Current Events > Donald Trump Jr literally just posted the email that confirms Russia's attempt

(+) Yeah! (+)

to send incriminating information about Hillary to the Trump Campaign:

https://twitter.com/DonaldJTrumpJr/status/884789839522140166

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DEdnhw-WsAEbW9N.jpg

Oh My God this is beyond stupid.
---

He got out like two minutes ahead of the NYT article about them
---

Is it okay for him to post that email on his Twitter account? That notice at the bottom would have scared me off >_>
---

Antifar posted...

He got out like two minutes ahead of the NYT article about them

Before this he could have simply claimed it was Fake News!
---

SGT_Conti posted...

Is it okay for him to post that email on his Twitter account? That notice at the bottom would have scared me off >_>

Those disclaimers are wholly unenforceable.
---

how is he this dumb
---

Darkman124 posted...

how is he this dumb

Dumbgate 2017
---

The lawyer isn't connected to the Kremlin, nor did she have any information about Hillary.

Fake news strikes again!
---

Darkman124 posted...

how is he this dumb

You don't need brains (or really any positive attributes at all) when Daddy is in the top 250 richest people in the world
---

I thought Eric was supposed to be the dumb one
---

Mal_Fet posted...

The lawyer isn't connected to the Kremlin, nor did she have any information about Hillary.

Fake news strikes again!

Just remember everyone, Mal is not a Trump supporter, he's without bias on this
---

Who cares
---

I still can't believe this is real life.
---

Giant_Aspirin posted...

Darkman124 posted...

how is he this dumb

Dumbgate 2017

perfect. we should start calling it that by now.
---

pinky0926 posted...

Mal_Fet posted...

The lawyer isn't connected to the Kremlin, nor did she have any information about Hillary.

Fake news strikes again!

Just remember everyone, Mal is not a Trump supporter, he's without bias on this

Is this where we are now? That looking at all the facts makes you a Trump supporter?

This is NOT where you want to steer that narrative, my lefty friends.
---

Holy!!!
---

You guys sure do love a tasty nothingburger.
---

Lol
---

Mal_Fet posted...

The lawyer isn't connected to the Kremlin, nor did she have any information about Hillary.

Fake news strikes again!

The fact that the lawyer didn't have info on Clinton doesn't absolve the fact that he set up a meeting because he thought she did.

"Chris Hansen isn't underage, nor did he intend to have sex with my client."
---

Trump status = winning
---

You need to be pretty dim for Kellyanne Conway to make you look like an idiot

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9xfHC0ACX4

(35 minutes, but the important parts are at the beginning.)
---

Mal_Fet posted...

Is this where we are now? That looking at all the facts makes you a Trump supporter?

This is NOT where you want to steer that narrative, my lefty friends.

The funny part here is that I'm quite sure that unless I dropped an original copy employment contract stating "This person definitely worked directly for me, signed Vladimir Putin", you'd continue casting doubt on any "connection" to the Kremlin.

Not even considering the point that what Donny Jnr is try to get such info, by the way.
---

Antifar posted...

The fact that the lawyer didn't have info on Clinton doesn't absolve the fact that he set up a meeting because he thought she did.

How about how she isn't connected to the Russian government, nor did Trump Jr. have any reason to believe so
---

pinky0926 posted...

Mal_Fet posted...

Is this where we are now? That looking at all the facts makes you a Trump supporter?

This is NOT where you want to steer that narrative, my lefty friends.

The funny part here is that I'm quite sure that unless I dropped an original copy employment contract stating "This person definitely worked directly for me, signed Vladimir Putin", you'd continue casting doubt on any "connection" to the Kremlin.

Positive claims require evidence. You insist that someone being from Russia = she works for Putin? When you see an American person do you assume they work for Trump?
---

Mal_Fet posted...

The lawyer isn't connected to the Kremlin, nor did she have any information about Hillary.

Fake news strikes again!

He didn't know that
---

Mal_Fet posted...

The lawyer isn't connected to the Kremlin, nor did she have any information about Hillary.

Fake news strikes again!

Another big

But Dims are too Dim to see that. This is actually more evidence of non-collusion. How did "super-connected" Manafort get had by this phony falsely claiming that she possessed incriminating info on Hillary's dealings with the Russians?
---

"We didn't collude with Russia, we just attempted and failed to do so" is one defense, sure.
---

Lol, Mal in full "nothing to see here" mode as his orange God crumbles.

