No==it's not
"Trump Jr. confirmed that he went into the meeting expecting to receive information from the Russian lawyer that could hurt Clinton. That is a breathtaking admission."
Agreed
Evidence of Collusion
- Thread starter exGOPer
- Start date
Yeah,Trump Jr admitting he,Kush and Manofort met with a Kremlin associate to get information to help his father win the presidency is nothing.My guess is Robert Mueller and the dream team disagrees.
your guess means as much to me as your prediction that Hillary would be president did.
just having a good time before I have to leave for dinner.
just having a good time before I have to leave for dinner.
I agree with the premise where there is smoke there is fire. Its possible Trump did something wrong in his business deals ahead of time ( as piezoe speculates) or allowed himself to be entrapped or trapped before or after the election... or just plain being stupid and greedy like nixon.
But... this meeting with Don Jr. so far seems like nothing.
Now... if it was discussed they had obtained evidence illegally and they were going to turn it over to Trump... it gets more interesting.
But even then... I have seen nothing convincing that even that would be a crime.
the washington post... seems to agree...
"Indeed, in the 2001 Bartnicki v. Vopper decision, the Supreme Court rejected even civil liability for distributing illegally intercepted cellphone calls, and expressly refused to distinguish the media from others:
The . . . question is whether the application of these statutes [that purport to ban distributing illegally obtained material, even when one wasn’t involved in the distribution,] in such circumstances violates the First Amendment. [Footnote: In answering this question, we draw no distinction between the media respondents and Yocum.]
And the Bartnicki Court cited New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 265-266 (1964) — the case treated the media and non-media speakers equally, and a passage on those pages stressed the rights of “persons who do not themselves have access to publishing facilities” — and First Nat. Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U.S. 765, 777 (1978), which is a passage that stresses the rights of all speakers to speak."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...says-cnns-chris-cuomo/?utm_term=.f386aa47b098
But... this meeting with Don Jr. so far seems like nothing.
Now... if it was discussed they had obtained evidence illegally and they were going to turn it over to Trump... it gets more interesting.
But even then... I have seen nothing convincing that even that would be a crime.
the washington post... seems to agree...
"Indeed, in the 2001 Bartnicki v. Vopper decision, the Supreme Court rejected even civil liability for distributing illegally intercepted cellphone calls, and expressly refused to distinguish the media from others:
The . . . question is whether the application of these statutes [that purport to ban distributing illegally obtained material, even when one wasn’t involved in the distribution,] in such circumstances violates the First Amendment. [Footnote: In answering this question, we draw no distinction between the media respondents and Yocum.]
And the Bartnicki Court cited New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 265-266 (1964) — the case treated the media and non-media speakers equally, and a passage on those pages stressed the rights of “persons who do not themselves have access to publishing facilities” — and First Nat. Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U.S. 765, 777 (1978), which is a passage that stresses the rights of all speakers to speak."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...says-cnns-chris-cuomo/?utm_term=.f386aa47b098
If true, please indicate how this means there was collusion.
Last edited:
How much tampering then was done with news outlets and voting machines?
I googled this Natalia . . . Junior must have been like silly putty in her lawyer hands.
.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Per the report, it is still unclear whether the lawyer, Natalia Veselnitskaya, actually provided the dirt that she promised to Trump Jr. However, the expectation was she would have the information with her when she arrived at the July meeting
.-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Per the report, it is still unclear whether the lawyer, Natalia Veselnitskaya, actually provided the dirt that she promised to Trump Jr. However, the expectation was she would have the information with her when she arrived at the July meeting
No doubt that's true. Meuller's position is obvious from the get-go based on his clear conflict on interest. He might as well wear a tee shirt that says "Comey Is My Homey." Most likely that works for you. Same way the tarmac summit did.