Re: Trump
« Reply #1880 on: July 12, 2017, 11:13:58 AM »
Gary and Tom are mostly correct. Nothing criminal has been revealed yet.

Even if this doesn't break FEC laws, Jared Kushner has probably broken a law by not disclosing this before when specifically asked when getting his clearance for his job in the administration.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 10553
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Trump
« Reply #1881 on: July 12, 2017, 11:30:41 AM »
Even if this doesn't break FEC laws, Jared Kushner has probably broken a law by not disclosing this before when specifically asked when getting his clearance for his job in the administration.
We need to be specific. What do you mean by "this"?

One side of the story is that they went to a meeting with a Russian person who was not affiliated with the Russian government*, and where no useful information was exchanged. The other is that they went to a meeting with a Kremlin proxy and potentially received compromising information.

* - the fact that some British guy referred to her as a Kremlin proxy in an email once does nothing to prove that claim.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!


*mic stays stationary and earth accelerates upwards towards it*

Re: Trump
« Reply #1882 on: July 12, 2017, 12:45:31 PM »
Kushner was led to believe she was a lawyer for the Russian government, though, right, in these E-mails? And he presumably would have still been under that impression when he filled out the form. And if she does turn out to be a part of the Russian government establishment, that meeting would have had to have been disclosed.

And all of this is still shady as all get out even if it doesn't turn out to be illegal. The E-mails allude to Russian government support for the Trump campaign, which at the time Trump was calling outrageous lies. And which many supporters were mocking as a leftist conspiracy theory. This E-mail definitely seems to move the collusion from leftist conspiracy to at least plausible.

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 5870
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #1883 on: July 12, 2017, 12:53:15 PM »
Kushner was at the meeting with the lawyer and DTJr.
You don't get races of anything ... accept people.

*

Offline Roundy

  • Abdicator of the Zetetic Council
  • *
  • Posts: 1810
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #1884 on: July 12, 2017, 01:05:28 PM »
Gary and Tom are mostly correct. Nothing criminal has been revealed yet. We already know that stating an intent to collude is not grounds for stumping the Trump. We've tested that one when Trump loudly invited the Russians to obtain and release Hillary's emails.

The lame duck prediction, however, I profoundly disagree with. Like, lol breaking news Lindsay Graham is screeching about Trump. Again. But this time it totally means something. Yep.

Also:

This is so big even Tom seems flustered trying to justify it, LOL
Read the literature, Tom, it's all there. I'm not going to do your research for you.
Damn, you change your tune quickly when confronted.

Not really, actually Tom reacted exactly like I expected. I was just trying to get a rise out of him. I still have no interest debating a troll whose only interest is trying to justify everything this administration does.

Also I never said Dunce Jr broke the law so he never actually confronted me over anything I said. Tom's just Tommin' as usual.
« Last Edit: July 12, 2017, 01:09:04 PM by Roundy »
Electro-Theologist, Poet, Philosopher, Musician, Etymologist, Egyptologist, Astro-Theologist, Geocentrist, Flat Earther, and Collector of Rare Books.

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 5315
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #1885 on: July 12, 2017, 01:18:31 PM »
Kushner was led to believe she was a lawyer for the Russian government, though, right, in these E-mails? And he presumably would have still been under that impression when he filled out the form. And if she does turn out to be a part of the Russian government establishment, that meeting would have had to have been disclosed.

And all of this is still shady as all get out even if it doesn't turn out to be illegal. The E-mails allude to Russian government support for the Trump campaign, which at the time Trump was calling outrageous lies. And which many supporters were mocking as a leftist conspiracy theory. This E-mail definitely seems to move the collusion from leftist conspiracy to at least plausible.

I think the issue isn't so much that the e-mail alluded to Russian government support since you can easily say that was a lie to get a meeting.  The issues that DOES show up is Mr. Trump Jr. was very happy to get help from the Russian Government knowing absolutely nothing about the Russian party providing the intel.  So that makes me ask: If he's happy to get it so quickly, what's to say he wasn't just as happy to get something from an actual, official Russian agent?  Because now we know: If asked, he would say "I love it!"

