In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
On July 13 2017 02:46 Wulfey_LA wrote: How can you keep swallowing the lies DJT feeds you? I know you want to spin for him, but come on. DJT out and out lied about the contents of that meeting on Saturday. Then on Tuesday you are ready to believe him when he says nothing came of it? (DJT is speaking through DonJR and Hannity) How many more times are you going to get left holding the bags after the lies are dispelled? At what point do you get a sense of skepticism about the latest lies about what went down in that meeting?
I'm not swallowing anything from Trump. In fact, I'm one of the few people not swallowing anything from anyone.
Well just because you refuse to accept information doesn't mean it isn't correct.
What information am I not accepting? In my world, information means facts and does not include speculation. Here's the template for most every conversation that I've had with TL's leftist/liberal posters on this Trump stuff:
TL Leftist/Liberal: Trump did X, which is illegal! xDaunt: What do you base that on? TL Lefist/Liberal: Fuck you! You're a shill for Trump!
Frankly, y'all should be embarrassed about this. Y'all are making it way too easy on me and others to fuck with you.
You keep talking as if this were a trial. Trump doesn't have to be proven guilty of a crime to completely undermine his ability to act as President, or get impeached for that matter. He is already dangerously close to being a lame duck President (If healthcare and taxes fail he 100% will be).
If you're stuck on "conviction worthy evidence" then just ignore everyone and wait for Mueller's report. Certainly if there is anything he will find it and he will be using a higher standard of proof than anyone commenting on the internet.
Ah, so now we come to the ugly truth. Y'all, being hyperpartisan, are more than happy to tarnish Trump with pure innuendo for mere political purposes.
Thank you for your service, On_Slaught.
You believed Trump's lies about not colluding with the Russians for a solid year. Your partisan support of Dear Leader will be well remembered Comrade.
YET AGAIN, colluding with the Russians to do what, exactly? Bake a cake? Have a martini? Piss on some whores? I can think of any number of types of lawful instances of collusion that can occur.
Lifting sanctions against Russia and being elected President, you know, probably a leftist theory though.
On July 13 2017 03:03 brian wrote: and people like you prattle on about how there's no proof even when the proof just continues to seemingly fall from the sky. but the reaction, deserved or not, surely is obvious.
If you want to make a point involving changing storylines, you better screw your head on straight about no proof about Russian collusion for months despite plentiful leaks and assertions. Otherwise, you're post hoc ergo proctor hoc e.g. we finally have a campaign member seeking oppo no matter the source, so obviously this bullshit we pulled eight months ago is connected! So umm settle on the lie you like best I guess.
while i generally can see how your perspective on a matter makes perfect sense from the other side, this does not. perhaps i just don't understand what you may be alluding to.
i'm not going to indulge the argument that the baseless democratic cries of collusion aren't vindicated by DTJ outing themselves. your remarks regarding the source are odd; i mean, he copped to it himself. so whatever, take from this what you will.
i don't know which set of lies you're referring to.
I can't see how you can shoehorn this example into your narrative about proof-denying. Your side has been pants on fire wrong since November, but now once you have unethical behavior by DJT in seeking oppo, it's like the hyperpartisanship drive kicks into gear and excuses past behavior. Past behavior which has been routinely cited and explained and ignored by people like you, so I suppose I really shouldn't be surprised and just a little saddened.
If I understand this correctly, you're saying that although all the people who said that this was happening have been proven right, they had no way of knowing at the time they said it that they were going to be proven right and therefore said it without proof and therefore they were wrong when they said it, despite their subsequent vindication.
They made specific and false accusations of collusion and obstruction again and again and again. Only ignoring everything ever said on the subject, or selective leaks to drive a narrative on the subject, does any of this make sense. It's like alleging the car accident went down ten different ways and then seizing upon an overdue oil change as the smoking gun. I mean point out how everybody knew Trump Jr got duped by a pretty lawyer with fake oppo if you want; I still remember when Putin was the puppetmaster actively coordinating with the Trump campaign on leaking hacked emails in return for political favors. Now you got one more on the motley crew of Page, Manafort, & Flynn and everybody's positively orgasmic in squeals of delight. But but but there was a meeting and who knows what was discussed ... rofl.
On July 13 2017 03:03 brian wrote: and people like you prattle on about how there's no proof even when the proof just continues to seemingly fall from the sky. but the reaction, deserved or not, surely is obvious.
If you want to make a point involving changing storylines, you better screw your head on straight about no proof about Russian collusion for months despite plentiful leaks and assertions. Otherwise, you're post hoc ergo proctor hoc e.g. we finally have a campaign member seeking oppo no matter the source, so obviously this bullshit we pulled eight months ago is connected! So umm settle on the lie you like best I guess.
while i generally can see how your perspective on a matter makes perfect sense from the other side, this does not. perhaps i just don't understand what you may be alluding to.
i'm not going to indulge the argument that the baseless democratic cries of collusion aren't vindicated by DTJ outing themselves. your remarks regarding the source are odd; i mean, he copped to it himself. so whatever, take from this what you will.
i don't know which set of lies you're referring to.
