Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Trump Jr. Emails Prove Russia Collusion Story Is Even Dumber Than You Thought
dailycaller.com ^ | 07/12/2017

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 ...


TOPICS: Breaking News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: donjr; media; msm; russia; trumpjr; trumprussia
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-63 next last
To: tennmountainman
The original email from nutcase in England reads like a Nigerian email scam.

Except that it was from someone whom he knew and had no reason not to trust.

-PJ

41 posted on 07/12/2017 10:35:34 AM PDT by Political Junkie Too (The 1st Amendment gives the People the right to a free press, not CNN the right to the 1st question.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: HarleyLady27

http://i.4cdn.org/pol/1499878991204.png


42 posted on 07/12/2017 10:35:38 AM PDT by RushIsMyTeddyBear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Helicondelta

https://youtu.be/JvUsnOV19lw

He she is days before meeting Donald Jr at Anti-Trump rallies, and she is connected to fusion GP.


43 posted on 07/12/2017 10:57:10 AM PDT by heights
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Raebie

Bingo. Thanks.


44 posted on 07/12/2017 11:37:32 AM PDT by b4its2late (A Liberal is a person who will give away everything he doesn't own.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: RushIsMyTeddyBear

Bttt


45 posted on 07/12/2017 11:58:10 AM PDT by thinden
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: wtd

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, .....


46 posted on 07/12/2017 2:18:50 PM PDT by Sir Napsalot (Pravda + Useful Idiots = USSR; Journ0List + Useful Idiots = DopeyChangey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: tennmountainman
You don't answer a question with a question. You didn't think I saw that coming?

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?

47 posted on 07/12/2017 2:30:24 PM PDT by dragnet2 (Diversion and evasion are tools of deceit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: dragnet2

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.


48 posted on 07/12/2017 2:48:10 PM PDT by tennmountainman ("Prophet Mountainman" Predicter Of All Things RINO...for a small fee.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: tennmountainman
You evaded the question again and answered the question with yet another question.

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.

49 posted on 07/12/2017 2:59:15 PM PDT by dragnet2 (Diversion and evasion are tools of deceit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: dragnet2

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.


50 posted on 07/12/2017 3:12:45 PM PDT by tennmountainman ("Prophet Mountainman" Predicter Of All Things RINO...for a small fee.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: henkster
He also attended the meeting with witnesses, promised nothing, and did nothing. If the Russians were offering political information, hell yes, take it. Just like the “hacked e-mails” that revealed the DNC treated the presidential campaign as a game of three-card monte with Bernie Sanders and the entire democrat base as the suckers. Even if the Russians were the source of those emails, which is questionable, they didn’t write those emails, and the Russians didn’t run a sucker’s game. The DNC did. So if they were offering information on nefarious stunts of Hillary Clinton, of which there are many, it wasn’t the Russians who did those things, it was Hillary Clinton. Of course, we now know that the Russian lady was not offering that information. It was BS and Trump Jr. walked.

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.

51 posted on 07/12/2017 3:15:32 PM PDT by dragnet2 (Diversion and evasion are tools of deceit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: tennmountainman
No, it did not turn out good information on his opponent. That's been established. Try to keep up.

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.

52 posted on 07/12/2017 3:25:25 PM PDT by dragnet2 (Diversion and evasion are tools of deceit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: dragnet2

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.


53 posted on 07/12/2017 3:41:01 PM PDT by tennmountainman ("Prophet Mountainman" Predicter Of All Things RINO...for a small fee.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: tennmountainman
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?

54 posted on 07/12/2017 7:24:40 PM PDT by dragnet2 (Diversion and evasion are tools of deceit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: tennmountainman
I do believe poor judgement was used to even listen to this fruit cake. As it turns out, he was not a credible source.

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?

55 posted on 07/12/2017 8:30:07 PM PDT by dragnet2 (Diversion and evasion are tools of deceit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: tennmountainman
That is all I am saying.

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.

56 posted on 07/12/2017 8:32:33 PM PDT by dragnet2 (Diversion and evasion are tools of deceit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: tennmountainman
Unfortunately they reveal Don Jr is not very smart.

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.

57 posted on 07/13/2017 4:13:30 AM PDT by stevem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: stevem; tennmountainman
Unfortunately they reveal Don Jr is not very smart.

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.☺

58 posted on 07/13/2017 11:18:15 AM PDT by dragnet2 (Diversion and evasion are tools of deceit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: dragnet2

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.

http://www.breitbart.com/radio/2017/07/13/peter-schweizer-trump-jr-russia-meeting-stupid-not-uncommon/


59 posted on 07/13/2017 11:34:07 AM PDT by tennmountainman ("Prophet Mountainman" Predicter Of All Things RINO...for a small fee.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: tennmountainman
Why would I read some link from Brietbart when you won't even respond to basic questions directed to you?

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?

?

60 posted on 07/13/2017 12:54:02 PM PDT by dragnet2 (Diversion and evasion are tools of deceit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-63 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson