And we wonder why there's a question?

Quote
anonymous said:
When it comes to Russia, for sure, Donald Trump and his son can't get their stories straight.

On Saturday, Donald Trump Jr. said that a 2016 meeting between himself and a Russian lawyer with ties to the Kremlin was primarily about "adoptions." That came in response to a New York Times piece detailing the meeting between Trump, then campaign chairman Paul Manafort, Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner and Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya. This, of course, prompted Trump to claim the NY Times was 'failing'.

Then on Sunday, when the Times reported a second piece alleging that Trump Jr. had met with Veselnitskaya after receiving a promise that she possessed "damaging information" about Hillary Clinton, he changed his story.

"After pleasantries were exchanged, the woman stated that she had information that individuals connected to Russia were funding the Democratic National Committee and supporting Ms. Clinton," Trump Jr. said in a statement. "Her statements were vague, ambiguous and made no sense. No details or supporting information was provided or even offered. It quickly became clear that she had no meaningful information."

Then there was this odd reversal from the President himself on another matter involving Russia. On Sunday at 7:50 a.m., President Trump tweeted: "Putin & I discussed forming an impenetrable Cyber Security unit so that election hacking, & many other negative things, will be guarded."

On Sunday at 8:45 p.m., President Trump tweeted: "The fact that President Putin and I discussed a Cyber Security unit doesn't mean I think it can happen. It can't-but a ceasefire can,& did!"

So. That's a lot to process.
Click to expand...

You do realize that Hillary and the Dims actually colluded with the Ukraine?

You do realize that don't you? Or are you ignorant of that because you're a liberal media dupe or are you just a big fat hypocrite? :D
 




anonymous said:
When it comes to Russia, for sure, Donald Trump and his son can't get their stories straight.

On Saturday, Donald Trump Jr. said that a 2016 meeting between himself and a Russian lawyer with ties to the Kremlin was primarily about "adoptions." That came in response to a New York Times piece detailing the meeting between Trump, then campaign chairman Paul Manafort, Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner and Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya. This, of course, prompted Trump to claim the NY Times was 'failing'.

Then on Sunday, when the Times reported a second piece alleging that Trump Jr. had met with Veselnitskaya after receiving a promise that she possessed "damaging information" about Hillary Clinton, he changed his story.

"After pleasantries were exchanged, the woman stated that she had information that individuals connected to Russia were funding the Democratic National Committee and supporting Ms. Clinton," Trump Jr. said in a statement. "Her statements were vague, ambiguous and made no sense. No details or supporting information was provided or even offered. It quickly became clear that she had no meaningful information."

Then there was this odd reversal from the President himself on another matter involving Russia. On Sunday at 7:50 a.m., President Trump tweeted: "Putin & I discussed forming an impenetrable Cyber Security unit so that election hacking, & many other negative things, will be guarded."

On Sunday at 8:45 p.m., President Trump tweeted: "The fact that President Putin and I discussed a Cyber Security unit doesn't mean I think it can happen. It can't-but a ceasefire can,& did!"

So. That's a lot to process.
Click to expand...

Even Krautheimer on Fox isn't buying it.

Charles Krauthammer Destroys Donald Trump Jr.'s Defense Of Russia Meeting



f8879bc5f1ca8b952d545347a661096c


Donald Trump Jr. has defended his meeting with a Kremlin-linked lawyer by saying he didn’t get anything out of it, but Fox News commentator Charles Krauthammer isn’t buying it.
Donald Trump Jr. has defended his meeting with a Kremlin-linked lawyer by saying he didn’t get anything out of it, but Fox News commentator Charles Krauthammer isn’t buying it.

“It’s a hell of a defense to say your collusion might be incompetent,”he told Fox News’ Martha MacCallum.

“If you get a call to go to a certain place in the middle of the night to pick up stolen goods and it turns out the stolen goods don’t show up but the cops show up,” he added, “I think you’re going to have a very weak story saying, ‘Well, I got swindled here.’”

Watch the latest video at video.foxnews.com

Trump, the eldest son of President Donald Trump, admitted on Tuesday that he met with Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya on the pretense he’d be receiving damning information about Hillary Clinton, his father’s presidential election opponent. Rob Goldstone, a music publicist who set up the meeting, told Trump Jr. in an email that the meeting was part of Russia’s attempts to help his father win the election.

“I love it,” Trump Jr. told Goldstone in emails he posted to Twitter late Tuesday morning. He later told Fox News host Sean Hannity that the meeting was “such a nothing” because Veselnitskaya didn’t end up disclosing anything useful.

Others in the Trump inner circle have used the same defense.

“It was a nothing meeting,” the president’s chief of staff, Reince Priebus, said on Sunday.

Trump Jr. also defended the meeting as typical “opposition research.” But Krauthammer, who has in the past dismissed claims the Trumps colluded with Russia, called that excuse “weak.”

“This is not just opposition,” he said. “This is not someone coming out of the woodwork in Indiana with a story about the Clintons. This is a foreign power, and not just any foreign power, an adversary foreign power.”
 
Last edited:




anonymous said:
When it comes to Russia, for sure, Donald Trump and his son can't get their stories straight.

On Saturday, Donald Trump Jr. said that a 2016 meeting between himself and a Russian lawyer with ties to the Kremlin was primarily about "adoptions." That came in response to a New York Times piece detailing the meeting between Trump, then campaign chairman Paul Manafort, Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner and Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya. This, of course, prompted Trump to claim the NY Times was 'failing'.

Then on Sunday, when the Times reported a second piece alleging that Trump Jr. had met with Veselnitskaya after receiving a promise that she possessed "damaging information" about Hillary Clinton, he changed his story.