I can't see how you can shoehorn this example into your narrative about proof-denying. Your side has been pants on fire wrong since November, but now once you have unethical behavior by DJT in seeking oppo, it's like the hyperpartisanship drive kicks into gear and excuses past behavior. Past behavior which has been routinely cited and explained and ignored by people like you, so I suppose I really shouldn't be surprised and just a little saddened.
How can this be true? We have in Don JRs emails that at least JR, Manafort, and Kushner knew that the Russian government was trying to help Trump through Emin and that the campaign principals were willing/attempting to go out and get campaign help from Russian government sources. That is proof of the more aggressive accusations of collusion. Some Dems were saying it was just Carter Page and Flynn. Now we have Don JR, Kushner, and Manafort not batting an eye when they hear that the Russian government is helping DJT.
I understand that swallowing so many lies from DJT can leave a bitter taste in your mouth, but you should try not garbling up every last lie they feed you. Maybe try NOT believing DJT when he says he didn't know about the meeting. Have you considered NOT trusting Don JR when he says nothing came of the meeting?
Is the goal really to play dumb on all the debunked rumors from November until today? If so, I have a salacious story of Trump in Obama's former hotel room entertaining himself. That's a bold strategy.
Out of curiously, Danglars, xDaunt, do you believe Kushner when he says that he didn't know about any Russian government support for Trump because he doesn't read his emails and so he wasn't lying?
On July 13 2017 04:16 KwarK wrote: Out of curiously, Danglars, xDaunt, do you believe Kushner when he says that he didn't know about any Russian government support for Trump because he doesn't read his emails and so he wasn't lying?
I don't think that Kushner and the rest of the Trump team have been particularly forthright about what has happened.
EDIT: In other words, I don't implicitly trust what they say.
On July 13 2017 03:03 brian wrote: and people like you prattle on about how there's no proof even when the proof just continues to seemingly fall from the sky. but the reaction, deserved or not, surely is obvious.
If you want to make a point involving changing storylines, you better screw your head on straight about no proof about Russian collusion for months despite plentiful leaks and assertions. Otherwise, you're post hoc ergo proctor hoc e.g. we finally have a campaign member seeking oppo no matter the source, so obviously this bullshit we pulled eight months ago is connected! So umm settle on the lie you like best I guess.
while i generally can see how your perspective on a matter makes perfect sense from the other side, this does not. perhaps i just don't understand what you may be alluding to.
i'm not going to indulge the argument that the baseless democratic cries of collusion aren't vindicated by DTJ outing themselves. your remarks regarding the source are odd; i mean, he copped to it himself. so whatever, take from this what you will.
i don't know which set of lies you're referring to.
I can't see how you can shoehorn this example into your narrative about proof-denying. Your side has been pants on fire wrong since November, but now once you have unethical behavior by DJT in seeking oppo, it's like the hyperpartisanship drive kicks into gear and excuses past behavior. Past behavior which has been routinely cited and explained and ignored by people like you, so I suppose I really shouldn't be surprised and just a little saddened.
If I understand this correctly, you're saying that although all the people who said that this was happening have been proven right, they had no way of knowing at the time they said it that they were going to be proven right and therefore said it without proof and therefore they were wrong when they said it, despite their subsequent vindication.
They made specific and false accusations of collusion and obstruction again and again and again. Only ignoring everything ever said on the subject, or selective leaks to drive a narrative on the subject, does any of this make sense. It's like alleging the car accident went down ten different ways and then seizing upon an overdue oil change as the smoking gun. I mean point out how everybody knew Trump Jr got duped by a pretty lawyer with fake oppo if you want; I still remember when Putin was the puppetmaster actively coordinating with the Trump campaign on leaking hacked emails in return for political favors. Now you got one more on the motley crew of Page, Manafort, & Flynn and everybody's positively orgasmic in squeals of delight. But but but there was a meeting and who knows what was discussed ... rofl.
On July 13 2017 03:03 brian wrote: and people like you prattle on about how there's no proof even when the proof just continues to seemingly fall from the sky. but the reaction, deserved or not, surely is obvious.
If you want to make a point involving changing storylines, you better screw your head on straight about no proof about Russian collusion for months despite plentiful leaks and assertions. Otherwise, you're post hoc ergo proctor hoc e.g. we finally have a campaign member seeking oppo no matter the source, so obviously this bullshit we pulled eight months ago is connected! So umm settle on the lie you like best I guess.
while i generally can see how your perspective on a matter makes perfect sense from the other side, this does not. perhaps i just don't understand what you may be alluding to.
i'm not going to indulge the argument that the baseless democratic cries of collusion aren't vindicated by DTJ outing themselves. your remarks regarding the source are odd; i mean, he copped to it himself. so whatever, take from this what you will.
i don't know which set of lies you're referring to.
