Poll of the Day > Donald Trump Jr. was stupid enough to post proof of himself committing a felony.

(+) Yeah! (+)

Erik_P posted...

Krazy_Kirby posted...

Melon_Master posted...

Erik_P posted...

By that logic, Hillary retaining a private investigator who worked with British, Russian, and other government officials would have been illegal yet not once was that used for the basis of a "LOCK HER UP!" chant.

And, as far as the cry-wolf allegations go, I'm still unimpressed by these speculative claims.

Jr releases proof he was involved in a conspiracy and yet in Zeus' mind that's just speculation he did anything.

Poor guy has reached critical mass desperation levels of spin.

Once Trump is finally impeached, itll be entertaining to see how he'll explain that.

ahahahahahaha.

I saw you try and claim impeachment doesn't kick a person out of the presidency.

It doesn't. Do I need to link you the definition?

Zeus posted...

The problem with the court of public opinion is how frequently it's wrong. People like to bring up OJ, yet they forget all of the times when public perception wasn't just wrong, but that wrong belief continues even long after the fact. Keep in mind that the 9/11 Truthers *still* exist. Some people continue to mention that Obama was born in Kenya (possibly including the current president). Hillary is credited with several murders, including the death of Vince Foster.

Except, in this case, Donald Trump Jr. has plainly admitted to what he's done. This isn't some conspiracy theorists hypothesizing that Obama is some secret Kenyan Muslim Communist Atheist Antichrist here to destroy the US or that Hillary is an undead zombie being piloted by corporate nanobots; the indicting evidence here is Trump's own words.

Zeus posted...

Source? Because the Trump family already *has* lawyers on retainer, in addition to the ones he has access to through his father's administration.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-lawyers-idUSKBN19V2JX
http://www.torontosun.com/2017/07/10/donald-trump-jr-hires-a-lawyer-as-russia-scandal-begins-impacting-first-family
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/us-politics/donald-trump-jr-hires-lawyer-for-russia-probes-downplays-meeting/article35627677/

Zeus posted...

By that logic, Hillary retaining a private investigator who worked with British, Russian, and other government officials would have been illegal yet not once was that used for the basis of a "LOCK HER UP!" chant.

And, as far as the cry-wolf allegations go, I'm still unimpressed by these speculative claims.

Those two situations aren't even remotely similar. First off, Hillary's PI had previously worked with government employees; Trump's lawyer *was* an active government employee. Secondly, Clinton did not hire this PI to undermine Trump Sr.'s campaign using foreign resources; Trump Jr. accepted the meeting with the Russian lawyer on the premise that she had information that could compromise the Clinton campaign.

Hiring a previous employee or contractor of a foreign government is not illegal; abetting a foreign government's attempts to influence a US election is *very* illegal.

And if you want a more authoritative voice on the matter, here's a few:

"This was an effort to get opposition research on an opponent in an American political campaign from the Russians, who were known to be engaged in spying inside the United States (...) We do not get our opposition research from spies, we do not collaborate with Russian spies, unless we want to be accused of treason. (...) If this story is true, we’d have one of them if not both of them [referring to Trump. Jr and Paul Manafort] in custody by now, and we’d be asking them a lot of questions. This is unacceptable. This borders on treason, if it is not itself treason" - Richard Painer, Ethics Lawyer for George W. Bush's campaign. He also mentioned that if a similar invitation had been received by Bush's campaign, he would have not allowed the meeting to occur.

"You may have crossed the line on conspiracy to commit election fraud or conspiracy to obtain information from a foreign adversary. You cannot benefit from a foreign adversary in this kind of scenario." - Jeffrey Jacobovitz (a lawyer who represented officials in the Clinton White House)

"It's a shocking admission of a criminal conspiracy. The conversation will now turn to whether President Trump was personally involved or not. But the question of the campaign's involvement appears settled now. The answer is yes." - Jens David Ohlin, associate dean of Cornell Law School
---

Looks like Mueller's investigation and FBI had no knowledge or only partial knowledge of this meeting per the latest info being talked about right now on CNN.

