Current Events > President Trump is now directly implicated in trying to cover up the Russia

(+) Yeah! (+)

Didn't he also tweet something the day after that meeting about having "dirt" on her?

Darmik posted...

Let's go through the defense of this step by step
1. There was no Russian meeting. Fake news.
2. There was a meeting with a Russian but it wasn't important. Fake news.
3. There was a meeting with a Russian and Donald Trump Jr was there but it was about adoption not about anything shady. Fake news.
4. There was a meeting with a Russian and Donald Trump Jr was there and he admitted it wasn't about adoption but it wasn't illegal. It also has nothing to do with Donald Trump. Fake news.
5. There was a meeting with a Russian and Donald Trump Jr was there and he admitted it wasn't about adoption but it wasn't illegal and Donald Trump may have told him to lie about it but it wasn't illegal. Fake news.

I guess we're just gonna settle down on the "it's not illegal" until someone attempts to charge him with something.

This is a great post.
---

NadYobWoc posted...

Sephiroth1288 posted...

Darmik posted...

it wasn't illegal

^ This is literally the only part that matters.

You traitors have incredibly low standards.

Yeah, the standard that people should only be prosecuted for treason if they had actually committed treason.

This is gonna be a rough 8 years for you guys if you keep catastrophizing every little thing like this.
---

Sephiroth1288 posted...

NadYobWoc posted...

Sephiroth1288 posted...

Darmik posted...

it wasn't illegal

^ This is literally the only part that matters.

You traitors have incredibly low standards.

Yeah, the standard that people should only be prosecuted for treason if they had actually committed treason.

This is gonna be a rough 8 years for you guys if you keep catastrophizing every little thing like this.

It's definitely not treason by legal standards, treason isn't the only crime a president can commit.
---

muchdran posted...

NadYobWoc posted...

muchdran posted...

This is why Trump will get another four years.

Meaningless words from a meaningless person.

That's the best you have?

Its the best you deserve.
---

iPhone_7 posted...

On July 27, Donald Trump created one of the most surreal moments of the presidential campaign, when he encouraged Russians to hack his opponent's email.

"Russia, if you're listening, I hope you'll be able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing," Trump said, speaking about Hillary Clinton's deleted emails from her private email account from her time as secretary of state. "I think you'll probably be rewarded mightily by our press."

Lol so what? Those emails were just about innocent stuff like Podesta's rigatoni recipe and invitations to Chelsea's wedding!
---

NadYobWoc posted...

It's definitely not treason by legal standards, treason isn't the only crime a president can commit.

Ok so what crime does any of this prove Trump is guilty of
---

muchdran posted...

The Deadpool posted...

My favorite part of the story is when Trump, publically, asks Russian hackers to hack Hillary's emails the day after Donald Trump Jr has a meeting with a Russian about dirt on Hillary.

But hey. No need to investigate further. Everything sounds normal here...

What was the quote?

"Russia. If you're listening. I hope you can find the 30,000 emails that are missing."
---

If Hillary couldn't get indicted on mishandling classified emails and clearing evidence, then Trump can't be indicted for whatever it is that liberals think is illegal.
---

Hey Mal is your sephirot account a pseudo libertarian too or do you drop all pretenses with it?
---

muchdran posted...

Kim Kusanagi posted...

Sephiroth1288 posted...

Doom_Art posted...

Sephiroth1288 posted...

Find us some smoke first, not meaningless crap like this.

This is lookin pretty smoky already.

The fact that you think it's meaningless does not make it so.

Telling your kid how to handle the press is not smoke.

Holy shit, if you people cared this much about possible coverups then Hillary would be in jail 10 years ago

But but bUT but but HILLARY!!!!!!!!

Would be in jail

But but bUT but but HILLARY! !!!!!!!!
---

The Deadpool posted...

My favorite part of the story is when Trump, publically, asks Russian hackers to hack Hillary's emails the day after Donald Trump Jr has a meeting with a Russian about dirt on Hillary.

But hey. No need to investigate further. Everything sounds normal here...

Don't forget he said this 2 days before the meeting.

"I am going to give a major speech on, probably Monday of next week, and we are going to be discussing all of the things that have taken place with the Clintons," Trump said. "I think you are going to find it very informative and very, very interesting."

---

Sephiroth1288 posted...

NadYobWoc posted...

It's definitely not treason by legal standards, treason isn't the only crime a president can commit.

Ok so what crime does any of this prove Trump is guilty of

We already went over the difference between proof and evidence, reread those posts if you're still confused.

