DJT JR Was Set Up by the DNC. Russian Lawyer worked for Fusion GPS, Group behind phony Dossier

a reply to: Sillyolme

Because it's not nothing.

yes it is
www.nbcnews.com...
from your own team

“I never had any damaging or sensitive information about Hillary Clinton. It was never my intention to have that,” Natalia Veselnitskaya said

It is, after all, nothing.

Amazing how a big non-story can captivate the air-waves for 36 hours now. A last gasp from the left?

originally posted by: carewemust
Amazing how a big non-story can captivate the air-waves for 36 hours now. A last gasp from the left?

I suspect that they have an extensive list of nothing stories to play for everyone.
It is the big 'resist' thing that they came up with.

Just like the Senior Senator from New York pontificating about how the Republicans need to work with the Democrats... I don't think it is scoring them any points in the long run.

a reply to: shooterbrody

There are even those who think a lot is two words.

Go figure.

originally posted by: carewemust
Amazing how a big non-story can captivate the air-waves for 36 hours now. A last gasp from the left?

Shows again that liberal media are nothing more than a campaign and PR machine of the DNC.
Notice how they are going after the kids now - having been soundly humiliated when they tried to take on Trump Snr.

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Sillyolme

Because it's not nothing.

yes it is
www.nbcnews.com...
from your own team

“I never had any damaging or sensitive information about Hillary Clinton. It was never my intention to have that,” Natalia Veselnitskaya said

It is, after all, nothing.

It's no use man, it's like talking to a wall
Facts mean nothing to these lunatic Leftists.....nothing. Even when it's from their own Leftist sources.
They are so ass backwards in their thinking, they are beyond logical thought processing.

a reply to: Sillyolme

Too bad for you that "but he wanted to" is not a crime........
Oh you would have to have "intent" to prove that as well. We all know no one has any "intent" these days.

a reply to: buckwhizzle

No I'm not. I'm very rational and well informed. You guys hate my logic and try constantly attack me with foolishness, memes or for some reason Hillary.
I've got my arguments. I've got my little duckies in a row. I have names and dates.

Your little one sentence judgement is a perfect example of what I'm talking about.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: buckwhizzle

No I'm not. I'm very rational and well informed. You guys hate my logic and try constantly attack me with foolishness, memes or for some reason Hillary.
I've got my arguments. I've got my little duckies in a row. I have names and dates.

Your little one sentence judgement is a perfect example of what I'm talking about.

Lol Names and dates? Of what?
Here you go -
patribotics.blog...

Maybe Louise Mensch will give you job publishing your fantasies on her blog.
Your level of derangement is almost as bad as hers.

a reply to: UKTruth

I saw her on tv. I heard her say they were longing.
And they thought she had something. Their intent was perfectly clear.

And she's lied about a few things already.
There's an e mail that proves it.

Most of the narrative you link is opinion of what picture is being painted. It's right in there.

The picture that matters is what picture is forming in the mind of Bob Mueller and his team of prosecutors. What do you suppose prosecutors are there to do I wonder...hmmmm.

a reply to: UKTruth

The expectation of reciprocity was clear. Both mentioned the sanction on adoptions.
Dude. Really. Open your eyes.

a reply to: Sillyolme

LOL

This is just sad.

Its over.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: buckwhizzle

No I'm not. I'm very rational and well informed. You guys hate my logic and try constantly attack me with foolishness, memes or for some reason Hillary.
I've got my arguments. I've got my little duckies in a row. I have names and dates.

Your little one sentence judgement is a perfect example of what I'm talking about.

I agree wow were on the same side for a change. I usually have to end up defending Trump for some crazy thing you said. But in this situation Jr was wrong he literally admits what he thought the meeting was about. And luckily for him she didn't have anything. As to people's claims collusion isn't illegal that's a lie told by fox. It is and here's why. Amy promise he might have made to that woman like we'll when we get into office we will do this in exchange for this. Just remember guys FOX lies as much as CNN they claimed there is no law against collusion.



18 U.S. Code § 610 - Coercion of political activity


www.law.cornell.edu...

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: buckwhizzle

No I'm not. I'm very rational and well informed. You guys hate my logic and try constantly attack me with foolishness, memes or for some reason Hillary.
I've got my arguments. I've got my little duckies in a row. I have names and dates.

Your little one sentence judgement is a perfect example of what I'm talking about.

MUH RUSSIA...I see Russians everywhere...

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: UKTruth

The expectation of reciprocity was clear. Both mentioned the sanction on adoptions.
Dude. Really. Open your eyes.

The horror of the evil Russian orphan adoption scheme? When will the Russian atrocities stop?
It's a shame you Leftists are so twisted, that you would want to stop able bodied American citizens from adopting Russian orphans.
I know why you are against it, because they will not vote Democrat when they get older.

a reply to: Ares2493

Funny, according to DJT Jr, a Russian celebrity friend had his agent setup the meeting with the lawyer who by his admission, spent the whole meeting talking about "Russian adoption" issue which is actually the Magnitsky Act. Why the hell would the DNC want to lobby the Trump campaign via Kremlin connected Russian lawyer?

The "it's a Russian narrative" narrative has been falling apart since Flynn was revealed to be lying and forced to resign. It's been the death of a thousand oh-yea-we-did-meet-with-Russians-and-lied-about-it cuts ever since. Look at the emails that DJT Jr just tweeted. He was straight up promised "sensitive documents" sourced to the "highest levels" of the Russian government. The email even says point blank that the Russian government is supporting the Donald Trump campaign.

Yet, "DNC! Clinton! Soros! Russian narrative!" EXCUSES.

a reply to: dragonridr

ok i am going to ask you again as you did not answer the first time
www.law.cornell.edu...

It shall be unlawful for any person to intimidate, threaten, command, or coerce, or attempt to intimidate, threaten, command, or coerce, any employee of the Federal Government as defined in section 7322(1) of title 5,

Who is the employee of the federal government that was injured?

a reply to: shooterbrody

It was campaign contributions.
The thing of value expected was information.

a reply to: Sillyolme


So as per your previous post you said"This is collusion.We got em."And you know this already.Nice to know.

a reply to: theantediluvian

The lawyer IS Russian. She doesnt represent Russia.

She holds no network or official authority to negotiate on behalf of the Russian government.

The Russian celeb set the meeting up. He wasnt there as far as I could tell. There is no mention of him.

The purpose of the meeting was to discuss illegal DNC contributions by Russia. That was what DJT jr was told he was having the meeting to discuss.

That would fall under his civic duty to report if he found information proving it to be true. Thats a valid reason to meet so as to get that info.

That was the ONLY question, one, that DJT Jr asked.

"Do you have evidence of the DNC violating finance laws." Then the thing was over. 20 mins with the first 15 given to pleasantries.

She basically sold him on one reason for the meeting and then switched what she was there for, hence why it lasted what is seconds in the corporate world.

What about the lawyer being an employee of a company the DNC used for opposition politics?

That gets a golden ticket?

Are we supposed to double down on what is a proven false argument now?

Why?

So we act like the retards those who lied to us wish we were?