They will be investigating in full now.

The sad thing is that if this investigation team didn't even know about something Jr was hiding, there could be much worse things that are going unnoticed without the aid of leakers and the media.
---

Erik_P posted...

I saw you try and claim impeachment doesn't kick a person out of the presidency.

Did you forget Bill Clinton being impeached and staying in office or...? Impeachment =/= being removed from office

It;s laughable because the Republican party is not going to throw him under the bus.
---

OhhhJa posted...

Erik_P posted...

Krazy_Kirby posted...

Melon_Master posted...

Erik_P posted...

By that logic, Hillary retaining a private investigator who worked with British, Russian, and other government officials would have been illegal yet not once was that used for the basis of a "LOCK HER UP!" chant.

And, as far as the cry-wolf allegations go, I'm still unimpressed by these speculative claims.

Jr releases proof he was involved in a conspiracy and yet in Zeus' mind that's just speculation he did anything.

Poor guy has reached critical mass desperation levels of spin.

Once Trump is finally impeached, itll be entertaining to see how he'll explain that.

ahahahahahaha.

I saw you try and claim impeachment doesn't kick a person out of the presidency.

It doesn't. Do I need to link you the definition?

@Erik_P getting btfo over multiple topics today
---

Krazy_Kirby posted...

Melon_Master posted...

Erik_P posted...

By that logic, Hillary retaining a private investigator who worked with British, Russian, and other government officials would have been illegal yet not once was that used for the basis of a "LOCK HER UP!" chant.

And, as far as the cry-wolf allegations go, I'm still unimpressed by these speculative claims.

Jr releases proof he was involved in a conspiracy and yet in Zeus' mind that's just speculation he did anything.

Poor guy has reached critical mass desperation levels of spin.

Once Trump is finally impeached, itll be entertaining to see how he'll explain that.

ahahahahahaha.

Glad to see by your edit that you realized I never claimed that lol.
---

Doctor Foxx posted...

Erik_P posted...

I saw you try and claim impeachment doesn't kick a person out of the presidency.

Did you forget Bill Clinton being impeached and staying in office or...? Impeachment =/= being removed from office

It;s laughable because the Republican party is not going to throw him under the bus.

Yea my bad.
---

Yeah, I'm not sure if this is something impeachable. I doubt the Republican Congress would even if it were. Either way, Don Jr. is screwed.

faramir77 posted...

plagamesforeva posted...

I am still in shock that less than half of Americans thought it was smart to vote for Trump. I'm still waiting for an intelligent reason(s) as to why that was such a great idea.

There wasn't an intelligent reason to vote for either of your candidates.

Even the Democrats and Republicans were dancing to the Patriots' tune!
---

Why in the world would he post this himself? What was he thinking?

SkynyrdRocker posted...

Why in the world would he post this himself? What was he thinking?

Far-Queue posted...

The New York Times had the emails and was going to publish them today. My guess is Jr posted them to give the illusion of transparency and cooperation, and try to spin it like it was no big deal.

Those emails would've been out there today regardless.

Today we learned that there was also a former Russian military intelligence officer and current Russian lobbyist at the meeting. But Donny Jr. didn't mention that. Certainly he just forgot right?

Still nothing technically illegal guyz jeez just lay off it

Now even Fox News contributor Charles Krauthammer, long-time Trump supporter, is saying: Yes, it's collusion.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/bungled-collusion-is-still-collusion/2017/07/13/68c7f72a-67f3-11e7-8eb5-cbccc2e7bfbf_story.html
---

Yeah this one actually is peeling even staunch conservatives away. Maybe something will finally change. Maybe. I won't hold my breath. Had there been an opposition Congress, we'd have seen impeachment already.

SushiSquid posted...

Yeah this one actually is peeling even staunch conservatives away.

