Not sure how Kushner survives this– he’s been caught lying on security clearances multiple times now, with at least 1 incident involving meeting with Russia to discuss allegedly trading policy for stolen information.

I’m curious to know what statutes are relevant here, haven’t seen this reported yet.

7/10/2017 11:49:50 PM

http://www.businessinsider.com/collusion-russia-trump-crime-2017-6

So there's a few criminal avenues here but lots of caveats too. Either way we're close to something I think

7/11/2017 2:15:17 AM

I'm pretty far from being any kind of expert on law, but this seems to be a relevant portion of US code:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/11/110.20

7/11/2017 2:30:08 AM

People swore DJT would be impeached and as long as there is demand for scandal, NYT will keep pumping out these"bombshells". I cannot believe a campaign met with someone who said they had negative information on their opponent. Politics will never be friendly again.

7/11/2017 3:09:11 AM

Earls post read like Daily Caller articles these days.

In any case, Kushner obviously broke laws. Not sure how he has a security clearance still. Don, Jr is likely just an overzealous moron.

[Edited on July 11, 2017 at 7:56 AM. Reason : also, most on here have repeatedly said impeachment is highly unlikely so Earls take is wtf?]

7/11/2017 7:56:00 AM

Quote :

"If you actually look at the posts, you can see I'm not the one posting one liner flame posts. I rarely shit post. Most of my entry-posts are loaded with content, explanations, and data""

Jr's response from his lawyer:



[Edited on July 11, 2017 at 8:07 AM. Reason : I responded so I guess he got me ]

7/11/2017 8:01:20 AM

Quote :

"". I cannot believe a campaign met with someone who said they had negative information on their opponent. "

Cmon that has surely happened over and over again since the beginning of politics. Sad but true. The crux of this is that the person providing information was an agent of a foreign government.



^

Quote :

"@johnlevenstein - Trying to imagine under what circumstances I would go to a meeting without knowing who or why. I guess if I was a total fucking idiot, sure."

[Edited on July 11, 2017 at 8:47 AM. Reason : E]

7/11/2017 8:46:03 AM

CNN has an article regarding the Times, and their claim that they have an email that specifically goes against what Jr said. The email lays out the fact that he was going to be meeting with a Russian operative of some sort.

7/11/2017 9:34:28 AM

This Russia stuff pisses me off so much not because its against Trump, but because its entirely hypocritical. I'm SICK of this nothing story dominating the news longer than anything ever. Russia was hardly considered a threat during the Obama years. Our elections have not been "free" for a long time. At the end of the day, what difference does it make if a campaign is getting help from billion dollar multinational companies or foreign interests? Neither are acting the American people's best interest. For some reason, the same people who are gunho on this Russia stuff, find our government being run by wall street and corporate lobbyists acceptable. You act as if we had the perfect system of transparent democracy before Russia "meddled". Russia is just one of many dirty hands in the cookie jar. That shit is ingrained into our system. IMO, we have nothing left to lose.

I'd much rather talk about some of Trump's awful policies. Instead, as KAC stated, CNN only talks about Russia and hardly ever talks about this country anymore. Let Russia be a story, but cover other stories sometimes too.

7/11/2017 10:12:32 AM

Republicans might not get anything done this year. Or at least until after the August recess.

7/11/2017 10:18:45 AM

Whole lotta strawmen up ITT.

Also, this thread is specifically about Russia so it makes perfect sense why we'd be talking about Russian in here. If people want to criticize the media for sensationalizing this particular issue there is a thread for that. Russia and EEMMMAIIILLLSSS are probably both given way too much attention relative to the issues that will impact regular Americans (healthcare, global warming, labor, law enforcement overreach, privacy, etc) but it's the click-driven world we live in.

7/11/2017 10:31:24 AM

Quote :

"People swore DJT would be impeached and as long as there is demand for scandal, NYT will keep pumping out these"bombshells". I cannot believe a campaign met with someone who said they had negative information on their opponent. Politics will never be friendly again."

The issue here is he met with an agent of a foreign power and was told ahead of time that the Russian government was attempting to help his father get into office. This is not the same as contacting a political research firm to dig up dirt or contacting U.S. intelligence agencies for your opponent's intercepted communications.

Quote :

"This Russia stuff pisses me off so much not because its against Trump, but because its entirely hypocritical. I'm SICK of this nothing story dominating the news longer than anything ever. Russia was hardly considered a threat during the Obama years. Our elections have not been "free" for a long time. At the end of the day, what difference does it make if a campaign is getting help from billion dollar multinational companies or foreign interests? Neither are acting the American people's best interest. For some reason, the same people who are gunho on this Russia stuff, find our government being run by wall street and corporate lobbyists acceptable. You act as if we had the perfect system of transparent democracy before Russia "meddled". Russia is just one of many dirty hands in the cookie jar. That shit is ingrained into our system. IMO, we have nothing left to lose. I'd much rather talk about some of Trump's awful policies. Instead, as KAC stated, CNN only talks about Russia and hardly ever talks about this country anymore. Let Russia be a story, but cover other stories sometimes too."