I can't see how you can shoehorn this example into your narrative about proof-denying. Your side has been pants on fire wrong since November, but now once you have unethical behavior by DJT in seeking oppo, it's like the hyperpartisanship drive kicks into gear and excuses past behavior. Past behavior which has been routinely cited and explained and ignored by people like you, so I suppose I really shouldn't be surprised and just a little saddened.
How can this be true? We have in Don JRs emails that at least JR, Manafort, and Kushner knew that the Russian government was trying to help Trump through Emin and that the campaign principals were willing/attempting to go out and get campaign help from Russian government sources. That is proof of the more aggressive accusations of collusion. Some Dems were saying it was just Carter Page and Flynn. Now we have Don JR, Kushner, and Manafort not batting an eye when they hear that the Russian government is helping DJT.
I understand that swallowing so many lies from DJT can leave a bitter taste in your mouth, but you should try not garbling up every last lie they feed you. Maybe try NOT believing DJT when he says he didn't know about the meeting. Have you considered NOT trusting Don JR when he says nothing came of the meeting?
Is the goal really to play dumb on all the debunked rumors from November until today? If so, I have a salacious story of Trump in Obama's former hotel room entertaining himself. That's a bold strategy.
Why are you playing dumb about your own faith in Trump's denials of collusion? You actually believed his denials when he made them. That was some sorry stuff. You should mark your beliefs to market before complaining about some bloggers getting the existence of collusion Correct, but not quite getting the details right.
Seriously, watch this video explainer. The hippies who said "Collusion!" were right. http://wapo.st/2sOa6qU
On July 13 2017 04:16 KwarK wrote: Out of curiously, Danglars, xDaunt, do you believe Kushner when he says that he didn't know about any Russian government support for Trump because he doesn't read his emails and so he wasn't lying?
I don't think that Kushner and the rest of the Trump team have been particularly forthright about what has happened.
EDIT: In other words, I don't implicitly trust what they say.
I'm not sure I understand your response. I was hoping for more of a yes or a no. I'll try a different approach. Given that Kushner received an email from Trump Jr. with the subject line
Subject: Re: Russia - Clinton - private and confidential
in which the line
Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump
was featured, do you find his denial of any knowledge of communications between the Trump campaign and Russia plausible?
I'm not asking you to jump to pitchforks and torches, I'm just seeing if you can acknowledge that his denials aren't very plausible.
xDaunt: I'm not here to make legal conclusions as though this were a trial. That's not my job. My job as a layperson is to see what information is available to the public, and understand both 1) what it absolutely does mean, as well as 2) what potential implications there are, and what the odds on those being true might be. That the investigation is yet ongoing, and there is still this much evidence available to the public, creates what you might call dumpster-shit awful optics, and decimates my trust in the President and the process by which he assumed office. It doesn't look good by any stretch.
Before I disliked him because he was ineffective and an awful human being, but contrary to what a lot of Democrats thought when he was elected, that wasn't grounds for impeachment. What's going on now looks so much worse, and if we know this much, how much have Mueller and his team uncovered by now? Even if he doesn't get impeached, that's worlds away from a win for Trump or his supporters, because even in the infancy of his presidency he has been completely unable to rally support for any of his policies, largely due to his incompetence at policy-craft. Now we're discovering the depths of his corruption in working with the Russians to get elected. This is just getting started.
If you're going to die on a hill defending Trump because the largest burden of proof hasn't been met yet, might I remind you of the circumstances: what we know already is pretty damaging, and that's just publicly available information. This is not a man worth defending anymore, if he ever has been. I hold a modicum of skepticism, but given who we're dealing with, and his track record, he deserves not a little bit more.
On July 13 2017 04:16 KwarK wrote: Out of curiously, Danglars, xDaunt, do you believe Kushner when he says that he didn't know about any Russian government support for Trump because he doesn't read his emails and so he wasn't lying?
I don't think that Kushner and the rest of the Trump team have been particularly forthright about what has happened.
EDIT: In other words, I don't implicitly trust what they say.
I'm not sure I understand your response. I was hoping for more of a yes or a no. I'll try a different approach. Given that Kushner received an email from Trump Jr. with the subject line
On July 13 2017 03:03 brian wrote: and people like you prattle on about how there's no proof even when the proof just continues to seemingly fall from the sky. but the reaction, deserved or not, surely is obvious.
If you want to make a point involving changing storylines, you better screw your head on straight about no proof about Russian collusion for months despite plentiful leaks and assertions. Otherwise, you're post hoc ergo proctor hoc e.g. we finally have a campaign member seeking oppo no matter the source, so obviously this bullshit we pulled eight months ago is connected! So umm settle on the lie you like best I guess.
while i generally can see how your perspective on a matter makes perfect sense from the other side, this does not. perhaps i just don't understand what you may be alluding to.
i'm not going to indulge the argument that the baseless democratic cries of collusion aren't vindicated by DTJ outing themselves. your remarks regarding the source are odd; i mean, he copped to it himself. so whatever, take from this what you will.
i don't know which set of lies you're referring to.