*

Offline honk

  • *
  • Posts: 1604
  • resident goose
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #1886 on: July 12, 2017, 01:21:04 PM »
How is it a major scandal if nothing illegal has occurred? A scandal implies that rules were broken.

It's yet to be seen if any laws were broken, and scandals can be simply ethical rather than legal. This is yet another undisclosed connection between the Trump campaign and Russia, something that Trump has vociferously denied from the beginning, so it's yet more evidence that he's been lying.

Your article is a source in the zerohedge article and backs up what the zerohedge article says exactly. It says that the quotes from the saudi prince were published by two agencies, one of which was taken down, and the other which still exists on the Institute for Gulf Affairs website. A link to the Institute for Gulf Affairs article with the saudi prince quotes that Saudi Arabia funded 20% of the Clinton campaign is provided in the fourth paragraph.

The Institute for Gulf Affairs got the "story" from the PNA to begin with. Repetition is not corroboration, and the original source isn't standing behind the story. If Saudi Arabia really funded so much of the Clinton campaign, there should be plenty of evidence for it. Show me something more concrete than a retracted article.
ur retartet but u donut even no it and i walnut tell u y

Re: Trump
« Reply #1887 on: July 12, 2017, 01:30:49 PM »
I think the issue isn't so much that the e-mail alluded to Russian government support since you can easily say that was a lie to get a meeting.  The issues that DOES show up is Mr. Trump Jr. was very happy to get help from the Russian Government knowing absolutely nothing about the Russian party providing the intel.  So that makes me ask: If he's happy to get it so quickly, what's to say he wasn't just as happy to get something from an actual, official Russian agent?  Because now we know: If asked, he would say "I love it!"

I'm referring to this part specifically in the original E-mail, which isn't a statement from the lawyer, but from Rob Goldstone:

Quote
This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump - helped along by Aras and Emin.

If this is a part of something, I want to know what the other parts are.

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 5315
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #1888 on: July 12, 2017, 01:43:43 PM »
I think the issue isn't so much that the e-mail alluded to Russian government support since you can easily say that was a lie to get a meeting.  The issues that DOES show up is Mr. Trump Jr. was very happy to get help from the Russian Government knowing absolutely nothing about the Russian party providing the intel.  So that makes me ask: If he's happy to get it so quickly, what's to say he wasn't just as happy to get something from an actual, official Russian agent?  Because now we know: If asked, he would say "I love it!"

I'm referring to this part specifically in the original E-mail, which isn't a statement from the lawyer, but from Rob Goldstone:

Quote
This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump - helped along by Aras and Emin.

If this is a part of something, I want to know what the other parts are.
I know.
But Rob Goldstone was just acting as a middleman.  Someone could have called him and said "I have official government lawyer with official government documents to help support Trump" and been lying.  I doubt Rob Goldstone vetted the sources before contacting Trump Jr.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 10553
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Trump
« Reply #1889 on: July 12, 2017, 01:58:07 PM »
Kushner was led to believe she was a lawyer for the Russian government, though, right, in these E-mails?
We don't know that, but it seems reasonable to assume that Trump Jr. would let us know if he thought otherwise at the time of the meeting.

And all of this is still shady as all get out even if it doesn't turn out to be illegal. The E-mails allude to Russian government support for the Trump campaign, which at the time Trump was calling outrageous lies. And which many supporters were mocking as a leftist conspiracy theory. This E-mail definitely seems to move the collusion from leftist conspiracy to at least plausible.
I mostly agree, although as one of the people who mocked the conspiracy theory, I feel there's an element of a misunderstanding there. Many of us were in favour of investigating potential Trump-Russia collusion, but we did (and still do) dismiss the actual left-wing conspiracy theory under which Trump is nothing but Putin's puppet under some weird reverse Soviet Union situation.