Is it, though? I'm not seeing it. I haven't seen any notable dips in his approval ratings. And I suspect at this point that those still onboard with Trump probably don't care whether he or his campaign colluded with the Russians or not. You could give definitive proof tomorrow that Russia overtly colluded with Trump himself and I'm still not convinced it would seriously harm his standing amongst his base.

He didn't get elected because he was a politician that played by the rules; he got elected to throw a hand-grenade in Washington - those with that sort of mindset probably don't even mind that he broke the law to do it.

SushiSquid posted...

Had there been an opposition Congress, we'd have seen impeachment already.

Maybe. I think that would be premature, though. Look what happened with Clinton in the 90s - Gingrich and the Republicans were so trigger-happy in trying to accuse Bill of various misdealings and begin impeachment that even when something actually DID happen it didn't cost the president any public support because it was generally seen to be a Republican witch hunt.

In that sense, the Republican congress that is unwilling to impeach could be a blessing in disguise for Democrats, because they don't have to spend any political capital on making the president look like a victim of Washington bureaucracy and the "deep state" (and you can bet your ass that's what he would paint it as).
---

Hilarious how Zeus has gone from insisting that there is nothing to the Russia connection to Trump campaign to "well they didn't actually get the deal they were trying to get, so it can't be illegal"

I guess if you try to rob a bank but they don't have any cash you can't get in trouble for it
---

darkknight109 posted...

Maybe. I think that would be premature, though. Look what happened with Clinton in the 90s - Gingrich and the Republicans were so trigger-happy in trying to accuse Bill of various misdealings and begin impeachment that even when something actually DID happen it didn't cost the president any public support because it was generally seen to be a Republican witch hunt.

In that sense, the Republican congress that is unwilling to impeach could be a blessing in disguise for Democrats, because they don't have to spend any political capital on making the president look like a victim of Washington bureaucracy and the "deep state" (and you can bet your ass that's what he would paint it as).

This. I don't want an impeachment rushed...that just means we get "President Y'allQaeda" and we're even worse off, PLUS it might look purely political and enrage Trump voters.
Better to have a thorough examination with each new piece of evidence leaving Trump a lame duck while still in office but waiting until you have the full picture to remove him. And part of that full picture being to ensnare every other person involved, hopefully eliminating Pence if not also Ryan (latter's a long shot, former vetted Michael Flynn and seems likely). Also buys time to not impeach until after the 2018 elections where the building anger over Trump's betraying our country gets Dems the House and thus when Trump and Pence are impeached, Republicans aren't rewarded for being traitors by putting an even more conservative person in office.

Right now Dems need to put minimal attention towards the investigation, let it play out on its own. They need to focus on winning big in 2018 and 2020. At every level of government.

streamofthesky posted...

Right now Dems need to put minimal attention towards the investigation, let it play out on its own. They need to focus on winning big in 2018 and 2020. At every level of government.

I can understand thinking that way if you value the Democratic party. I only value them because the Republican party has gone insane and they're the only alternative. So I understand that what you say makes good political sense. I just don't think it helps my country to let our idiot President stay in power for longer. Make no mistake, Pence would be a worse President, though. So perhaps biding time and gathering votes is also the best thing for the country.

You people just need to stop. My word, Americans are stupid. Sometimes (a lot in the last five-to-ten years) I'm extremely ashamed to be one of them.
---

Being open about committing crimes doesnt mean anything anymore since Hillary got away with.. how many?
---

Far-Queue posted...

The New York Times had the emails and was going to publish them today. My guess is Jr posted them to give the illusion of transparency and cooperation, and try to spin it like it was no big deal.

Those emails would've been out there today regardless.

That was my first take on that too.
---

With Obama, there were people whining about the birth certificate, but they were pretty fringe. It's absurd how many "mainstream" people just can't stop with the Trump stuff.

1. Protesting doesn't accomplish fuck all.
2.
---

SushiSquid posted...

streamofthesky posted...