Keep it going!!
---

Mal_Fet posted...

pinky0926 posted...

Mal_Fet posted...

Is this where we are now? That looking at all the facts makes you a Trump supporter?

This is NOT where you want to steer that narrative, my lefty friends.

The funny part here is that I'm quite sure that unless I dropped an original copy employment contract stating "This person definitely worked directly for me, signed Vladimir Putin", you'd continue casting doubt on any "connection" to the Kremlin.

Positive claims require evidence. You insist that someone being from Russia = she works for Putin? When you see an American person do you assume they work for Trump?

She worked for Putin, then falsely claimed that she had incriminating info to set up a meeting about adoption. How is that good for the close Putin-Trump relationship?
---

Ammonitida posted...

She worked for Putin,

Source.
---

Antifar posted...

"We didn't collude with Russia, we just attempted and failed to do so" is one defense, sure.

You do realize that collusion in this case refers to the dossier's allegation of possible treason in exchange for emails gained from the DNC hack. Being willing to accept damaging info that is not connected to an illegal hack is hardly collusion in that sense. Not illegal either.
---

I just don't understand why he didn't claim the NYT article was Fake News like he always does. I just can't get past this.
---

Mal_Fet posted...

Ammonitida posted...

She worked for Putin,

Source.

My point is that she didn't, since if she did she would not have conned Tump into this meeting by using a false pretext. He was had.
---

Mal_Fet posted...

Positive claims require evidence. You insist that someone being from Russia = she works for Putin? When you see an American person do you assume they work for Trump?

It's the Kremlin, you're never going to get anything approaching irrefutable evidence. Convenient, isn't it? Never mind her record as a pitbull who's made it her career choice to protect the Russian government from corruption probes.

I feel like if Donny slapped you across the face you'd still argue that without a written confession it's likely his hand just accidentally brushed your cheek.
---

KiwiTerraRizing posted...

Lol, Mal in full "nothing to see here" mode as his orange God crumbles.

Keep it going!!

You guys live in a fantasy world. The only thing crumbling here is your sanity.
---

pinky0926 posted...

It's the Kremlin, you're never going to get anything approaching irrefutable evidence.

How about ANY evidence? Forget irrefutable evidence for a second, do you have ANY evidence that she works for Putin, apart for how she also lives in the country of Russia?
---

Mal_Fet posted...

pinky0926 posted...

Mal_Fet posted...

Is this where we are now? That looking at all the facts makes you a Trump supporter?

This is NOT where you want to steer that narrative, my lefty friends.

The funny part here is that I'm quite sure that unless I dropped an original copy employment contract stating "This person definitely worked directly for me, signed Vladimir Putin", you'd continue casting doubt on any "connection" to the Kremlin.

Positive claims require evidence. You insist that someone being from Russia = she works for Putin? When you see an American person do you assume they work for Trump?

Back during the inauguration speech crowd debate, you claimed the tape had been altered/time lapsed. Since you made that positive claim, do you have evidence?

Ammonitida posted...

You do realize that collusion in this case refers to the dossier's allegation of possible treason in exchange for emails gained from the DNC hack. Being willing to accept damaging info that is not connected to an illegal hack is hardly collusion in that sense. Not illegal either.

Being willing to accept damaging info from foreigners to sway an election is, in fact, illegal
https://twitter.com/ThePlumLineGS/status/884797581573935105
---

Mal_Fet posted...

Positive claims require evidence. You insist that someone being from Russia = she works for Putin? When you see an American person do you assume they work for Trump?

depends. are they best friends with his family too
---

Ruvan22 posted...

Back during the inauguration speech crowd debate, you claimed the tape had been altered/time lapsed.

You can't defend fake news with more fake news. Just accept that there's no reason to believe a meeting with any Russian person constitutes collusion with the Russian government.
---

Mal_Fet posted...

pinky0926 posted...

It's the Kremlin, you're never going to get anything approaching irrefutable evidence.

How about ANY evidence? Forget irrefutable evidence for a second, do you have ANY evidence that she works for Putin, apart for how she also lives in the country of Russia?

https://www.ft.com/content/38532856-6584-11e7-8526-7b38dcaef614

To support her case, Ms Veselnitskaya launched a lobbying campaign of her own that appeared to involve Russian officials.

