Liberal Forum

Misty » 11 Jul 2017 3:49 pm » wrote: Oh, I know.
It's not a right wingnut blog like the sources you love to cite.

The piece contained direct quotes by a top campaign lawyer and other legal experts and a video of Paul Butler who is a law professor and former DOJ prosecutor.

But I'm sure Salon just fabricated the quotes and the video.

Misty » 11 Jul 2017 3:49 pm » wrote: Oh, I know.
It's not a right wingnut blog like the sources you love to cite.

The piece contained direct quotes by a top campaign lawyer and other legal experts and a video of Paul Butler who is a law professor and former DOJ prosecutor.

But I'm sure Salon just fabricated the quotes and the video.

Misty » 11 Jul 2017 3:49 pm » wrote: Oh, I know.
It's not a right wingnut blog like the sources you love to cite.

Misty » 11 Jul 2017 2:11 pm » wrote:Oppo research is a thing of value.
Campaigns pay big money for it.

Termin8tor » 11 Jul 2017 4:04 pm » wrote:
Oh wow, well that straightens me out. I defer to you.

But btw, wasn't the 10's of millions of dollars the Clinton's and their corrupt cronies got a "thing of value?" Don't strain yourself answering that.

And they met secretly with foreigners including the Russians.

Why did you entirely ignore those countless felonies?

For the months and months you've lied about and accused Trump, you didn't write one single word about any of that, let alone accuse them of crimes.

Termin8tor » 11 Jul 2017 3:43 pm » wrote:Pink slime.
Hey psycho, if receiving information is a "thing of value" and a crime, why aren't you shrieking in outrage that HRC officials actually got that from Ukraine?
Because you don't care about actual felonies committed by Democrats, just imagined fake crimes by Repubs with zero evidence to back your claims up.

Chalupa left the DNC after the Democratic convention in late July to focus fulltime on her research into Manafort, Trump and Russia.

She said she provided off-the-record information and guidance to “a lot of journalists” working on stories related to Manafort and Trump’s Russia connections, despite what she described as escalating harassment.

Chalupa this month told Politico that, as her research and role in the election started becoming more public, she began receiving death threats, along with continued alerts of state-sponsored hacking.

But she said, “None of this has scared me off.”

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/u ... ire-233446

Ukrainian government officials tried to help Hillary Clinton and undermine Trump by publicly questioning his fitness for office.

The Ukrainian efforts had an impact in the race, helping to force Manafort’s resignation and advancing the narrative that Trump’s campaign was deeply connected to Ukraine’s foe to the east, Russia.

But they were far less concerted or centrally directed than Russia’s alleged hacking and dissemination of Democratic emails.

Russia’s effort was personally directed by Russian President Vladimir Putin, involved the country’s military and foreign intelligence services, according to U.S. intelligence officials.

There’s little evidence of such a top-down effort by Ukraine.

Longtime observers suggest that the rampant corruption, factionalism and economic struggles plaguing the country — not to mention its ongoing strife with Russia — would render it unable to pull off an ambitious covert interference campaign in another country’s election.

Misty » 11 Jul 2017 4:54 pm » wrote: First of all, It was not an HRC 'official' it was a Ukrainian-American operative who was consulting for the Democratic National Committee who got some dirt on Manafort from the Ukrainian embassy.

And she (Alexandra Chalupa) undertook her investigations into Trump, Manafort and Russia on her own.

She began researching Manafort’s role in Yanukovych’s rise, as well as his ties to the pro-Russian oligarchs who funded Yanukovych’s political party as part of some pro bono work she was doing for another client interested in the Ukrainian crisis.
The Clinton campaign may have used some of Chalupa's findings to their advantage, but they did not solicit them, and she was not working for the campaign.

She continued her research, on her own, even after she left her consulting gig at the DNC and was no longer being paid by them.

Curious that you believe that if HRC's campaign had solicited dirt on Manafort from Ukraine, that would be a felony, but when Fredo and two other top people on the Trump campaign are actually being shown to have solicited dirt on HRC from Russia, that's just an 'imagined fake crime.'

Double standard much?

Also from my source:

The emails between President Trump’s oldest son and an intermediary for the Russians provide the clearest indication to date that Trump campaign officials and family members were at least prepared to do business with a foreign adversary in the mutual goal of taking down Hillary Clinton.

The language in the messages to Donald Trump Jr. is conspiratorial and explicit.

The president’s son was offered “official documents” that would “incriminate Hillary” and that would be “very useful to your father.”

Trump Jr. was also informed in the emails that the information being offered was “part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump.”

Rather than setting off alarms within the Trump operation, the emails were gratefully received.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/ ... story.html

Misty » 11 Jul 2017 6:51 pm » wrote: AMEN!

TRUMP JR. RELEASES EMAILS; THEY SUPPORT HIS ACCOUNT

Earlier this morning, Donald Trump, Jr. released the email threads relating to his meeting with Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya in June 2016.

The emails support his account of the meeting.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2 ... ccount.php

Misty » 11 Jul 2017 7:08 pm » wrote:From one of Clem's favorite sources:
Excuse me but the emails do NOT support Fredo's first account of the meeting that it was a meeting about Russian adoption.