Right now Dems need to put minimal attention towards the investigation, let it play out on its own. They need to focus on winning big in 2018 and 2020. At every level of government.

I can understand thinking that way if you value the Democratic party. I only value them because the Republican party has gone insane and they're the only alternative. So I understand that what you say makes good political sense. I just don't think it helps my country to let our idiot President stay in power for longer. Make no mistake, Pence would be a worse President, though. So perhaps biding time and gathering votes is also the best thing for the country.

I agree the Democrats suck, but until we get rid of First Past The Post voting (ie, never), we're stuck w/ a 2 party system and thus Dems are the only option other than Republicans.
And yes, Pence would be a much worse president, so ironically the more politically sound strategy (drag it out and uncover as much dirt as possible to bring down as many people as you can, while keeping the scandal alive in people's minds for the far-off elections) in this case also *looks* less political AND is better for the country. Crazy, but that's how it is.

EDIT: If Republicans were smart, they'd try to impeach Trump before 2019, ideally before the 2018 elections. Both to avoid an impeachment possibly landing a Dem Speaker of the House in the White House and to avoid getting tagged in campaign ads as being "partisan, party-first, and completely unwilling to impeach a traitor just because he's in their party." Here's hoping they remain the party of stupid, as Republican Jindal so put it.

JixHedgehog posted...

Being open about committing crimes doesnt mean anything anymore since Hillary got away with.. how many?

At last count, zero. Stay tuned for more updates.

TheCyborgNinja posted...

With Obama, there were people whining about the birth certificate, but they were pretty fringe. It's absurd how many "mainstream" people just can't stop with the Trump stuff.

Which actually says a lot more about Trump than the people criticizing him, given that they represent a pretty wide cross-section of society.
---

TheCyborgNinja posted...

With Obama, there were people whining about the birth certificate, but they were pretty fringe. It's absurd how many "mainstream" people just can't stop with the Trump stuff.

1. Protesting doesn't accomplish fuck all.
2.

one of the major people whining about his birth certificate is now the president though
---

TheCyborgNinja posted...

With Obama, there were people whining about the birth certificate, but they were pretty fringe. It's absurd how many "mainstream" people just can't stop with the Trump stuff.

1. Protesting doesn't accomplish fuck all.
2.

Every single time someone says this it just reveals they didn't pay attention in history class.
---

Mead posted...

Hilarious how Zeus has gone from insisting that there is nothing to the Russia connection to Trump campaign to "well they didn't actually get the deal they were trying to get, so it can't be illegal"

I guess if you try to rob a bank but they don't have any cash you can't get in trouble for it

He's hoping if he backs up really slow, no one will put together the fact he was wrong lol.
---

Im not reading the topic, but say the money or information wasnt going towards the campaign and just happened to occur at the same time?

Like, say he was secretly writing a book about government corruption and needed the info to write an accurate novel? And what if Russia was funding it because Donald Trump is anti-book or something so he won't help pay.

Would it be illegal then? Just hypothetical.

gravy posted...

Im not reading the topic, but say the money or information wasnt going towards the campaign and just happened to occur at the same time?

Like, say he was secretly writing a book about government corruption and needed the info to write an accurate novel? And what if Russia was funding it because Donald Trump is anti-book or something so he won't help pay.

Would it be illegal then? Just hypothetical.

Is this what Fox News is spinning now?
---

And yet more news today! There was another Russian who also attended this same meeting. He has a rather colorful past, including money laundering.

No, I judt made it up. Did you read the part where I said hypothetical?

Wait, how do we know Trump Jr. took Russia up on the offer for campaign support? If we don't know whether or not he did take this offer, it's stupid to assume guilty.
---

gravy posted...

No, I judt made it up. Did you read the part where I said hypothetical?

You can take your hypothetical from Fox or some other shitty right wing news source. Because what you proposed is so completely idiotic it could only come from someone at Fox or Breitbart and if you dreamed that shit up on your own you should be ashamed.