It's not hypocritical. Russia has been our adversary for a very long time. If you want to talk about the public narrative, you have to go back to George W. Bush for changing that when he claimed he saw Putin's "good soul." Even Mitt Romney, when campaigning against Obama, was ardently speaking about Russia as our number one threat. And if you do any reading on geopolitics or national security over that time frame you'll see that they've always been our number one threat. So, while the public posture may have been different, the Obama administration absolutely considered them a threat.

The press hasn't taken it up, but then again, they didn't have to. In the past, our government's leaders, including the President, all understood this. Now we have a president who is actively trying to help Russia while lying about it. And, it's a president who may have gained power partially due to Russia's help. The press is doing exactly what they are supposed to be doing.

The only way our elections aren't "free" has to do with the amount of money campaigns spend. But we do have free elections. You can walk into that voting booth and choose whoever you want. You have options. You have all the information you can get from the press, from reading, etc. to make a decision. What you're really complaining about here, I suspect, is that most people are idiots and blindly vote their party, as evidenced by the results of gerrymandering and also by the fact that Congress consistently has a sub-20% approval rating but every single person rates their own representative in the 80s. One of the top candidates to run against Putin in 2018 was arrested a few weeks ago. When an opponent files for a permit to give a speech in a given province or city, the FSB runs in and shuts it down almost immediately. Russia does not have free elections.

It makes a huge difference as to whether a campaign gets help from multi-billion dollar corporations or a foreign adversary. For starters, one of those two options has a very high chance of leading to war.

I don't think you'll find that people who are "gung ho" on the Russia stuff are happy our government is run by bankers. I'm certainly not one to feel that way. And again, we have the power to vote anyone out of office we want. We simply choose not too as a society. But we absolutely have that choice.

[Edited on July 11, 2017 at 10:55 AM. Reason : a]

[Edited on July 11, 2017 at 10:59 AM. Reason : a]

7/11/2017 10:54:10 AM

Junior just released the emails. It's exactly as reported.

The Trump's must routinely ignore their lawyers. This looks like absolute intent to collude. Still not sure anything is illegal but this is real and any calls that the Trump/Russia thing is "fake news" is now officially gone.

[Edited on July 11, 2017 at 11:23 AM. Reason : lol he's even lying in that post. "In order to be transparent" is so "because the NYT is about to"]

7/11/2017 11:08:59 AM

this really could be it...

7/11/2017 11:39:29 AM

^^I don't understand why he would post that. I guess his lawyer recommended it??

BTW I saw something that said his lawyer had repped 4/5 of the big NY mafia families

[Edited on July 11, 2017 at 11:51 AM. Reason : Oh actually your reason make sense I guess, didn't see that ]

7/11/2017 11:50:31 AM

I'm very curious to hear how this is actually an ingenious play by Donald Trump Jr. and how he and his father are two moves ahead of the rest of us at all times.

7/11/2017 11:52:32 AM

This is where the defense transitions from "we never met with Russians" to "collusion isn't illegal."

7/11/2017 11:53:04 AM

Honestly, I didn't think something this damning was in the cards. It's pretty clear cut. If the NYT has this I can't fathom what Muellers team will have.

I still don't know the legality of it all though.

7/11/2017 11:55:00 AM

As unlikely as it is, it's entirely possible that Trump Sr. honestly was not aware of this. I peg that at a very low probability, but it's non-zero.

Jr. releasing the emails, to me, says one of two things: 1) he's trying to get ahead of things 2) he's falling on his sword for Papa Trump.

7/11/2017 11:57:25 AM

It's a con, man. The NYT editor and reporter said they told him it was dropping, his team asked for more time and he dropped it first in a ploy to seem transparent.

Reporter also said it took a full year of vetting these stories, tracking down dead ends and finally corroborating before they posted it --- that is good journalism.

[Edited on July 11, 2017 at 12:00 PM. Reason : Added]

7/11/2017 11:59:46 AM

Fox is even in on this.

Quote :

"EMAIL TRAIL: Trump son releases exchange with contact claiming Russia gov’t sought to back dad"

7/11/2017 12:01:36 PM

It's obviously against the law to take campaign donations from foreign countries, but could lawyers somehow argue that information can be used as a campaign donation?