I can't see how you can shoehorn this example into your narrative about proof-denying. Your side has been pants on fire wrong since November, but now once you have unethical behavior by DJT in seeking oppo, it's like the hyperpartisanship drive kicks into gear and excuses past behavior. Past behavior which has been routinely cited and explained and ignored by people like you, so I suppose I really shouldn't be surprised and just a little saddened.
If I understand this correctly, you're saying that although all the people who said that this was happening have been proven right, they had no way of knowing at the time they said it that they were going to be proven right and therefore said it without proof and therefore they were wrong when they said it, despite their subsequent vindication.
They made specific and false accusations of collusion and obstruction again and again and again. Only ignoring everything ever said on the subject, or selective leaks to drive a narrative on the subject, does any of this make sense. It's like alleging the car accident went down ten different ways and then seizing upon an overdue oil change as the smoking gun. I mean point out how everybody knew Trump Jr got duped by a pretty lawyer with fake oppo if you want; I still remember when Putin was the puppetmaster actively coordinating with the Trump campaign on leaking hacked emails in return for political favors. Now you got one more on the motley crew of Page, Manafort, & Flynn and everybody's positively orgasmic in squeals of delight. But but but there was a meeting and who knows what was discussed ... rofl.
On July 13 2017 03:28 Wulfey_LA wrote:
On July 13 2017 03:20 Danglars wrote:
On July 13 2017 03:13 brian wrote:
On July 13 2017 03:08 Danglars wrote:
On July 13 2017 03:03 brian wrote: and people like you prattle on about how there's no proof even when the proof just continues to seemingly fall from the sky. but the reaction, deserved or not, surely is obvious.
If you want to make a point involving changing storylines, you better screw your head on straight about no proof about Russian collusion for months despite plentiful leaks and assertions. Otherwise, you're post hoc ergo proctor hoc e.g. we finally have a campaign member seeking oppo no matter the source, so obviously this bullshit we pulled eight months ago is connected! So umm settle on the lie you like best I guess.
while i generally can see how your perspective on a matter makes perfect sense from the other side, this does not. perhaps i just don't understand what you may be alluding to.
i'm not going to indulge the argument that the baseless democratic cries of collusion aren't vindicated by DTJ outing themselves. your remarks regarding the source are odd; i mean, he copped to it himself. so whatever, take from this what you will.
i don't know which set of lies you're referring to.
I can't see how you can shoehorn this example into your narrative about proof-denying. Your side has been pants on fire wrong since November, but now once you have unethical behavior by DJT in seeking oppo, it's like the hyperpartisanship drive kicks into gear and excuses past behavior. Past behavior which has been routinely cited and explained and ignored by people like you, so I suppose I really shouldn't be surprised and just a little saddened.
How can this be true? We have in Don JRs emails that at least JR, Manafort, and Kushner knew that the Russian government was trying to help Trump through Emin and that the campaign principals were willing/attempting to go out and get campaign help from Russian government sources. That is proof of the more aggressive accusations of collusion. Some Dems were saying it was just Carter Page and Flynn. Now we have Don JR, Kushner, and Manafort not batting an eye when they hear that the Russian government is helping DJT.
I understand that swallowing so many lies from DJT can leave a bitter taste in your mouth, but you should try not garbling up every last lie they feed you. Maybe try NOT believing DJT when he says he didn't know about the meeting. Have you considered NOT trusting Don JR when he says nothing came of the meeting?
Is the goal really to play dumb on all the debunked rumors from November until today? If so, I have a salacious story of Trump in Obama's former hotel room entertaining himself. That's a bold strategy.
Why are you playing dumb about your own faith in Trump's denials of collusion? You actually believed his denials when he made them. That was some sorry stuff. You should mark your beliefs to market before complaining about some bloggers getting the existence of collusion Correct, but not quite getting the details right.
Seriously, watch this video explainer. The hippies who said "Collusion!" were right. http://wapo.st/2sOa6qU
Why skip past history to focus on the present? The thread search feature and old articles are open to you. Maybe start with the "Russia hacked the election" and don't skim too fast. It wasn't for no reason that 55% of Democrats think Russia actually changed the vote totals. It was the hype. My advice is don't believe the hype and don't forget the history.
On July 13 2017 04:16 KwarK wrote: Out of curiously, Danglars, xDaunt, do you believe Kushner when he says that he didn't know about any Russian government support for Trump because he doesn't read his emails and so he wasn't lying?
I don't think that Kushner and the rest of the Trump team have been particularly forthright about what has happened.
EDIT: In other words, I don't implicitly trust what they say.
I'm not sure I understand your response. I was hoping for more of a yes or a no. I'll try a different approach. Given that Kushner received an email from Trump Jr. with the subject line
was featured, do you find his denial of any knowledge of communications between the Trump campaign and Russia plausible?