Not really, actually Tom reacted exactly like I expected. I was just trying to get a rise out of him. I still have no interest debating a troll whose only interest is trying to justify everything this administration does.
"jokes on you i was only pretending!!!!"

Roundy, leave this to the professionals, you're making yourself look silly.
« Last Edit: July 12, 2017, 05:05:11 PM by SexWarrior »
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!


*mic stays stationary and earth accelerates upwards towards it*

*

Offline Roundy

  • Abdicator of the Zetetic Council
  • *
  • Posts: 1810
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #1890 on: July 12, 2017, 03:34:49 PM »
Kushner was led to believe she was a lawyer for the Russian government, though, right, in these E-mails?
We don't know that, but it seems reasonable to assume that Trump Jr. would let us know if he thought otherwise at the time of the meeting.

And all of this is still shady as all get out even if it doesn't turn out to be illegal. The E-mails allude to Russian government support for the Trump campaign, which at the time Trump was calling outrageous lies. And which many supporters were mocking as a leftist conspiracy theory. This E-mail definitely seems to move the collusion from leftist conspiracy to at least plausible.
I mostly agree, although as one of the people who mocked the conspiracy theory, I feel there's an element of a misunderstanding there. Many of us were in favour of investigating potential Trump-Russia collusion, but we did (and still do) dismiss the actual left-wing conspiracy theory under which Trump is nothing but Putin's puppet under some weird reverse Soviet Union situation.

Gary and Tom are mostly correct. Nothing criminal has been revealed yet. We already know that stating an intent to collude is not grounds for stumping the Trump. We've tested that one when Trump loudly invited the Russians to obtain and release Hillary's emails.

The lame duck prediction, however, I profoundly disagree with. Like, lol breaking news Lindsay Graham is screeching about Trump. Again. But this time it totally means something. Yep.

Also:

Not really, actually Tom reacted exactly like I expected. I was just trying to get a rise out of him. I still have no interest debating a troll whose only interest is trying to justify everything this administration does.
"jokes on you i was only pretending!!!!"

Roundy, leave this to the professionals, you're making yourself look silly.

That's not close to what I said but ok whatevs bb XOXOX
Electro-Theologist, Poet, Philosopher, Musician, Etymologist, Egyptologist, Astro-Theologist, Geocentrist, Flat Earther, and Collector of Rare Books.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 10553
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Trump
« Reply #1891 on: July 12, 2017, 05:08:04 PM »
wew lad that was some quality BBC in my last post. Anyway:

That's not close to what I said but ok whatevs bb XOXOX
Well, no, it's exactly what you said.

You said it's so big that even Tom is struggling to justify it when, in reality, right now it's not big at all. It's a case of "wow the Trump family are assholes who would've guessed" rather than the smoking gun the Democrats are hoping for. There is nothing to justify and you know that very well, which is why when you were asked to actually name a law that's been broken, you went straight for the "AHA! I PLAYED YOU LIKE A FIDDLE, YOU SAID EXACTLY WHAT I WANTED YOU TO" card.

Of course, I'm hardly in the position to criticise you for using that sort of rhetoric. I can, however, point out that you botched it.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!


*mic stays stationary and earth accelerates upwards towards it*

Re: Trump
« Reply #1892 on: July 12, 2017, 05:10:35 PM »
Your article is a source in the zerohedge article and backs up what the zerohedge article says exactly.

not really, but ok: so zero hedge says that gulf whatever says that petra says that a saudi prince says that hillary clinton broke the law.  if that's the extent of your evidence hearsay, then i don't really care about this.

also lol the election is over.  get over it.  you won.  hillary is no longer running for president.  at this point you could show me video evidence of hillary clinton remote-controlling the planes into the twin towers while 1000 saudi princes throw wads of piss-soaked hundreds into the faces of john podesta's slave children, while r kelly watches, and i'd be like "yeah that's illegal and wrong they should go to jail forever."

and then i would maintain the same viewpoint i have now, that don jrs meeting was 1) wildly unethical, and 2) profoundly naive.  and that lying about the meeting for a year is also bad.  and that lying again about the context of the meeting is also bad.