Zero_Maniac posted...

Wait, how do we know Trump Jr. took Russia up on the offer for campaign support? If we don't know whether or not he did take this offer, it's stupid to assume guilty.

There are emails dude. He was at the meeting. If you paid attention to the news you wouldn't be asking such stupid questions.
---

Erik_P posted...

There are emails dude. He was at the meeting. If you paid attention to the news you wouldn't be asking such stupid questions.

This is not a valid answer. There are e-mails, yes...but do they say anything about him taking up the Russian offer for campaign support? Does finding dirt on Hillary really count as campaign support? I would think that would be limited strictly to money and other things that actually promote Trump.
---

gravy posted...

Im not reading the topic, but say the money or information wasnt going towards the campaign and just happened to occur at the same time?

Like, say he was secretly writing a book about government corruption and needed the info to write an accurate novel? And what if Russia was funding it because Donald Trump is anti-book or something so he won't help pay.

My understanding is if it was money it would be legal *so long as* it was going towards an account that was not in any way involved with election activities. Most candidates would likely err on the side of caution, however, and not accept the cash, simply because of the poor optics it creates.

Information, though? That's illegal, regardless of what the original intent was, since there's no way to "sequester" information in the same way that money can be.

Zero_Maniac posted...

There are e-mails, yes...but do they say anything about him taking up the Russian offer for campaign support?

Yes, they do. The entire meeting was set up on the premise of "This lawyer, who works for the Russian government, has information that would be damaging to the Clinton campaign," to which Donald Trump Jr. replied "I love it, especially if it's later in the summer."

Zero_Maniac posted...

Does finding dirt on Hillary really count as campaign support?

Legally untested, but it likely does - the law's exact language is that it is illegal to accept from a foreign national or foreign government "a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value" to any electoral campaign. Campaign research would likely classify as "a thing of value".
---

It certainly does seem like Trump Jr. has committed a felony, then. However, I'm inclined to think that what is being said here isn't the whole picture. There's probably other details conveniently left out by the OP and other posters who seem to be adamantly against Trump.
---

Zero_Maniac posted...

It certainly does seem like Trump Jr. has committed a felony, then. However, I'm inclined to think that what is being said here isn't the whole picture. There's probably other details conveniently left out by the OP and other posters who seem to be adamantly against Trump.

I think it's obvious at this point that even if we link news sources for you to read you're just gonna ignore them and accuse the sources of being anti Trump.
---

Erik_P posted...

Zero_Maniac posted...

It certainly does seem like Trump Jr. has committed a felony, then. However, I'm inclined to think that what is being said here isn't the whole picture. There's probably other details conveniently left out by the OP and other posters who seem to be adamantly against Trump.

I think it's obvious at this point that even if we link news sources for you to read you're just gonna ignore them and accuse the sources of being anti Trump.

No, I'm willing to listen to reason. If your news sources come from partisan sites like Huffington Post, The Guardian, etc. I will indeed disregard them, though.
---

You'll notice I linked to NPR and BBC for specifically that reason.

Zero_Maniac posted...

There's probably other details conveniently left out by the OP and other posters who seem to be adamantly against Trump.

I mean, if you want the opposition argument, they're currently somewhere between:

"It didn't happen"- https://pixel.nymag.com/imgs/daily/selectall/2017/07/13/13-kellyanne-conway-conclusion-delusion.jpg
"It happened but it's okay"- https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/886950594220568576 (which also answers your question about why we've all kind of already decided that Don Jr went)
"It happened, it's not okay, but it's not our fault" - https://thinkprogress.org/trump-blames-obama-loretta-lynch-campaign-collusion-russia-9a0f888a0e6e

Bonus whatever the fuck defense this is - http://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-fox-news-russia-scandal-emails-hell-deal-devil-opposition-637696
---

SushiSquid posted...

You'll notice I linked to NPR and BBC for specifically that reason.

http://www.mrc.org/bozells-column/npr-admits-liberal-bias

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_BBC
---

Zero_Maniac posted...