I'm not asking you to jump to pitchforks and torches, I'm just seeing if you can acknowledge that his denials aren't very plausible.
I don't know what he's responding to or what he thinks he's responding to. All that I'm saying is that I don't really trust Kushner or anyone else in the Trump team.
On July 13 2017 03:03 brian wrote: and people like you prattle on about how there's no proof even when the proof just continues to seemingly fall from the sky. but the reaction, deserved or not, surely is obvious.
If you want to make a point involving changing storylines, you better screw your head on straight about no proof about Russian collusion for months despite plentiful leaks and assertions. Otherwise, you're post hoc ergo proctor hoc e.g. we finally have a campaign member seeking oppo no matter the source, so obviously this bullshit we pulled eight months ago is connected! So umm settle on the lie you like best I guess.
while i generally can see how your perspective on a matter makes perfect sense from the other side, this does not. perhaps i just don't understand what you may be alluding to.
i'm not going to indulge the argument that the baseless democratic cries of collusion aren't vindicated by DTJ outing themselves. your remarks regarding the source are odd; i mean, he copped to it himself. so whatever, take from this what you will.
i don't know which set of lies you're referring to.
I can't see how you can shoehorn this example into your narrative about proof-denying. Your side has been pants on fire wrong since November, but now once you have unethical behavior by DJT in seeking oppo, it's like the hyperpartisanship drive kicks into gear and excuses past behavior. Past behavior which has been routinely cited and explained and ignored by people like you, so I suppose I really shouldn't be surprised and just a little saddened.
If I understand this correctly, you're saying that although all the people who said that this was happening have been proven right, they had no way of knowing at the time they said it that they were going to be proven right and therefore said it without proof and therefore they were wrong when they said it, despite their subsequent vindication.
They made specific and false accusations of collusion and obstruction again and again and again. Only ignoring everything ever said on the subject, or selective leaks to drive a narrative on the subject, does any of this make sense. It's like alleging the car accident went down ten different ways and then seizing upon an overdue oil change as the smoking gun. I mean point out how everybody knew Trump Jr got duped by a pretty lawyer with fake oppo if you want; I still remember when Putin was the puppetmaster actively coordinating with the Trump campaign on leaking hacked emails in return for political favors. Now you got one more on the motley crew of Page, Manafort, & Flynn and everybody's positively orgasmic in squeals of delight. But but but there was a meeting and who knows what was discussed ... rofl.
On July 13 2017 03:28 Wulfey_LA wrote:
On July 13 2017 03:20 Danglars wrote:
On July 13 2017 03:13 brian wrote:
On July 13 2017 03:08 Danglars wrote:
On July 13 2017 03:03 brian wrote: and people like you prattle on about how there's no proof even when the proof just continues to seemingly fall from the sky. but the reaction, deserved or not, surely is obvious.
If you want to make a point involving changing storylines, you better screw your head on straight about no proof about Russian collusion for months despite plentiful leaks and assertions. Otherwise, you're post hoc ergo proctor hoc e.g. we finally have a campaign member seeking oppo no matter the source, so obviously this bullshit we pulled eight months ago is connected! So umm settle on the lie you like best I guess.
while i generally can see how your perspective on a matter makes perfect sense from the other side, this does not. perhaps i just don't understand what you may be alluding to.
i'm not going to indulge the argument that the baseless democratic cries of collusion aren't vindicated by DTJ outing themselves. your remarks regarding the source are odd; i mean, he copped to it himself. so whatever, take from this what you will.
i don't know which set of lies you're referring to.
I can't see how you can shoehorn this example into your narrative about proof-denying. Your side has been pants on fire wrong since November, but now once you have unethical behavior by DJT in seeking oppo, it's like the hyperpartisanship drive kicks into gear and excuses past behavior. Past behavior which has been routinely cited and explained and ignored by people like you, so I suppose I really shouldn't be surprised and just a little saddened.
How can this be true? We have in Don JRs emails that at least JR, Manafort, and Kushner knew that the Russian government was trying to help Trump through Emin and that the campaign principals were willing/attempting to go out and get campaign help from Russian government sources. That is proof of the more aggressive accusations of collusion. Some Dems were saying it was just Carter Page and Flynn. Now we have Don JR, Kushner, and Manafort not batting an eye when they hear that the Russian government is helping DJT.
I understand that swallowing so many lies from DJT can leave a bitter taste in your mouth, but you should try not garbling up every last lie they feed you. Maybe try NOT believing DJT when he says he didn't know about the meeting. Have you considered NOT trusting Don JR when he says nothing came of the meeting?
Is the goal really to play dumb on all the debunked rumors from November until today? If so, I have a salacious story of Trump in Obama's former hotel room entertaining himself. That's a bold strategy.
