Posted on 07/12/2017 8:41:01 AM PDT by Helicondelta
Donald Trump Jr. scooped The New York Times Tuesday morning by tweeting out the email chain that has been the subject of three stories suggesting he knew that a meeting with a Russian attorney was part of Russia’s effort to assist his father’s presidential campaign.
The predictable claims that the emails are a “smoking gun” proving collusion and that such activity amounted to “treason” followed. But what the emails actually reveal is nothing of the sort.
First, when “collusion” between the Trump campaign and Russia was originally discussed it had always been within the context of the Trump campaign assisting the Russians with hacking the DNC. But with these emails, that theory immediately falls apart. As I wrote on Monday, the DNC knew in May that Russia hacked its network. Don Jr. met with the Russian lawyer in June, the month after the hack—meaning that Don Jr. could not collude to do something that had already happened.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...
Except that it was from someone whom he knew and had no reason not to trust.
-PJ
He she is days before meeting Donald Jr at Anti-Trump rallies, and she is connected to fusion GP.
Bingo. Thanks.
Bttt
Like I said previously, the whole set-up is paving the way later.
The true crimes Obama & Co. and Hillary & Clinton Foundation actually committed exposed under the sun, the public will have been so sick of the Russian Collusion story, they don’t care who was colluding with whom, nothing will come off it.
We’ve seen this played plenty of times before, Fast&Furious, Benghazi, Hillary’s illegal private email/server, .....
Stop evading the question slick. Lets try once more.
As the Trump campaign was being hit with relentless 24/7 political attacks from every direction during the election, attacks not only from D.C. but the media as well, would you simply ignore possible credible sources who allegedly had dirt on your opponent?
Yes or no?
From a “credible source” no.
Are you saying this fruit cake Music man from England was a “credible source”?
The fact is this fruit cake from England wasn’t a “credible source”.
My issue is the original email sent by this fruit cake.
It read like a Nigerian Email Scam and it ended up being either
a scam or setup.
See the tag line.☺
Jr. did nothing wrong or illegal in regards to this event no matter how much you attempt to make is so.
I don’t have to answer any questions you ask. But I do so out of courtesy.
I did answer your question. And I said no.
You however, seem to avoid answering mine.
So let me give it another try.
Did this fruit cake in England turn out to be a credible source?
It is a simple yes or no.
So what’s the big hairy deal?
This is only a big deal for the leftist, lying media and Trump opponents who are clearly attempting to make it a big deal.
Back to my question. As the Trump campaign was being hit with relentless 24/7 political attacks from every direction during the election, attacks not only from D.C. but the media as well, would you simply ignore any possible credible sources who allegedly had dirt on your opponent?
I'll answer it for ya.
No you wouldn't and neither would anyone else during such a relentless campaign of corruption that your opponents were operating.
I don’t think Don did anything illegal. I have never said that in any of my posts. I think the whole thing is a nothing burger.
However, there were a lot of red flags in the fruit cake from England’s
original e mail to Don.
I do believe poor judgement was used to even listen to this fruit cake.
As it turns out, he was not a credible source. That is all I am saying.
This begs the question, like investigators, cops, DA's, FBI, political consultants, CIA, etc, all use different sources, some not so credible and some flat out dubious. Are you suggesting in the future, those who rely on sources such as these for possible information should simply ignore them?
How in tarnation do ya know if someone has valid information unless you speak with them?
This begs the question, like investigators, cops, DA's, FBI, political consultants, CIA, etc, all use different sources, some not so credible and some flat out dubious. Are you suggesting in the future, those who rely on sources such as these for possible information should simply ignore them?
That's not all you're saying. You're also saying you don't want to answer difficult or uncomfortable questions which may not fit into your narrative.
It doesn't even prove that. It might prove that if he had continued meeting after he discovered there was nothing here. That seems to have happened early.
It only proves that paid pundits have to say something to justify their existence.
Anyone remotely connected to any such campaign would accept the invitation to meet. Those pundits commenting on Junior's mental state would be the first to meet. For all we know, they may have been but discovered even earlier in the process there was nothing to obtain.
Jake Tapper said something about Junior committing collusion. Was that 1st degree collusion? Premeditated collusion? Collusion after the fact? Attempted collusion? Conspiring to commit collusion?
CNN, NYT and MSNBC were jokes long before this. This could be the ultimate joke, but there is no energy left for laughing.
It doesn't even prove that. It might prove that if he had continued meeting after he discovered there was nothing here. That seems to have happened early.
That is what I was attempting to explain to Tennessee man, but he clearly did not get it.
Fact is, there is no way potential damaging information on political opponents would be simply ignored by any party in such an election. That's not reality. Fact is he listened, then totally ignored it.
Comments such as, "Don Jr. is not very smart", in regards to this, are absurd and sounds like something a media stooge would pop off with.
But the person from Tennessee won't respond as they're still running from and evading the last question.☺
Here is one of several articles that came out after my post about Don Jr.
It’s not from MSM. It is from Brietbart, a Trump supporting news site,
if you care to read.
There are several other articles I have stumbled across, but I’m moving
on. Feel free to spend as much time as you wish replying to me. It does
not bother me. We just disagree of what you describe as a “credible source”. Take a read. Link is below.
Investigators, cops, DA's, FBI, political consultants, CIA, corporations, and anyone else competing against others, all use different sources when obtaining data on their opponents or competitors. Some source are not so credible and some flat out dubious.
How do ya know if someone has valid or usable information unless you speak with them?
?
So once again, are you suggesting in the future, those who rely on different sources, as mentioned above, for possible information, should they simply ignore all those sources?
?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