This is, however, proof that Trump attempted to cover up a meeting between campaign officials and a representative of the Kremlin regarding the Kremlin's desire to assist the Presidents campaign, i.e. collusion. Whether or not that's a crime, I'm not in a position to say. That will be decided by the multiple investigations into the matter that are being carried out at this very moment. Honestly though, I don't think the is the worst of Trump's concerns right now. He seems to be far more terrified at the idea of his finances being investigated, for some weird reason.
---

NadYobWoc posted...

This is, however, proof that Trump attempted to cover up a meeting between campaign officials and a representative of the Kremlin regarding the Kremlin's desire to assist the Presidents campaign, i.e. collusion.

Collusion to what?

Because it certainly doesn't seem to have been an attempt to rig the election.
---

Sephiroth1288 posted...

NadYobWoc posted...

This is, however, proof that Trump attempted to cover up a meeting between campaign officials and a representative of the Kremlin regarding the Kremlin's desire to assist the Presidents campaign, i.e. collusion.

Collusion to what?

Because it certainly doesn't seem to have been an attempt to rig the election.

Ok? When did I claim they tried to "rig the election"? What does that even mean? They were colluding so as to exchange information which would benefit Trump's campaign. Their desire to hide this and other meetings is highly suggestive of an orchestrated cover up, and you don't cover up benign things.
---

Sephiroth1288 posted...

NadYobWoc posted...

This is, however, proof that Trump attempted to cover up a meeting between campaign officials and a representative of the Kremlin regarding the Kremlin's desire to assist the Presidents campaign, i.e. collusion.

Collusion to what?

Because it certainly doesn't seem to have been an attempt to rig the election.

Who knows? Maybe we can investigate the cover up and find out what it is.
---

UnholyMudcrab posted...

butthole666 posted...

Swagnificent119 posted...

Washington post

*leaves topic

Isn't WaPo usually rightwing propaganda tho

That's the Washington Examiner you're thinking of. It's a conservative publication, but I wouldn't really call it propaganda.

Or Washington Times.
---

WaPo has gone down the crapper since Bezos took over :(
---

hockeybub89 posted...

Sephiroth1288 posted...

NadYobWoc posted...

This is, however, proof that Trump attempted to cover up a meeting between campaign officials and a representative of the Kremlin regarding the Kremlin's desire to assist the Presidents campaign, i.e. collusion.

Collusion to what?

Because it certainly doesn't seem to have been an attempt to rig the election.

Who knows? Maybe we can investigate the cover up and find out what it is.

According to the email, the meeting was supposed to be about info about Hillary Clinton

Which isn't illegal
---

Sephiroth1288 posted...

hockeybub89 posted...

Sephiroth1288 posted...

NadYobWoc posted...

This is, however, proof that Trump attempted to cover up a meeting between campaign officials and a representative of the Kremlin regarding the Kremlin's desire to assist the Presidents campaign, i.e. collusion.

Collusion to what?

Because it certainly doesn't seem to have been an attempt to rig the election.

Who knows? Maybe we can investigate the cover up and find out what it is.

According to the email, the meeting was supposed to be about info about Hillary Clinton

Which isn't illegal

Maybe, maybe not. As I said, the multiple investigations into this will bring the truth to light, either way. The bigger point is that it's another example of Trump and his people attempting to lie and mislead. It is absolutely undeniable at this point that Trump's organization has lied about Russia countless times. Trump specifically said his campaign never talked to Russians, something we now know to be completely untrue. I'll say it again, you don't cover up benign things.
---

Sephiroth1288 posted...

According to the email, the meeting was supposed to be about info about Hillary Clinton

Which isn't illegal

http://electionlawblog.org/?p=93752

Question 4. May your authorized committee accept election materials used in previous Canadian campaigns that are provided without charge by Canadian third party candidates?

No, your authorized committee may not accept election materials used in previous Canadian campaigns that are provided without charge by Canadian third party candidates. Your authorized committee may, however, expend campaign funds to purchase the materials. You may also use personal funds to purchase such materials.

As noted above, the Act and Commission regulations prohibit foreign nationals, directly or indirectly, from making a “contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal State, or local election.” 2 U.S.C. 441e(a)(1)(A); see also

11 CFR 110.20(b). “Anything of value” includes all in-kind contributions, including the provision of goods or services without charge or at a charge that is less than the usual and normal charge. See 11 CFR 100.52(d)(1). “Usual and normal charge” is defined as the price of goods in the market from which they ordinarily would have been purchased at the time of the contribution, or the commercially reasonable rate prevailing at the time the services were rendered. See 11 CFR 100.52(d)(2).