7/11/2017 12:38:53 PM

From my link above:

Quote :

"(b)Contributions and donations by foreign nationals in connection with elections. A foreign national shall not, directly or indirectly, make a contribution or a donation of money or other thing of value, or expressly or impliedly promise to make a contribution or a donation, in connection with any Federal, State, or local election. "

7/11/2017 12:44:36 PM

soooo, what now then? Jr gets to go away. That still leaves dad in charge. And if they planned all this, they certainly planned a degree or two of separation from the Don.

7/11/2017 12:48:52 PM

Kushner too right?

7/11/2017 12:58:06 PM

7/11/2017 12:59:45 PM

^^ and manafort, who was still campaign manager at the time

7/11/2017 1:03:01 PM

^^hahaha

Also, what about this: http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/ukraine-sabotage-trump-backfire-233446

7/11/2017 1:11:11 PM

Oh wow. SMH.

7/11/2017 1:27:58 PM

Quote :

"and manafort, who was still campaign manager at the time"

Well he was already done, at least politically, right?

7/11/2017 1:31:06 PM

I only posted that to keep the board fair, but I also wonder what the differences are. Off the top of my head (based on what I know at least) no one from the Dem side lied or covered up anything regarding Ukraine. Also, to my knowledge, no intelligence type shit was going down.

Complete opposite with Trump's groupies.

7/11/2017 1:31:40 PM

To be fair though Cherokee, I seriously doubt there is an army of journalist doing whatever they can, 24/7, to break a hot story on Clinton these days. And aside from a few right leaning outlets, you didn't have the same negative coverage for her during the campaign. Sure, there was and endless barrage of "email server, pay to play yadda yadda" but nobody seemed to be taking it seriously outside of conservative circles. And certainly they were not covering any type of outside, foreign aid to Clinton outside of the seemingly made up pay to play story.

Who knows what could have been uncovered.

[Edited on July 11, 2017 at 1:52 PM. Reason : ddd]

7/11/2017 1:51:11 PM

Quote :

"Sure, there was and endless barrage of "email server, pay to play yadda yadda" but nobody seemed to be taking it seriously outside of conservative circles."

This is a bananas take. Completely divorced from reality.

[Edited on July 11, 2017 at 1:57 PM. Reason : I'm not an expert in it but I believe the big difference lies in campaign finance law ]

7/11/2017 1:57:18 PM

But when compared to the effort to uncover Russian ties to Trump? There's no way the two compare.

7/11/2017 2:06:32 PM

they don't compare because one campaign was composed of professionals and the other was composed of rubes who obviously had no idea what the fuck they were doing, which is the reason why they were compromised so easily

and it's not like journalists had to dig deep to uncover any of this stuff. there have been obvious, self-inflicted red flags since last summer

[Edited on July 11, 2017 at 2:12 PM. Reason : .]

7/11/2017 2:10:48 PM

That's nuts. It honestly is nuts.

You're saying straight faced that Clinton wasn't vetted, investigated and criticized over and over for things during the campaign.

She was literally grilled for eleven hours by congress with every news station covering it in its entirety. A week before the election the ENTIRE front page (literally every single story) was about new email stuff that literally turned out to be false.

It's not even a defense of her shitty campaign. It's just reality. Trump did more outlandishly shitty things so got more negative coverage but you're seriously posting that HRC wasn't reported negatively on in depth. It's insane.

7/11/2017 2:11:34 PM

No, what I'm saying is that nobody was really looking into any foreign ties to her campaign. I mean, how many people actually took pay to play seriously?

Her time getting grilled by congress? Email email email. That's all we heard. Email.

7/11/2017 2:18:12 PM

are you alleging that her campaign could've been doing the same things as the Trump campaign?

7/11/2017 2:25:05 PM

No one alleged foreign ties for her campaign, because there was nothing to allege. It was the intelligence community that picked up on Trump team's foreign contacts, and this information was made public.

If the intelligence community had picked up on Clinton teams contacts they would have been treated the same.

Politics always involves some level of dishonesty, but it takes a special kind of dumb for someone to get contacted the way Trump Jr did and go along with it. The story of Al Gore's team getting handed Bush's debate prep guide and turning it over to the FBI comes to mind.

7/11/2017 2:40:50 PM

Its impossible to get anyone who believes HRC was corrupt as hell to back off those beliefs. They have been burned into Republican souls by decades of coverage. Some fair criticisms, some slanderous conspiracy theories.

Its why eventually most politicians have a shelf life. People can only take so much of their names in the lime light.

This country needs clean breaks from Clintons/Bushs.

Thats why we needed Trump AMIRITE?!?!!?!