Last year, Dana Rohrabacher, a pro-Russian Republican congressman, told the FT that while he was in Moscow, Konstantin Kosachev, a senior member of Russia’s upper house, asked if he would “at least take a look at something that our prosecutors would like the Americans to know about”, related to the Magnitsky case.

The congressman met senior Russian prosecutors who handed him a dossier that referred to materials filed in the Katsyv money laundering case.

Ms Veselnitskaya touted around a film, The Magnitsky Act, accusing Mr Browder of concocting his story. She organised a premiere in the European Parliament, which was blocked by Mr Browder’s lawyers at the last minute.

There’s no mystery about her background. I’d be surprised that anyone who had done due diligence would have agreed to meet her, considering her sketchy CV

WILLIAM BROWDER, HEDGE FUND MANAGER

According to court documents, Ms Veselnitskaya was repeatedly denied a visa to defend Mr Katsyv before securing “immigration parole”. Ms Veselnitskaya said she was later strip-searched at Heathrow on her way to New York.

The film was eventually shown at the Newseum in Washington last June, four days after she met Donald Trump Jr and Mr Kushner. Angry Russians in the audience shouted “Shame!” and “Lies!” after it finished.

Many of the allegations in the film, seen by the FT, were misleading or inaccurate. Mr Browder told the FT that it was part of a Kremlin “smear campaign” against him.

“She had one clear, unequivocal objective in 2016, which was to repeal the Magnitsky Act,” Mr Browder said.

---

Antifar posted...

Ammonitida posted...

You do realize that collusion in this case refers to the dossier's allegation of possible treason in exchange for emails gained from the DNC hack. Being willing to accept damaging info that is not connected to an illegal hack is hardly collusion in that sense. Not illegal either.

Being willing to accept damaging info from foreigners to sway an election is, in fact, illegal
https://twitter.com/ThePlumLineGS/status/884797581573935105

This is false. That refers to money, not illegal dealing with the Russians.
---

Why do people still argue with Mal? No one benefits from it.
---

Antifar posted...

Ammonitida posted...

You do realize that collusion in this case refers to the dossier's allegation of possible treason in exchange for emails gained from the DNC hack. Being willing to accept damaging info that is not connected to an illegal hack is hardly collusion in that sense. Not illegal either.

Being willing to accept damaging info from foreigners to sway an election is, in fact, illegal
https://twitter.com/ThePlumLineGS/status/884797581573935105

Wait, so this charge is separate from the charge that Trump colluded with the Russian government to hack the DNC?

Well then ok, since the lawyer had nothing on Hillary to give them, this entire topic is moot.
---

NinjaWarrior455 posted...

Why do people still argue with Mal? No one benefits from it.

What alternative do we have?

I mean, people tried punching Spencer and everyone was like "you should be able to debate them if your points are actually valid"

So we try, except folks like Mal_Fet just plug up their ears and scream MAH GUNZ

So I don't know what can be done at this point to change the political climate. We can always just ignore Mal_Fet, but that just makes shit worse.
---

Ammonitida posted...

Antifar posted...

Ammonitida posted...

You do realize that collusion in this case refers to the dossier's allegation of possible treason in exchange for emails gained from the DNC hack. Being willing to accept damaging info that is not connected to an illegal hack is hardly collusion in that sense. Not illegal either.

Being willing to accept damaging info from foreigners to sway an election is, in fact, illegal
https://twitter.com/ThePlumLineGS/status/884797581573935105

This is false. That refers to money, not illegal dealing with the Russians.

No. It refers to things of value. I'm assuming receiving information harming another campaign is something "of value"

Mal_Fet posted...

Antifar posted...

Ammonitida posted...

You do realize that collusion in this case refers to the dossier's allegation of possible treason in exchange for emails gained from the DNC hack. Being willing to accept damaging info that is not connected to an illegal hack is hardly collusion in that sense. Not illegal either.

Being willing to accept damaging info from foreigners to sway an election is, in fact, illegal
https://twitter.com/ThePlumLineGS/status/884797581573935105

Wait, so this charge is separate from the charge that Trump colluded with the Russian government to hack the DNC?

Well then ok, since the lawyer had nothing on Hillary to give them, this entire topic is moot.

It's also moot because it didn't involve money.
---

Asherlee10 posted...

I don't understand... why would he do this?

My guess is maybe he thought if he got it out before the NYT it would lessen the blow.
---