Here, you propose accepting without charge, from Canadian third party and independent candidates, certain printed materials used in previous Canadian campaigns. The materials would include flyers, advertisements, door hangers, tri-folds, signs, and other printed material. You plan to use these items to assist you in your own campaign. Although the value of these materials may be nominal or difficult to ascertain, they have some value. The provision of these items without charge would relieve your campaign of the expense that it would otherwise incur to obtain such materials. Thus, the provision of such items without charge would constitute a contribution and, as such, would be prohibited, particularly in light of the broad scope of the prohibition on contributions from foreign nationals. See, e.g., 120 Cong. Rec. 8782 (Mar. 28, 1974) (statement of Sen. Bentsen, author of the amendment prohibiting foreign national contributions) (“I am saying that contributions by foreign nationals are wrong, and they have no place in the American political system.”); see also Explanation and Justification for Regulations on Contribution Limitations and Prohibitions, 67 Fed. Reg. 69940 (Nov. 19, 2002) (“As indicated by the title of section 303 of BCRA, “Strengthening Foreign Money Ban,” Congress amended 2 U.S.C. 441e to further delineate and expand the ban on contributions, donations, and other things of value by foreign nationals.”).

The situation presented here is similar to that considered by the Commission in Advisory Opinion 1981-51 (Metzenbaum). In that opinion, the Commission concluded that the provision of an original work of art by a foreign national artist to a political committee for use by the committee in fundraising was a contribution and, hence, prohibited by 2 U.S.C. 441e. Similarly here, you plan to use the printed materials from previous Canadian campaigns to assist you in your own campaign. As such, their provision without charge by foreign nationals would constitute a prohibited in-kind contribution to your campaign. Nor may you solicit, accept, or receive such goods from foreign nationals. See 2 U.S.C. 441e(a)(2); 11 CFR 110.20(g) and (h).

No idea how legit this is but I'd be surprised if this kinda stuff wasn't prohibited.
---

NadYobWoc posted...

Maybe, maybe not. As I said, the multiple investigations into this will bring the truth to light, either way. The bigger point is that it's another example of Trump and his people attempting to lie and mislead. It is absolutely undeniable at this point that Trump's organization has lied about Russia countless times. Trump specifically said his campaign never talked to Russians,

Did he say his campaign never talked with Russian officials, or did he say that he himself never talked with Russian officials?

The latter.
---

Sephiroth1288 posted...

hockeybub89 posted...

Sephiroth1288 posted...

NadYobWoc posted...

This is, however, proof that Trump attempted to cover up a meeting between campaign officials and a representative of the Kremlin regarding the Kremlin's desire to assist the Presidents campaign, i.e. collusion.

Collusion to what?

Because it certainly doesn't seem to have been an attempt to rig the election.

Who knows? Maybe we can investigate the cover up and find out what it is.

According to the email, the meeting was supposed to be about info about Hillary Clinton

Which isn't illegal

Who lies about legal, honest things? This doesn't make whatever the meeting was about sound Kosher.

Maybe if I was a sane non-Trump supporter like you, it would be obvious to me to ignore Presidential coverups.
---

Darmik posted...

http://electionlawblog.org/?p=93752

Since there was no actual information of value procured and therefore, the important part, no information of value from Russia that was used in the campaign, how the hell can you still act like this is anything more than a nothing burger?
---

Sephiroth1288 posted...

NadYobWoc posted...

Maybe, maybe not. As I said, the multiple investigations into this will bring the truth to light, either way. The bigger point is that it's another example of Trump and his people attempting to lie and mislead. It is absolutely undeniable at this point that Trump's organization has lied about Russia countless times. Trump specifically said his campaign never talked to Russians,

Did he say his campaign never talked with Russian officials, or did he say that he himself never talked with Russian officials?

The latter.

Yes, yes he did.

Asked at the news conference about reports that members of the Trump staff were in contact with Russia during the campaign, Trump said, "Nobody that I know of." The source has told Carrie that authorities continue to investigate those alleged connections.

http://www.npr.org/2017/02/16/515624391/nobody-that-i-know-of-trump-denies-campaign-contacts-with-russia

So, Trump is either lying, or he has such little control over his people that he didn't know his campaign manager, son-in-law/chief advisor, and his son were talking with Russian agents in his office building. Malevolence or complete incompetence. Which is it?
---

Sephiroth1288 posted...

Darmik posted...

http://electionlawblog.org/?p=93752

Since there was no actual information of value procured and therefore, the important part, no information of value from Russia that was used in the campaign, how the hell can you still act like this is anything more than a nothing burger?

Trump Jr could have set up a meeting with the KGB to organize an assassination on his father's behalf and you would call "no harm no foul" if he wound up just meeting a lying reporter.