7/11/2017 2:42:12 PM

What's Trump's real danger so far? Gorsuch is pretty bad. He's made the USA a worldwide embarrassment but this can be repaired, he's created an opening for China and Russia to start eating our lunch, if Japan makes inroads on TPP without us that could be bad too.

If the outcome of Trump is that developing countries get better prices on their exports, but US doesn't have as much influence, this is manageable.

7/11/2017 3:02:43 PM

Does anyone know why the Trump dossier didn't count as soliciting contributions from a foreign national since it was a British guy who put it together?

7/11/2017 3:03:01 PM

I actually would like to understand what, if any, legal differences there are between the Politico story on Clinton/Ukraine and the Russia story. From what I can gather it's twofold: campaign finance laws (in-kind information received versus paying foreign contractor) and the fact that Russia is defined as a foreign adversary whereas Ukraine isn't.

But I can't confirm those and don't fully understand the definitions. If anyone sees a primer on this I'd love to see it.

[Edited on July 11, 2017 at 3:05 PM. Reason : ^ Jeb paid for it which makes it not a donation? But that ties into my question in this post]

7/11/2017 3:03:54 PM

Am I alleging that Clinton had the same misdeeds as the Trump campaign with a foreign country? No. I'm saying we'll never know because the media was never on her like flies on a carcass, as they are with Trump, in the context of her dealings with other countries.

I'm also not standing here saying Trump doesn't deserve every bit that he's getting. He does, but why are we just now hearing from Politico about this Hillary thing? That would've been good information to know during the campaign, as this Russian information would have been good to know as well.

7/11/2017 3:10:06 PM

She is not the president. Perhaps, that's why.

I vividly remember a NYT front page about the time the email stories were flying in early November that said something like "with regards to Russia, no clear link with Trump campaign."

So it's not like this was being dragged up during the campaign. He has made it IMPOSSIBLE not to be investigated with his own actions at this point.

[Edited on July 11, 2017 at 3:16 PM. Reason : And again, the Foundation quid pro quo allegations were MAJOR news]

[Edited on July 11, 2017 at 3:16 PM. Reason : And the politico story was punished in JANUARY]

7/11/2017 3:15:33 PM

^^ Because journalists aren't clairvoyant?

[Edited on July 11, 2017 at 3:18 PM. Reason : ]

7/11/2017 3:18:04 PM

Quote :

"No one alleged foreign ties for her campaign, because there was nothing to allege. It was the intelligence community that picked up on Trump team's foreign contacts, and this information was made public. If the intelligence community had picked up on Clinton teams contacts they would have been treated the same. Politics always involves some level of dishonesty, but it takes a special kind of dumb for someone to get contacted the way Trump Jr did and go along with it. The story of Al Gore's team getting handed Bush's debate prep guide and turning it over to the FBI comes to mind."

I think this hits the nail on the head.

Quote :

"Am I alleging that Clinton had the same misdeeds as the Trump campaign with a foreign country? No. I'm saying we'll never know because the media was never on her like flies on a carcass, as they are with Trump, in the context of her dealings with other countries."

I think it's different for points mentioned earlier - intelligence intercepts would have been addressed in the same manner as Trump's have been. Not to mention, cover-ups/lies/etc. draw extra scrutiny because it almost always leads to something bigger being hidden. I don't think the Clinton stuff was covered up or lied about.

But, I missed this article back in January so it's possible I've missed others.

[Edited on July 11, 2017 at 3:23 PM. Reason : a]

7/11/2017 3:22:18 PM

Quote :

"Am I alleging that Clinton had the same misdeeds as the Trump campaign with a foreign country? No. I'm saying we'll never know because the media was never on her like flies on a carcass, as they are with Trump, in the context of her dealings with other countries"

this is just nuts

they were all over her

and again, to reiterate, the reason they are covering the Russia story as much as they are is A) he's the fucking President and B) the Trump campaign was absurdly messy in their dealings with the same country that we know interfered with our election

7/11/2017 3:23:24 PM

Quote :

"they were all over her"

They were, but for other things rather than election misdeeds. I think that was the point he was making - that it sounds like a foreign government was seeking to help Hillary and the media did not scrutinize it (nor did the government) to the same extent Trump has been scrutinized.

But I think the reason for that is there was no reason to (no lies/cover-ups/intelligence involvement/etc.). You can absolutely be certain that CI has all the intercepts and likely didn't see anything nefarious.

7/11/2017 3:29:06 PM

Again, the distinction is that they actually weren't all over him for this during the election. Only after all the lies, security clearance lack of disclosures, etc.

From Oct 31:

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/11/01/us/politics/fbi-russia-election-donald-trump.html

That's basically an early Xmas gift that turned out to be so so false.

*** and now Assange has inserted himself into this story, because of course.

7/11/2017 3:32:44 PM