(07-09-2017 05:37 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Donald Trump jr meets with Russian lawyer when promised damaging info on Clinton. Opinions? That's about as close as you are going to get.

https://mobile.nytimes.com/?referer=http...thevictors

I mean it's not the AG meeting with a candidates spouse in a secret tarmac meeting to get him up to speed on the FBI's case against the candidate.... But it's a bit more than Russian dressing on his salad.

(07-09-2017 06:42 PM)swagsurfer11 Wrote:  

(07-09-2017 06:03 PM)cb4029 Wrote:  Russians.

Repubrussians

The Times ‘exposé’ on Donald Trump Jr. is a big yawn

(07-09-2017 05:37 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Donald Trump jr meets with Russian lawyer when promised damaging info on Clinton. Opinions? That's about as close as you are going to get.

https://mobile.nytimes.com/?referer=http...thevictors

Close to what?

Are you suggesting those in the DNC or H> campaign weren't looking for dirt?!?

You ever heard of the "War Room?", Circa 1990, or so?

C'mon, Mach. Step up your game.

(07-09-2017 08:05 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Impeachment is a political process at the end of the day and you guys aren't there it doesn't seem. We know they hacked the DNC and mettelled with the election. Trumps team met with them during the campaign in numerous ways. Little Dondal admitted he met with the lawyer AFTER she said she had damaging info. How else can you spell it out?

Holy Schnikeys

who's "They"? who hacked? What? DNC servers? FBI verified that?
What team is Trumps team?

Who the hell is "Dondal"

If there is/was damaging information, as a Patriot, don't you want that out? If not, why not? Damaging is damaging, regardless of "side". Release it, right?

(07-09-2017 10:24 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Wow. How fast we go from no evidence of collusion to even if they did it's not illegal.

If what they did is not illegal, by definition there is no evidence of collusion.

Again, so the lawyer had nothing, gave nothing, got nothing in return, in a meeting that lasted 20 minutes. Please say exactly what the problem, crime, or scandal is?

Or is that too hard of a question?

(07-09-2017 09:35 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Flynn: Met w/Russians; lied Page: Met w/Russians; lied Sessions: Met w/Russians; lied Kushner: Met w/Russians; lied Donald Trump Jr: Me too.*

Mach?

Back off the ledge my man. Glad-handing is the daily mission.

I've got a pair of drained bottles of a very nice Merlot from a dinner with Gorby. Circa 1992-3 or so.

Did I meet him? YES. Yes I did. I also met Alan Simpson and a number of other folks, mostly the interns and rail level folks I worked with at the time.

Am I a spy? A "plant"? The pair of bottles are proudly displayed in our china cabinet..., should I be indicted? IMPEACHED?!?!?!??!?

LOLOLOL. DeeCee is what it is. Drain the swamp actually means something! Help us do that and then maybe, just maybe, we'll see change.

And so the backtracking begins. The failing Washington Post has scrubbed the word 'incriminating' from their story.

bahahahahahaha

A patriot would be a bit more concerned that we have a compromised President. Putin has the ultimate leverage over him. He could leak what actually went down or perceived to have went down. By all these guys not dishllsing this stuff when hey should have they have become compromised. The optics are beyond horrid at this point. Putin has Trump over a bar pinball machine like that Jodi Foster movie. The Trump team didn't want to disclose these meetings. Why? We all can speculate but now Putin has incredible leverage. Fact

(07-09-2017 07:50 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  They said they have damaging info on Clinton and he met with her. If that is not collusion what would be collusion in your eyes? This is the text book definition of collusion. What am I missing? No tit for tat. Just honest dialogue. What would be collusion in your eyes who are defending Trump?

To me, it seems more like due diligence than anything. You're told through an intermediary that someone has dirt on Clinton that they want to share, but you don't know much if anything about the person you're meeting with other than they're a lawyer. Supposedly about Hillary working with the Russians. You go to the meeting and you see its a waste of time. So you take no action.