Now please tell the class why Trump would lie about a "nothing burger"?
---

Sephiroth1288 posted...

Darmik posted...

http://electionlawblog.org/?p=93752

Since there was no actual information of value procured and therefore, the important part, no information of value from Russia that was used in the campaign, how the hell can you still act like this is anything more than a nothing burger?

Why would they admit that they got good info from the meeting if it was prohibited?

If it's a nothing burger why do they keep getting caught lying about it?
---

Sephiroth1288 posted...

Darmik posted...

http://electionlawblog.org/?p=93752

Since there was no actual information of value procured and therefore, the important part, no information of value from Russia that was used in the campaign, how the hell can you still act like this is anything more than a nothing burger?

Yeah man, if you rob a bank and the vault is empty, there's no "there" there, right? Totally makes sense.

Beyond that, the fact that you think the people claiming nothing was exchanged have any credibility left is laughable. Trump is going down, and he's going to bring you traitors down with him.
---

Darmik posted...

Why would they admit that they got good info from the meeting if it was prohibited?

Lol if you just assume everyone is lying about everything then of course you can accuse them of committing crimes all day long.

I bet you'll next buy into the Hillary Clinton conspiracy that she's really a lizard person in disguise.

NadYobWoc posted...

Yeah man, if you rob a bank and the vault is empty, there's no "there" there, right? Totally makes sense.

Well no, because breaking and entering is itself a crime and you haven't been able to even identify the crime you think Trump is guilty of.
---

Sephiroth1288 posted...

Lol if you just assume everyone is lying about everything then of course you can accuse them of committing crimes all day long.

Then why is Trump lying?
---

Sephiroth1288 posted...

Lol if you just assume everyone is lying about everything then of course you can accuse them of committing crimes all day long.

They've already been caught lying about it. Several times.
---

Sephiroth1288 posted...

Well no, because breaking and entering is itself a crime and you haven't been able to even identify the crime you think Trump is guilty of.

Is taking bribes legal if you fail at taking them? What if you try to hire a hitman or a hooker?
---

hockeybub89 posted...

Sephiroth1288 posted...

Lol if you just assume everyone is lying about everything then of course you can accuse them of committing crimes all day long.

Then why is Trump lying?

Was the meeting not supposed to be about Hillary Clinton?

And did they get information from the lawyer which they used in the campaign?

Just answer those questions, please.
---

Sephiroth1288 posted...

hockeybub89 posted...

Sephiroth1288 posted...

Lol if you just assume everyone is lying about everything then of course you can accuse them of committing crimes all day long.

Then why is Trump lying?

Was the meeting not supposed to be about Hillary Clinton?

And did they get information from the lawyer which they used in the campaign?

Just answer those questions, please.

It was and it turned out Junior got lied to by someone.

Now why are people lying about this legal nothing burger? Answer that question, please.
---

hockeybub89 posted...

Is taking bribes legal if you fail at taking them? What if you try to hire a hitman or a hooker?

According to Darmik's own source, whether information counts as a thing of value depends entirely on the information itself.

So how do you figure they intended to break the law when it's impossible to know whether the information that she allegedly had was a thing of value?
---

Sephiroth1288 posted...

So how do you figure they intended to break the law when it's impossible to know whether the information that she allegedly had was a thing of value

Trump said he was going to have a press conference the following week that would dish dirt on Clinton. Is that a coincidence?
---

Darmik posted...

Trump said he was going to have a press conference the following week that would dish dirt on Clinton. Is that a coincidence?

Yeah, it would have been so unlike Trump to have a press conference about the person he was campaigning against in the election he was a candidate in.

Obviously the only conclusion is that he told Putin to hack the voting booths.
---

Sephiroth1288 posted...

Yeah, it would have been so unlike Trump to have a press conference about the person he was campaigning against in the election he was a candidate in.

Just like it would be so unlike Trump's campaign to meet with Russian nationals to get dirt on a political opponent?

Sephiroth1288 posted...

Obviously the only conclusion is that he told Putin to hack the voting booths.

Isn't this strawman argument getting a bit old?
---

Darmik posted...

Sephiroth1288 posted...

Yeah, it would have been so unlike Trump to have a press conference about the person he was campaigning against in the election he was a candidate in.

Just like it would be so unlike Trump's campaign to meet with Russian nationals to get dirt on a political opponent?

Sephiroth1288 posted...

Obviously the only conclusion is that he told Putin to hack the voting booths.

Isn't this strawman argument getting a bit old?

Do you even remember what the Russia conspiracy is about anymore?