Why are you playing dumb about your own faith in Trump's denials of collusion? You actually believed his denials when he made them. That was some sorry stuff. You should mark your beliefs to market before complaining about some bloggers getting the existence of collusion Correct, but not quite getting the details right.
Seriously, watch this video explainer. The hippies who said "Collusion!" were right. http://wapo.st/2sOa6qU
Why skip past history to focus on the present? The thread search feature and old articles are open to you. Maybe start with the "Russia hacked the election" and don't skim too fast. It wasn't for no reason that 55% of Democrats think Russia actually changed the vote totals. It was the hype. My advice is don't believe the hype and don't forget the history.
People were foolish to call for Trump's impeachment when he was elected, just because they didn't like him, but I fail to see how anything you're saying detracts from the magnitude of the veritable evidence we now possess. Forget what people used to be saying and why they said it, as new information comes to light the game changes completely.
On July 13 2017 04:16 KwarK wrote: Out of curiously, Danglars, xDaunt, do you believe Kushner when he says that he didn't know about any Russian government support for Trump because he doesn't read his emails and so he wasn't lying?
I don't think that Kushner and the rest of the Trump team have been particularly forthright about what has happened.
EDIT: In other words, I don't implicitly trust what they say.
I'm not sure I understand your response. I was hoping for more of a yes or a no. I'll try a different approach. Given that Kushner received an email from Trump Jr. with the subject line
Subject: Re: Russia - Clinton - private and confidential
in which the line
Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump
was featured, do you find his denial of any knowledge of communications between the Trump campaign and Russia plausible?
I'm not asking you to jump to pitchforks and torches, I'm just seeing if you can acknowledge that his denials aren't very plausible.
I don't know what he's responding to or what he thinks he's responding to. All that I'm saying is that I don't really trust Kushner or anyone else in the Trump team.
Okay, so you need to know the context of the statements. Here's a video.
30 seconds in the interviewer says that the Clinton campaign
seemed to be suggesting that this is part of a plot to help Donald Trump and hurt Hillary Clinton
and Trump Jr. describes it as
lie after lie
disgusting
and
so phony
In your opinion, was Donald Trump Jr. aware at the time that he had taken a meeting in order to accept
Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump
If he had, were his comments in the video compatible with his knowledge of
Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump
Do you think that in this instance you could extend your lack of trust to an outright declaration that you think what he was saying was not true?
The ongoing investigations into alleged collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia involve reams of classified material. Yet Marc Kasowitz, the New York lawyer whom President Donald Trump has hired to defend him in these inquiries, told ProPublica through a spokesman that he does not have a security clearance — the prerequisite for access to government secrets. Nor does he expect to seek one.
Several lawyers who have represented presidents and senior government officials said they could not imagine handling a case so suffused with sensitive material without a clearance.
“No question in my mind — in order to represent President Trump in this matter you would have to get a very high level of clearance because of the allegations involving Russia,” said Robert Bennett, who served as President Bill Clinton’s personal lawyer. Like many Washington lawyers, Bennett has held security clearances throughout his career.
As the spotlight on Russia intensifies with new email disclosures that his son, son-in-law, and then-campaign manager met in June 2016 with a Russian attorney who promised damaging information about Hillary Clinton, Kasowitz’s lack of a security clearance could hinder the president’s legal and political response to the scandal.
One possible explanation for Kasowitz’s decision not to pursue a clearance: He might have trouble getting one.
In recent weeks, ProPublica spoke with more than two dozen current and former employees of Kasowitz’s firm, Kasowitz Benson Torres LLP, as well as his friends and acquaintances. Past and present employees of the firm said in interviews that Kasowitz has struggled intermittently with alcohol abuse, leading to a stint in rehab in the winter of 2014-15.
Several people told ProPublica that Kasowitz has been drinking in recent months. (The vast majority of those who spoke to ProPublica for this article declined to be quoted by name, citing Kasowitz’s penchant for threatening lawsuits.)
Experts on federal security reviews told ProPublica that recent episodes of alcohol abuse are a major barrier to receiving clearance, a process that involves government agents poring over a person’s past and interviewing family, friends and colleagues. Investigators typically raise flags about behaviors that might make someone vulnerable to blackmail or suggest poor judgment.
Kasowitz’s spokesman said he doesn’t need a clearance. “No one has suggested he requires a security clearance, there has been no need for a security clearance, and we do not anticipate a need for a security clearance,” the spokesman said. “If and when a security clearance is needed, Mr. Kasowitz will apply for one with the other members of the legal team.”
Kasowitz’s spokesman did not directly respond to questions about whether he has struggled with alcohol abuse, but said the attorney is able to drink in moderation without a problem.
While not a government employee, Kasowitz has become a public face of the administration on the Russia case. Last month, he went before the cameras to deliver the president’s response to the landmark testimony of fired FBI Director James Comey. White House officials have regularly referred media inquiries about Russia-related matters, including queries about Jared Kushner and Michael Flynn, to Kasowitz.