The lame duck prediction, however, I profoundly disagree with. Like, lol breaking news Lindsay Graham is screeching about Trump. Again. But this time it totally means something. Yep.

well sure, those folks are already off the trump train, and the bannonists aren't going to leave it.  i mentioned independents as my reason for thinking that his agenda is dead.  i could be wrong for sure.  he survived other kill shots.  but neither the dnc, nor the gop, is a monolith (see: health care reform), and i just don't think the white house can transition from "this is a completely fabricated witch hunt" to "well ok but we didn't technically do anything illegal" without losing virtually all its political capital. 

that's not to say that congress won't do anything for 3.5 years, just that i think trump's influence over what it does is done.  also i guess that's in the context of what i speculate is coming in the future.  if it stops here and this is all the fire under the smoke, then i'm probably with you.  but i just have a hard time believing that this is the end of the omissions.
I have visited from prestigious research institutions of the highest caliber, to which only our administrator holds with confidence.

*

Offline honk

  • *
  • Posts: 1604
  • resident goose
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #1893 on: July 12, 2017, 07:00:34 PM »
I mostly agree, although as one of the people who mocked the conspiracy theory, I feel there's an element of a misunderstanding there. Many of us were in favour of investigating potential Trump-Russia collusion, but we did (and still do) dismiss the actual left-wing conspiracy theory under which Trump is nothing but Putin's puppet under some weird reverse Soviet Union situation.

Bullshit. It was made clear to you several times that nobody here advocated anything that silly, and each time you responded by ramping up your "lol it's just memes" mockery and refusing to consider or discuss any theory of collusion less melodramatic than that. And because I know you'll deny this, I'll provide quotes:

If Russia was eager to swing the election in favor of Trump, it's entirely within the realm of possibility that one of the many Trump aides with ties to Russia might have been clued in to what was going on in order to take best advantage of it.
Right, so you're completely open about suspecting a conspiracy. I'm glad we've established that.

That's not paranoid, it's not a meme, and it's not retarded.
It is all of those things, assuming you're speaking with genuine conviction. To assume guilt without any evidence is utter madness, and to support the minority party attempting to completely paralyse the government under that excuse is more damaging than even the worst-case scenario of the meme-conspiracy.

(I included your entire response in that last line so you don't accuse me of taking your words out of context, but your sudden lurch onto the subject of assuming guilt without evidence was utterly irrelevant to what we were discussing. There's no more assumption of guilt here than there is any criminal investigation.)

It's an ongoing investigation based on the multiple undisclosed contacts between Russian and members of Trump's campaign/administration, compounded by Trump's many lies and efforts at obstruction. That's more than enough to warrant an investigation - which you apparently agree should happen
Correct.

an idea that seems somewhat at odds with your belief that it's all nonsense.
No, your beliefs are nonsense. They also have diddly squat to do with the investigation.

If you disagree with what I'm saying, then actually rebut me. Explain what it is I've said that's wrong and point out what's right. Just repeating the word "meme" doesn't help anybody.
We've gone through this at great length. I believe I've responded to most your posts where you've invoked the meme-conspiracy or the "b-b-b-but the emails" meme. On other occasions, Rushy tried and I didn't chime in because I didn't have much to add. We've tried reasoning with you, but you were having none of it, much as you would expect from a die-hard conspiracy theorist.