It's supposed to be that Trump's campaign had colluded with the Russian government to interfere with the electoral process. That's an actual impeachable offense. Talking with a Russian official, obviously, is not an impeachable offense. Nor is getting information about your opponent. Using information gotten from a foreign government that could be deemed a thing of value in his campaign might be an impeachable offense, but you aren't even able to prove that.

As I've said before, this is gonna be a loooong 8 years if you continue catastrophizing every small thing.
---

Why do people keep lying about this nothing burger, Mal? Why?
---

hockeybub89 posted...

Why do people keep lying about this nothing burger, Mal? Why?

Are you referring to the mainstream media with this post? It's kinda hard to tell
---

Sephiroth1288 posted...

Do you even remember what the Russia conspiracy is about anymore?

It's supposed to be that Trump's campaign had colluded with the Russian government to interfere with the electoral process. That's an actual impeachable offense. Talking with a Russian official, obviously, is not an impeachable offense. Nor is getting information about your opponent. Using information gotten from a foreign government that could be deemed a thing of value in his campaign might be an impeachable offense, but you aren't even able to prove that.

As I've said before, this is gonna be a loooong 8 years if you continue catastrophizing every small thing.

Is that the sole thing Mueller is investigating?
---

Darmik posted...

Is that the sole thing Mueller is investigating?

Election fraud? Yeah, that's the only actual crime he's accused of committing. Unless you're aware of another one that I'm not
---

Don't forget about the RICO stuff
---

Mal turbo shitposting in two topics at once.
---

Sephiroth1288 posted...

Darmik posted...

Is that the sole thing Mueller is investigating?

Election fraud? Yeah, that's the only actual crime he's accused of committing. Unless you're aware of another one that I'm not

I thought the investigation was about Russia interfering in the election in general. Not just voter fraud.
---

Darmik posted...

I thought the investigation was about Russia interfering in the election in general. Not just voter fraud.

The investigation is that Trump was complicit in the fraud.
---

Sephiroth1288 posted...

Darmik posted...

I thought the investigation was about Russia interfering in the election in general. Not just voter fraud.

The investigation is that Trump was complicit in the fraud.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_elections

The United States Intelligence Community has concluded with high confidence that the Russian government interfered in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. A January 2017 assessment by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) stated that Russian leadership preferred presidential candidate Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton, and that Russian President Vladimir Putin personally ordered an "influence campaign" to harm Clinton's electoral chances and "undermine public faith in the US democratic process."

On October 7, 2016, the ODNI and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) jointly stated that Russian intelligence services had hacked the servers of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and the personal Google email account of Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta and forwarded their contents to WikiLeaks. Several cybersecurity firms stated that the cyberattacks were committed by hacker groups Fancy Bear and Cozy Bear associated with Russian intelligence. The January 2017 report added that Russian government also meddled in the elections by disseminating fake news promoted on social media.12 Russian officials have repeatedly denied involvement in any DNC hacks or leaks.

On October 31, U.S. President Barack Obama directly warned Putin to stop interfering or face "serious consequences". In December, he ordered a report on hacking efforts aimed at U.S. elections since 2008, while U.S. Senators called for a bipartisan investigation. President-elect Donald Trump initially rejected claims of foreign interference and said that Democrats were reacting to their election loss. On December 29, 2016, the U.S. expelled 35 Russian diplomats, denied access to two Russia-owned compounds, and broadened existing sanctions on Russian entities and individuals.

Several investigations about Russian influence on the election have been underway: a counter-intelligence investigation by the FBI, hearings by the Senate Intelligence Committee and the House Intelligence Committee, and inquiries about possible links and financial ties between the Kremlin and Trump associates, notably targeting Paul Manafort, Carter Page and Roger Stone. On May 9, 2017, Trump dismissed FBI Director James Comey, citing in part dissatisfaction with the ongoing suspicions of his presidency because of "this Russia thing". On May 17, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein appointed former FBI Director Robert Mueller as Special Counsel to oversee the investigation.

Doesn't look that specific to me.
---

Sephiroth1288 posted...

hockeybub89 posted...

Why do people keep lying about this nothing burger, Mal? Why?

Are you referring to the mainstream media with this post? It's kinda hard to tell

I mean the Trump administration. Why did Junior keep changing his story? Why did Trump come up with a story? Why have multiple others been fired or under fire for being less than forthcoming about Russia dealings? Is this the behavior of people doing nothing wrong, in your infinite wisdom?
---

Frankly, it blows my mind that people are still trying to argue with Mal.
---

hockeybub89 posted...

Why did Junior keep changing his story? Why did Trump come up with a story?

Clearly it's because that Russian lawyer lady is the key behind the Russian Hackers(tm) stealing Hillary Clinton's emails and forging them to make it look like the DNC rigged their primaries.
---