Collusion would involve some type of conspiracy. If the campaign knowingly met with the Russians to engage in a conspiracy for the Russians to hack the DNC and then pass that info on to Trump so he could use it. Clear evidence of that would be collusion. There's more evidence of collusion with Bill Clinton meeting AG Lynch on the tarmac while his wife is under investigation than anything the Trump campaign has done.

So far all we've got is nothing though. No one can establish that the Russians hacked the DNC server, that the wikileaks docs came from Russia and not a disgruntled Bernie leaker. The only "meddling" that's been established is that Russia Today ("RT") is a TV channel and it exists lol!

How is Trump compromised? The discredited dossier? Trump hasn't exactly played nice with Russia so far and doesn't seem intimidated by Putin in the least. He let a US jet shoot down a Syrian fighter and shot dozens of Tomahawk missiles to destroy an airbase.

Just another Manic Monday with Mach. Is it me or is his routine played out?

(07-09-2017 09:32 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  WTF is the matter with you guys? Since none of you have answered I'll so it again. What would be collusion in your eyes. If this doesn't reach that level what would? Why are all these meetings coming out now when they should have been disclosed before?


Btw Kronke. What were your 3 credible sources in that other thread? Fraud.

No Mach, is not collusion and I am taking off my seatbelt and you should too. It's starting to get sad.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

(07-10-2017 07:08 AM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(07-09-2017 09:32 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  WTF is the matter with you guys? Since none of you have answered I'll so it again. What would be collusion in your eyes. If this doesn't reach that level what would? Why are all these meetings coming out now when they should have been disclosed before?


Btw Kronke. What were your 3 credible sources in that other thread? Fraud.

No Mach, is not collusion and I am taking off my seatbelt and you should too. It's starting to get sad.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

shhhhh (mika and joe are still strapped in)

Trump JR met with the Russian lawyer in June, 2016.

Loretta Lynch met with Bill Clinton on the tarmac in June, 2016.

Anyone should be able to connect the dots.

I knew when Comey testified and smashed the dems boat on the reef that they sure weren't going to let a little thing like the truth stop them and that they'd soon be pounding on any door they could find. The obsession is real.

Mach, shouldn't you be more worried about your girl's Hillary and Loretta?

PRIEBUS: Well, first of all, Chris, I don’t know much about it other than what I’ve communicated with various members there on the screen. It was a very short meeting. It was a meeting apparently about Russian adoption and after about 20 minutes, the meeting ended and that was the end of it. And as far as nondisclosure, look, Jared Kushner put in his disclosure a little prematurely. He has since amended it. All of that is disclosed, and it was a nothing meeting. And now, what’s developing from that meeting, if you look at the article that Circa put out, is that the individual that set up the meeting may have been affiliated with Fusion GPS, which is opposition research firm that is being subpoenaed and talk to by the Senate Judiciary Committee about their role in putting together that phony dossier that people know about in regard to the president.

So, this is a developing story. I don’t know much about it other than it seems to be on the end of the Trump individuals a big nothing burger but may spin out of control for the DNC and the Democrats.

http://www.breitbart.com/video/2017/07/0...ontrol-dnc

Manic? Hardly. If you guys cant see how this affect his presidency you are delusional. The very optics of it are beyond absurd. All of them should have disclosed. It invites mistrust and carries the air of an improper relationship. It reeks to the high heavens.

(07-10-2017 08:12 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Manic? Hardly. If you guys cant see how this affect his presidency you are delusional. The very optics of it are beyond absurd. All of them should have disclosed. It invites mistrust and carries the air of an improper relationship. It reeks to the high heavens.

Will it reek next Monday when you have forgotten about this, and are hyperventilating about the next non-story?

The full throated defense that all of you exhibit. Not one of you call it got what it is. At best it was incredibly stupid to snuggle up with a govt. that murders dissidents. At worst we have treason.

What are your 3 credible sources Fraudster.