And that's just me - I know you've said similar things to a couple of other people here, like Roundy. You rejected the possibility of any form of collusion from Trump, no matter how plausible or grounded, and offered no arguments to support your position but obnoxious jeering and dishonest attempts to move the goalposts. It's true that you claimed to be in support of an investigation, which I regret not calling you out on earlier, because it's wholly incongruent with your "None of this is true, don't even ask" position and an obvious attempt at hedging your bets in case you were wrong. Why would you support wasting the government's time and money on a theory so obviously without merit that it didn't even deserve a serious response on a message board? You can't wriggle your way onto the other side now that it's looking more and more likely that the collusion was real. You've come down very firmly on Trump's side, and you've been such an arrogant prick this whole time that you deserve to have your face rubbed in the fact that you were wrong.
ur retartet but u donut even no it and i walnut tell u y

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 5315
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #1894 on: July 12, 2017, 07:38:21 PM »

Re: Trump
« Reply #1895 on: July 12, 2017, 07:51:00 PM »
I'm pretty sure multiple Democrats at this point have introduced articles of impeachment that will go nowhere.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 10553
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Trump
« Reply #1896 on: July 12, 2017, 08:52:55 PM »
Bullshit. It was made clear to you several times that nobody here advocated anything that silly, and each time you responded by ramping up your "lol it's just memes" mockery and refusing to consider or discuss any theory of collusion less melodramatic than that. And because I know you'll deny this, I'll provide quotes
Aww, how cute, you quotemined me! And you even included the bit where I drew a very clear line between your meme-conspiracy and the actual investigation taking place. You shouldn't have.

No, your beliefs are nonsense. They also have diddly squat to do with the investigation.

You... literally shouldn't have. Like, it's my job to provide that quote. What even am I supposed to do when you've already debunked your own claims?

I guess I'll just summarise. There's the Trump-Russia collusion investigation, which I voiced my support for multiple times (not because I do or don't want it to be true, but because people deserve to know whatever the truth is), and then there's the meme-conspiracy of "Trump has been installed as US President by a hostile foreign state". You've been sharing articles and rumours to the effect of the latter, and you're apparently still butthurt about the fact that hardly anyone took you seriously.

See, the problem here is that you can't keep "making clear" that you don't believe in the meme-conspiracy while continuously posting meme-conspiracy articles and following them with a photo of Trump in the middle of saying something (I guess you think it makes his face look funny or something?) or "B-but the emails!". People will make assumptions about what you're trying to say. I, for one, have made the assumption that you supported the articles, and you backed it up by defending them to your last breath every time someone mocked you. Time after time, I gave you opportunities to take a step back and separate yourself from the crazies, but you were only ever interested in going deeper.
« Last Edit: July 12, 2017, 09:20:01 PM by SexWarrior »
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!


*mic stays stationary and earth accelerates upwards towards it*

*

Offline honk

  • *
  • Posts: 1604
  • resident goose
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #1897 on: July 12, 2017, 09:39:14 PM »
You're claiming to support the investigation while also insisting that any potential way Trump could be implicated on this, no matter how grounded or plausible, is just memes and unworthy of anything but mockery. How is that possible? Do you not know what "collusion" means? What do you think the investigation you claim to support is even doing, if not looking into the possibility that the Trump campaign was complicit in what Russia did?
ur retartet but u donut even no it and i walnut tell u y

*

Offline Roundy

  • Abdicator of the Zetetic Council
  • *
  • Posts: 1810
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #1898 on: July 12, 2017, 11:17:39 PM »
Calm down Saddam, he's just trolling.
Electro-Theologist, Poet, Philosopher, Musician, Etymologist, Egyptologist, Astro-Theologist, Geocentrist, Flat Earther, and Collector of Rare Books.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 10553
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Trump
« Reply #1899 on: July 12, 2017, 11:21:07 PM »
while also insisting that any potential way Trump could be implicated on this, no matter how grounded or plausible, is just memes and unworthy of anything but mockery
Absolutely not. I've been nothing but supportive of people pursuing grounded and plausible claims. Even when opinions differed, I've always been consistent about the fact that I'd like to see the reasonable claims investigated and put to rest one way or another. You have to take responsibility for the dumb shit you've posted and accept that it is only that that we've mocked, not the investigation actually taking place.

How is that possible?
As soon as you eliminate the false premise from your statement (see above), the confusion disappears.
« Last Edit: July 12, 2017, 11:25:04 PM by SexWarrior »
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!


*mic stays stationary and earth accelerates upwards towards it*