checks and balances are outdated as fuck.

[cubby]

Why is this still being discussed with someone who denies anything given to them while simultaneously providing nothing?

Walls are not for arguing with.

We should have heeded your advice pages ago.

[Shalcker]

We should have heeded your advice pages ago.

Then this thread would have fallen off first page already :P

[Felya]

Because this specific lawyer he met with had client that was affected by this specific Magnitsky-act-related case (you know, the one we have other thread about it being settled).

It's her case and she looked at every option to resolve it.

Yes, a client who was representing Russian government. A lawyer who you are defending as a Russian governmental representative in another thread. Buttery male Ukrainians?

- - - Updated - - -

I'm glad you agree that Ukrainians did interfere.

No shit, I'm not the one who is arguing the Russia didn't interfere. I'm not the one arguing that Russia didn't interfere just like Ukrain did interfere. That's your bizarre argument.

Because no dirt surfaced on Clinton after that meeting, duh.
Russians wouldn't even start to collude with Trump if they had nothing, right?
There was nothing... hence Russians didn't collude. Whatever releases they made (if any) were made out of different consideration.

What do you mean no dirt surfaced? You might want to check on that. Russia did leak those emails, you just need to convince people that this meeting had nothing to do with it.

Then we agree. There was nothing that could be considered collusion on either Clinton or Trump campaign.

Bizarre... your point is that they interfered just like Russia. I point at the segnificant difference between the two, to show the difference and you claim we agreed that there was no collusion? You just, in this very post, claimed they did collude. Make up your mind and stick to the story...

They are same as far as legal distinction is concerned.

No, Hillary's team didn't meet with them in a secret meeting that she forgot to disclose. As Sessions, Flynn, Jr, Manafort and Kushner explicitly forgot to do.

If "compromising information" is "thing of value", both sides are guilty of seeking it from foreign sources; Clinton also guilty of actually getting it directly rather then through media outlets/wikileaks.

Well, no... Hillary is not under oath stating that publicity has a monetary value. Trump is on record, under oath, stating that any publicity, including that which results from him getting Hillary, has monetary value. Clinton's were not trying to build a tower in Moscow, nor were they holding a beauty pageant in Russia. Trump on the other hand, was colluding in Russia, less than 3 years after Russian spies were kicked out for trying to influence US business and politicians.

Buttery male Ukrainians... right?

[cubby]

Then this thread would have fallen off first page already :P

No, we just would have had a more coherent conversation rather than explaining, to you, the same facts over and over. I'm not sure you even understand who the wall is in this case. Which, given your post history even in this thread, would not be surprising.

Are you getting a good pay rate from Putin?

[Deleted]

https://consortiumnews.com/2017/07/1...agnitsky-myth/

Seems like a good article.

- - - Updated - - -

Are you getting a good pay rate from Putin?

Mccarthy would be proud

[Felya]

Mccarthy would be proud

Putin is not a political theory.

[Toppy]

https://consortiumnews.com/2017/07/1...agnitsky-myth/

Seems like a good article.

- - - Updated - - -



Mccarthy would be proud

It is, its also largely irrelevant. The issue is Trump's actions themselves, not so much what drove the other person to contact him.

[Mafic]

Dont worry next election you can still choose between the right wing neoliberals, or the militant right wing neoliberals again.

Yeah that is what bothers me in that since the hits on the Kennedy family and MLK the left has never recovered and has embraced corporate war profiteering.

[Shadowferal]

So what's the difference between right-wing neoliberals, and right-wing conservatives?

[cubby]

https://consortiumnews.com/2017/07/1...agnitsky-myth/

Seems like a good article.

Thanks, but I don't need some random spin when the emails themselves are right in front of all of us. If you're not going to be bothered to pay attention, why should we bother paying you any attention?

[Deleted]

Thanks, but I don't need some random spin when the emails themselves are right in front of all of us. If you're not going to be bothered to pay attention, why should we bother paying you any attention?

Its called context.

I know you can only deal with sesame street levels of news presentation, but I can't find a clip of bert and ernie explaining it.

(Infracted) - Trolling

[cubby]

Its called context.

I know you can only deal with sesame street levels of news presentation, but I can't find a clip of bert and ernie explaining it.

I guess that's why you don't know what's going. If you find it, maybe you can join the conversation - until then, good luck. You apparently need it.

[Edge-]

Its called context.

I know you can only deal with sesame street levels of news presentation, but I can't find a clip of bert and ernie explaining it.

I mean, the article is largely nonsense. Homeboy provides nothing to support most of his assertions (and doesn't come with any credibility built-in given the site), actively accuses US press including WashPo of trying to suppress the documentary despite the fact that they fucking covered it, which is the opposite of suppressing, and the site itself is filled with articles attempting to dismiss and discredit the Russian investigations going on right now.

Gave it a read and while I'd be interested in seeing the documentary at some point, he provides little compelling evidence to support his arguments and attempts to use the article as little more than a circuitous method of minimizing the significance of the meeting between Trump Jr. and the Trump campaign and Ms. Veselnitskaya.

[Deleted]

Yeah that is what bothers me in that since the hits on the Kennedy family and MLK the left has never recovered and has embraced corporate war profiteering.

I'm with Adam Curtis, on the left being crushed to the point where it turned inwards on itself towards internal revolution aka political pessimism and individualism.

- - - Updated - - -

I mean, the article is largely nonsense. Homeboy provides nothing to support most of his assertions (and doesn't come with any credibility built-in given the site), actively accuses US press including WashPo of trying to suppress the documentary despite the fact that they fucking covered it, which is the opposite of suppressing, and the site itself is filled with articles attempting to dismiss and discredit the Russian investigations going on right now.

Gave it a read and while I'd be interested in seeing the documentary at some point, he provides little compelling evidence to support his arguments and attempts to use the article as little more than a circuitous method of minimizing the significance of the meeting between Trump Jr. and the Trump campaign and Ms. Veselnitskaya.

Robert Parry is pretty legit.

[Shalcker]

Yes, a client who was representing Russian government.

No, the lawyer that was representing specific Russian client.

You did read that thread, right? Case that was settled had nothing to do with "Russian government"; government officials related to Magnitsky case still remain sanctioned while her client got off with 6m $ payment without admitting guilt.

A lawyer who you are defending as a Russian governmental representative in another thread.

I have seen no indications that she is "Russian governmental representative"; she was representative of specific client in that specific case that was settled, and were meeting Trump Jr in that role.

[Edge-]

Robert Parry is pretty legit.

Never heard of him, if you have any links to credible works of his I'd be interested in reading it. Because that article didn't impress me in the slightest. Has he written for/contributed to any reputable organizations?