Discussion: Advocacy Groups Accuse Trump Camp Of Violating Law In Russian Meeting

photo caption: “Hey guys, look over there! There are the Russians that want me to be Pres!”


Filing with the FEC is a useless gesture. The story will disappear by tomorrow.


I’ve seen several attempts to explain by analogy why a lack of actual “dirt on Hillary” doesn’t make this meeting OK. The analogies range from shooting a bunch of people to trying and failing to rob a bank. None of them seem apt to me, so let me offer one that does:

This was like stealing the money from a store’s cash register, then later discovering that the store was run by counterfeiters and the money you stole is counterfeit money. The fact that you failed to steal any real money doesn’t change the fact that you still stole from a store’s cash register.


The FEC has six seats, which are supposed to be balanced between Republicans and Democrats. But, unfortunately, we have currently 1 vacant, 3 Republicans, 1 Democrat, and 1 Independent. If the voters are partisan, this won’t get very far.

Another example of how Republicans benefit by interfering with the function of governmental agencies.


True but keeps it front and center and they have to generate another stack of lies to disprove it.
I say keep up the pressure from every side


”Trump Jr. affirmed that he pressed Veselnitskaya for the Clinton dirt, after realizing in the meeting that it was unlikely she would provide much useful information.”

Shorter Jethro: “Sure I tried to shoot a man just to watch him die, but the gun jammed – so no harm, no foul.”


Except that is a silly point to make, because we don’t yet know whether the money is counterfeit! All we have to support that notion is the assertions of DoJu (Donald Jr.) and the Russian lawyer - neither of whom should be trusted.

1 Like

And besides that
If the email had said
“lets discuss Russian adoptions” Its likely they would have said pass
But the enticement was: Russian State dirt on Hillary
= A cash register full of money


“There’s my Negro”

The “Russian adoptions” line was one or more of the above:

  1. The “quo” in the quid pro quo for the supposed Hillary dirt;
  2. The predetermined bogus explanation for the meeting if it ever came to light;
  3. The last minute bogus explanation they came up with explain the meeting once it came to light;
  4. The smokescreen the Russians came up with for the lawyer to talk about just to dangle the possibility of Hillary dirt to see if the Trump campaign would bite.

My money is on 1) and 3). Russian adoptions relief from sanctions was one of the topics discussed as possible “quo” for dirt the Russians might later provide (remember that Don Jr. says “later in the summer”), and since that was at least partially true they went with that as the sole explanation for the visit since that would also explain why they didn’t feel it was important enough to report before.


I’ll go with this
It was a dangle
and it worked.
The non- Political- I- don’t- work- for- the- Kremlin- Russian Lawyer sitting in the front row of a Senate Hearing


That is a tasty nothingburger!

1 Like

I heard the ambassador was creeped out by this picture when he saw it because she’s sitting with his sons.


More like: “Look over there, Hillary, Benghazi, emails and don’t forget Obama and his fake birth certificate”.

1 Like

If it wasn’t 4, that’s because it had already been established the campaign would bite.

Muddying the waters for 1, 2 and 3 is the fact that Veselnitskaya(the Russian lawyer) has been actively involved for several years in trying to remove the sanctions(Magnitinsky Act) for which the adoption ban was retaliation.

1 Like

That pic gets better and better - former Obama Ambassador to Russia is whom she’s sitting behind.
And whose laptop she is looking at, and maybe saw his login.

I’d no idea the ambassador’s kids were in the frame - that could be construed as a form of “we can get to you.”

And - the guy on the left side, behind the woman with blue/lavender shirt, looks a lot like Agalarov the younger.


because we don’t yet know

You might want to try re-reading the comment you replied to – for comprehension this time :wink:

The story relies on the premise that the money is counterfeit (i.e. the meeting led to no actual collusion) - we don’t know that yet, and in fact it seems very likely that the money WAS real (i.e. DID lead to collusion).

Comprehension still missing. Care to try again?