In Washington, where every word and action of the president’s lawyer is scrutinized, Kasowitz is a neophyte. Instead of negotiating deals among the capital’s power brokers or fending off FBI investigations, Kasowitz, 65, built a lucrative practice in civil court suing banks and representing, among others, a leading tobacco company.
Kasowitz has been described by colleagues in the scrappy world of New York lawyers as the “toughest of the tough guys.” Bloomberg News called him a “Pit Bull Loyal to The Boss” while The New York Times described him as “the Donald Trump of lawyering.” His aggressive legal style has spurred rebukes from two judges.
For over 15 years, he represented Donald Trump, earning the president’s loyalty through his eager pugilism. Kasowitz has defended him in the Trump University fraud lawsuit. He fought to keep records from Trump’s 1990 divorce private, and threatened to sue The New York Times for publishing a story in which women accused Trump of unwanted touching and sexual assault. He also recently represented Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly after multiple women accused O’Reilly of sexual harassment.
Before representing Trump in the Russia inquiry, Kasowitz was informally advising the president. He has told friends he recommended firing Preet Bharara because the crusading prosecutor posed a danger to the administration. He has told people Trump wanted him to be attorney general.
Trump reportedly sought a classic Washington lawyer to represent him on Russia before choosing Kasowitz. Initially Kasowitz was reluctant to take it on. “He didn’t seek this,” said Joseph Lieberman, the former senator and Democratic vice presidential candidate who is now senior counsel at the firm. “In the end, the president said, ‘I need you. I know you and trust you.’”
SCOOP: DEVOS PLANNING MEETINGS ON TITLE IX GUIDANCE: DeVos is scheduling a series of meetings next week with advocates for survivors of campus sexual assault, as well as with groups representing students who say they were wrongfully accused and college attorneys, according to multiple sources with knowledge of the meetings. It could be a sign that she will soon make changes to controversial 2011 guidance on campus sexual assault issued by the Obama administration, which required colleges to take certain steps to crack down on sexual violence on campus. Candice Jackson, the acting head of the Office for Civil Rights, said last month that it is "unavoidable that OCR will take a position" on a controversial aspect of that guidance that pushed colleges to use a lower standard of proof in disciplinary hearings involving sexual violence than is used in criminal courts. Critics, including conservatives and some higher education and civil liberties groups, argue the standard is unfair to the accused.
— Those critics say the meetings give them hope that changes may be coming soon. “This is the first time that there’s been an acknowledgment — an open acknowledgment — that there’s another side, another part of this equation — and the other part of this equation is the people who are accused,” said Andrew Miltenberg, an attorney who represents students who say they were wrongfully accused of sexual assault. Per Miltenberg, the Education Department has reached out to groups including SAVE: Stop Abusive and Violent Environments, one of the most vocal critics of the current guidance, Families Advocating for Campus Equality and the National Coalition for Men, a group that, according to its website, is “dedicated to the removal of harmful gender-based stereotypes, especially as they impact boys, men, their families and those who love them.”
— Advocates for survivors of sexual assault, meanwhile, are on high alert. They contend the Obama administration’s guidance has played a critical role to encourage victims to come forward when they are attacked. They point to research showing that sexual assault and rape are grossly underreported on college campuses. The groups are relaunching an online campaign using the “DearBetsy” hashtag to encourage DeVos to keep the guidance. The groups invited to meet with her include Know Your IX, End Rape On Campus, SurvJustice and the National Women’s Law Center. GLSEN, Girls, Inc. and the National Center for Transgender Equality have also been invited, sources said. “SurvJustice is looking forward to the opportunity to meet with Asst. Sec. Candice Jackson and Sec. DeVos on the importance of Title IX enforcement this July,” SurvJustice CEO and founder Laura Dunn wrote on Facebook last week.
— It’s unclear how the Trump administration will proceed. Jackson suggested last month that rather than rescinding the controversial Dear Colleague letter that pushed the standard, and more broadly addressed campus sexual assault, the department may engage in a negotiated rulemaking process to reset those guidelines. Conservatives have long argued the Obama administration should have gone through such rulemaking processes before issuing the guidance in 2011. More on that here.
A laying of hands on Trump, a truly devout person trying to make the world a better place with love,compassion, selflessness and renunciation of worldly goods.
On July 13 2017 04:16 KwarK wrote: Out of curiously, Danglars, xDaunt, do you believe Kushner when he says that he didn't know about any Russian government support for Trump because he doesn't read his emails and so he wasn't lying?
I don't think that Kushner and the rest of the Trump team have been particularly forthright about what has happened.
EDIT: In other words, I don't implicitly trust what they say.
I'm not sure I understand your response. I was hoping for more of a yes or a no. I'll try a different approach. Given that Kushner received an email from Trump Jr. with the subject line
Subject: Re: Russia - Clinton - private and confidential
in which the line
Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump
was featured, do you find his denial of any knowledge of communications between the Trump campaign and Russia plausible?