Erik_P posted...

Zero_Maniac posted...

It certainly does seem like Trump Jr. has committed a felony, then. However, I'm inclined to think that what is being said here isn't the whole picture. There's probably other details conveniently left out by the OP and other posters who seem to be adamantly against Trump.

I think it's obvious at this point that even if we link news sources for you to read you're just gonna ignore them and accuse the sources of being anti Trump.

No, I'm willing to listen to reason. If your news sources come from partisan sites like Huffington Post, The Guardian, etc. I will indeed disregard them, though.

So ya made up your mind but your playin like your open if peeps do all the detective work?
---

Zero_Maniac posted...

SushiSquid posted...

You'll notice I linked to NPR and BBC for specifically that reason.

http://www.mrc.org/bozells-column/npr-admits-liberal-bias

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_BBC

I really hope you're just trolling, but on the chance you aren't, that first link is garbage. It's a far-right group and the title, as you'll notice if you read the article, is dishonest. Of course the center looks like the left when you're far right.
The second is a link to a Wikipedia page simply listing criticism - all of it, valid or not - of the BBC. Neither of these is a credible source or even an argument.

FrndNhbrHdCEman posted...

Zero_Maniac posted...

Erik_P posted...

Zero_Maniac posted...

It certainly does seem like Trump Jr. has committed a felony, then. However, I'm inclined to think that what is being said here isn't the whole picture. There's probably other details conveniently left out by the OP and other posters who seem to be adamantly against Trump.

I think it's obvious at this point that even if we link news sources for you to read you're just gonna ignore them and accuse the sources of being anti Trump.

No, I'm willing to listen to reason. If your news sources come from partisan sites like Huffington Post, The Guardian, etc. I will indeed disregard them, though.

So ya made up your mind but your playin like your open if peeps do all the detective work?

I've made up my mind to scrutinize sources people claim to be "reliable", and not to condemn a person so quickly when I probably don't know all the details. I'll do detective work on my own time when I want to (probably within a few days, if you're wondering), so no I do not expect other people to do all the detective work.
---

Zero_Maniac posted...

FrndNhbrHdCEman posted...

Zero_Maniac posted...

Erik_P posted...

Zero_Maniac posted...

It certainly does seem like Trump Jr. has committed a felony, then. However, I'm inclined to think that what is being said here isn't the whole picture. There's probably other details conveniently left out by the OP and other posters who seem to be adamantly against Trump.

I think it's obvious at this point that even if we link news sources for you to read you're just gonna ignore them and accuse the sources of being anti Trump.

No, I'm willing to listen to reason. If your news sources come from partisan sites like Huffington Post, The Guardian, etc. I will indeed disregard them, though.

So ya made up your mind but your playin like your open if peeps do all the detective work?

I've made up my mind to scrutinize sources people claim to be "reliable", and not to condemn a person so quickly when I probably don't know all the details. I'll do detective work on my own time when I want to (probably within a few days, if you're wondering), so no I do not expect other people to do all the detective work.

All the relevant details are out there. If you choose to ignore it with idiotic claims that's your own fault.
---

Presidents Trump and Putin had a private meeting after a dinner at the G20 summit. Only the two men and a translator (apparently Putin's) were present. Other G20 leaders were reportedly disturbed by the private meeting taking place. The meeting is reported to have lasted about an hour. The White House acknowledges the meeting, but says it was very brief.

We can assume this administration is lying based on the fact that they nearly always do when caught with their pants down. An hour is not brief.

SushiSquid posted...

We can assume

omg
---

NPR is biased.
---

Veedrock- posted...

SushiSquid posted...

We can assume

omg

Do you honestly not think it's safe to assume that this President is lying about the meeting being brief, and that the reports of it being an hour are accurate? This is the most dishonest politician we've ever had in this country. Stop pretending we need to give him the benefit if the doubt at this point.