"After pleasantries were exchanged, the woman stated that she had information that individuals connected to Russia were funding the Democratic National Committee and supporting Ms. Clinton," Trump Jr. said in a statement. "Her statements were vague, ambiguous and made no sense. No details or supporting information was provided or even offered. It quickly became clear that she had no meaningful information."

Then there was this odd reversal from the President himself on another matter involving Russia. On Sunday at 7:50 a.m., President Trump tweeted: "Putin & I discussed forming an impenetrable Cyber Security unit so that election hacking, & many other negative things, will be guarded."

On Sunday at 8:45 p.m., President Trump tweeted: "The fact that President Putin and I discussed a Cyber Security unit doesn't mean I think it can happen. It can't-but a ceasefire can,& did!"

So. That's a lot to process.
Click to expand...

After the age of Obama and Clinton who couldn't get stories straight to save their miserable lives, this is small change!
 




anonymous said:
I like Dr. Kraut hammer but he's simply off base in this.

The bottom line is that NO laws were broken. How it looks or what people's opinions on things is totally irrelevant. No laws were broken. End of story.
Click to expand...

He acknowledges that fact, his opinion wasn't about the law, it was about public perception.
 




Vagitarian said:
He acknowledges that fact, his opinion wasn't about the law, it was about public perception.
Click to expand...

Fair point but the thing is that the Clintons have wielded tremendous political power now for decades with very poor public perception, so it really doesn't matter. There is still no there there to the Russia-Trump story.
 




anonymous said:
I like Dr. Kraut hammer but he's simply off base in this.

The bottom line is that NO laws were broken. How it looks or what people's opinions on things is totally irrelevant. No laws were broken. End of story.
Click to expand...

Peoples' opinions get people elected again, yes, they're important and relevant. :cool:
 
Last edited:








anonymous said:
My point was that candidates can easily be elected or reelected despite people's opinions. History proves it.
Trump can and will easily overcome this. He's president for 3 1/2 more years at a minimum. Case closed.
Click to expand...

I know he's president for 3 1/2 more years and the reason he is president for 3 1/2 more years is that people's opinions got him elected. Thank you for proving my point - case closed. :cool:
 








anonymous said:
I like Dr. Kraut hammer but he's simply off base in this.

The bottom line is that NO laws were broken. How it looks or what people's opinions on things is totally irrelevant. No laws were broken. End of story.
Click to expand...
Krauthammer is a former democrat and now a Bush Neocon. I can't stand he or George Will.
 








anonymous said:
How come he keeps adding to the legal team if he is so innocent? I smell a rat.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/07/trump-kushner-legal-team/533778/
Click to expand...

Oh, please, you're not really this naive, you're just this intellectually dishonest.

It only makes sense to lawyer up when you're the object of a which hunt. He can hire a thousand attorneys and it makes no difference. Just because you don't like it means nothing. Both the wise innocent and the guilty lawyer up.

Bottom line is that he has broken no law
And will eventually be cleared, much to your dismay.
 




anonymous said:
Oh, please, you're not really this naive, you're just this intellectually dishonest.

It only makes sense to lawyer up when you're the object of a which hunt. He can hire a thousand attorneys and it makes no difference. Just because you don't like it means nothing. Both the wise innocent and the guilty lawyer up.

Bottom line is that he has broken no law
And will eventually be cleared, much to your dismay.
Click to expand...

In our legal system, no one has broken the law until proven otherwise. Personally, I don't think any laws were broken. At the same time, just because a law wasn't broken doesn't mean some behavior wasn't questionable. Let's get it out and move on.

Remember, OJ broke no laws when Nicole & Ron were slaughtered either. Talk about a witch hunt - poor guy.

Hey, witch hunts happen though. Let's find the 'real hackers':cool::cool::cool:.
 




Vagitarian said:
In our legal system, no one has broken the law until proven otherwise. Personally, I don't think any laws were broken. At the same time, just because a law wasn't broken doesn't mean some behavior wasn't questionable. Let's get it out and move on.

Remember, OJ broke no laws when Nicole & Ron were slaughtered either. Talk about a witch hunt - poor guy.

Hey, witch hunts happen though. Let's find the 'real hackers':cool::cool::cool:.
Click to expand...

See you were doing ok until you tried to get cute with the OJ thing.

You are presumed innocent until proven guilty. But hey it's good to know that we have OJ doggedly pursuing the "real killer" and you ferreting out political corruption! :cool::cool::cool:
 




anonymous said:
I like Dr. Kraut hammer but he's simply off base in this.

The bottom line is that NO laws were broken. How it looks or what people's opinions on things is totally irrelevant. No laws were broken. End of story.
Click to expand...
The Neocons are more butt-hurt than the scumocrats. This was supposed to be low-energy Jeb's nomination and Krauthammer is the biggest Neocon cheerleader out there.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vagitarian












anonymous said:
I like Dr. Kraut hammer but he's simply off base in this.

The bottom line is that NO laws were broken. How it looks or what people's opinions on things is totally irrelevant. No laws were broken. End of story.
Click to expand...

Why anyone would be talking to Donald Trump Junior about 'adoption'? (nudge, nudge, wink, wink)

That's funny.......... :cool:
 








Similar threads

Doc Who
And they wonder why folks hate Israel
Replies
8
Views
366
Political Discussions
Doc Who
Doc Who
Wonder what Trump will call it in the USA
Replies
3
Views
550
Political Discussions
anonymous
libluvsbukkake
Geez, I wonder if this is a coincidence?
Replies
5
Views
535
Political Discussions
libluvsbukkake
libluvsbukkake
No wonder conservaturds need to keep their donors secret
Replies
2
Views
3K
Political Discussions
Bubble Burster
Breakingnews
'Makes You Wonder'
Replies
5
Views
449
Political Discussions
Breakingnews
Breakingnews
Top Bottom
Back
Quote