I'm not asking you to jump to pitchforks and torches, I'm just seeing if you can acknowledge that his denials aren't very plausible.
I don't know what he's responding to or what he thinks he's responding to. All that I'm saying is that I don't really trust Kushner or anyone else in the Trump team.
Okay, so you need to know the context of the statements. Here's a video.
On July 13 2017 04:16 KwarK wrote: Out of curiously, Danglars, xDaunt, do you believe Kushner when he says that he didn't know about any Russian government support for Trump because he doesn't read his emails and so he wasn't lying?
I don't think that Kushner and the rest of the Trump team have been particularly forthright about what has happened.
EDIT: In other words, I don't implicitly trust what they say.
I'm not sure I understand your response. I was hoping for more of a yes or a no. I'll try a different approach. Given that Kushner received an email from Trump Jr. with the subject line
Subject: Re: Russia - Clinton - private and confidential
in which the line
Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump
was featured, do you find his denial of any knowledge of communications between the Trump campaign and Russia plausible?
I'm not asking you to jump to pitchforks and torches, I'm just seeing if you can acknowledge that his denials aren't very plausible.
I don't know what he's responding to or what he thinks he's responding to. All that I'm saying is that I don't really trust Kushner or anyone else in the Trump team.
Okay, so you need to know the context of the statements. Here's a video.
30 seconds in the interviewer says that the Clinton campaign
seemed to be suggesting that this is part of a plot to help Donald Trump and hurt Hillary Clinton
and Trump Jr. describes it as
lie after lie
disgusting
and
so phony
In your opinion, was Donald Trump Jr. aware at the time that he had taken a meeting in order to accept
Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump
If he had, were his comments in the video compatible with his knowledge of
Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump
Do you think that in this instance you could extend your lack of trust to an outright declaration that you think what he was saying was not true?
Why are you bringing up Junior when you were initially asking about Kushner?
Because you appeared to be arguing that the issue of whether Kushner was lying when he claimed no knowledge of a meeting he went to was too complex to really know so I thought I'd go with something simpler. With the Jr. case we have him actually arranging the meeting that he subsequently denied, and we know that he definitely read the email.
Any chance you could give your gut feeling as to whether Jr. was lying in that video, given that you know the full context, and that he has subsequently admitted that it wasn't true.
On July 13 2017 04:16 KwarK wrote: Out of curiously, Danglars, xDaunt, do you believe Kushner when he says that he didn't know about any Russian government support for Trump because he doesn't read his emails and so he wasn't lying?
I don't think that Kushner and the rest of the Trump team have been particularly forthright about what has happened.
EDIT: In other words, I don't implicitly trust what they say.
I'm not sure I understand your response. I was hoping for more of a yes or a no. I'll try a different approach. Given that Kushner received an email from Trump Jr. with the subject line
Subject: Re: Russia - Clinton - private and confidential
in which the line
Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump
was featured, do you find his denial of any knowledge of communications between the Trump campaign and Russia plausible?
I'm not asking you to jump to pitchforks and torches, I'm just seeing if you can acknowledge that his denials aren't very plausible.
I don't know what he's responding to or what he thinks he's responding to. All that I'm saying is that I don't really trust Kushner or anyone else in the Trump team.
Okay, so you need to know the context of the statements. Here's a video.
30 seconds in the interviewer says that the Clinton campaign
seemed to be suggesting that this is part of a plot to help Donald Trump and hurt Hillary Clinton
and Trump Jr. describes it as
lie after lie
disgusting
and
so phony
In your opinion, was Donald Trump Jr. aware at the time that he had taken a meeting in order to accept
Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump
If he had, were his comments in the video compatible with his knowledge of
Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump
Do you think that in this instance you could extend your lack of trust to an outright declaration that you think what he was saying was not true?
Why are you bringing up Junior when you were initially asking about Kushner?
Because you appeared to be arguing that the issue of whether Kushner was lying when he claimed no knowledge of a meeting he went to was too complex to really know so I thought I'd go with something simpler. With the Jr. case we have him actually arranging the meeting that he subsequently denied, and we know that he definitely read the email.
Any chance you could give your gut feeling as to whether Jr. was lying in that video, given that you know the full context, and that he has subsequently admitted that it wasn't true.
I don't know if I'd say lying, but my gut tells me that that he's leaving things out.
So... the russian lawyer is really a deep-state agent who really wants to harm trump, but is still reckless enough to go to Anti-Trump rallies, and post pics of them on her personal facebook account. Also puzzelig how did not make a deal out of the meeting before long after Trump was elected...
On July 13 2017 05:12 Slydie wrote: So... the russian lawyer is really a deep-state agent who really wants to harm trump, but is still reckless enough to go to Anti-Trump rallies, and post pics of them on her personal facebook account. Also puzzelig how did not make a deal out of the meeting before long after Trump was elected...
EPT