The story goes on to say, "Someone in this chain is obviously lying, and it isn’t Donald Trump, Jr."

Yeah, I think he lied when he said that it was a meeting about Russian adoption.

Curiously PowerLineBlog.com left that part out.

He likely would have clung to that lie if the 'FAKE NEWS' NY Times had not reported on the existence of those emails.

They also failed to mention that Fredo has been denying meeting with any Russians for over a year.

Clem loves media bias when it's biased towards his side.

We see one truly solid takeaway from the story of the day: Donald Trump Jr. is an idiot.

In the heat of your father’s presidential campaign, a bozo British publicist e-mails you to set up a sitdown with a “Russian government attorney” promising “documents and information” to “incriminate Hillary” courtesy of the “Crown prosecutor of Russia” as “part of” the Russian government’s “support” for dad — and you eagerly take the meeting.

“If it’s what you say I love it,” wrote Junior.

As if the government of former KGB spymaster Vladimir Putin would do anything so clumsy.

(Our former colleague Kyle Smith put it nicely: “Don Jr. is why Nigerian e-mail scammers keep trying their luck.”)

Worse, he dragged brother-in-law Jared Kushner and then-campaign chief Paul Manafort into the meeting, which proved to be a bid by a Moscow fixer to undo a US law causing trouble for her clients.

(Reportedly, Kushner walked out within 10 minutes while Manafort did work on his phone.)

Oh, and someone was so careless with the e-mail trail that it all wound up being fed to The New York Times, for days of headlines that (at best) undermine President Trump’s agenda as both health and tax reform hang in the balance in Congress.

Dumb. Dumb. Dumb.

As were Junior’s shifting, incomplete accounts of the meeting under days of Times questioning.

Democrats and the media are frothing to find something criminal in it all, with the most unhinged talking treason.

What it clearly was, was criminally stupid.

http://nypost.com/2017/07/11/donald-tru ... idiot/amp/

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) is asking top Trump administration officials to explain why a Russian lawyer who met with Donald Trump Jr. last year was allowed in the country.

Grassley, who chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee, sent a letter to Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson asking why Natalia Veselnitskaya was allowed to stay in the country when, according to court documents, she had to leave in early 2016.

"It is unclear how she was still in the country for that meeting despite being denied a visa beforehand and her parole purportedly expiring on January 7, 2016.

This raises serious questions about whether the Obama administration authorized her to remain in the country, and if so, why?" Grassley wrote.

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/s ... scandal-in

Misty » 11 Jul 2017 7:08 pm » wrote:From one of Clem's favorite sources:


Excuse me but the emails do NOT support Fredo's first account of the meeting that it was a meeting about Russian adoption.

The story goes on to say, "Someone in this chain is obviously lying, and it isn’t Donald Trump, Jr."

Yeah, I think he lied when he said that it was a meeting about Russian adoption.

Curiously PowerLineBlog.com left that part out.

He likely would have clung to that lie if the 'FAKE NEWS' NY Times had not reported on the existence of those emails.

They also failed to mention that Fredo has been denying meeting with any Russians for over a year.

Clem loves media bias when it's biased towards his side.

Misty » 11 Jul 2017 4:54 pm » wrote:
First of all, It was not an HRC 'official' it was a Ukrainian-American operative who was consulting for the Democratic National Committee who got some dirt on Manafort from the Ukrainian embassy.

And she (Alexandra Chalupa) undertook her investigations into Trump, Manafort and Russia on her own.....

The Clinton campaign may have used some of Chalupa's findings to their advantage, but they did not solicit them, and she was not working for the campaign.

Misty » 11 Jul 2017 8:10 pm » wrote:Oh boy!
Trump losing the NY Post and Drudge.
What's next?
The National Enquirer?

Misty » 11 Jul 2017 3:49 pm » wrote: Oh, I know.
It's not a right wingnut blog like the sources you love to cite.

Attorney Gregg Jarrett: Gregg Jarrett: What Donald Trump Jr. Did Was NOT Illegal – Even Political Collusion It Is Not a Crime
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/07 ... ime-video/

Misty » 11 Jul 2017 7:08 pm » wrote:From one of Clem's favorite sources:
Excuse me but the emails do NOT support Fredo's first account of the meeting that it was a meeting about Russian adoption.

The story goes on to say, "Someone in this chain is obviously lying, and it isn’t Donald Trump, Jr."

Yeah, I think he lied when he said that it was a meeting about Russian adoption.

Curiously PowerLineBlog.com left that part out.

He likely would have clung to that lie if the 'FAKE NEWS' NY Times had not reported on the existence of those emails.

They also failed to mention that Fredo has been denying meeting with any Russians for over a year.

Clem loves media bias when it's biased towards his side.

Misty » 11 Jul 2017 4:54 pm » wrote:
If Chelsea Clinton and her husband and John Podesta had conspired with a foreign entity, in order to gather oppo research on Trump, I would have no problem saying that was wrong.

Misty » 11 Jul 2017 4:54 pm » wrote: First of all, It was not an HRC 'official' it was a Ukrainian-American operative who was consulting for the Democratic National Committee who got some dirt on Manafort from the Ukrainian embassy.

And she (Alexandra Chalupa) undertook her investigations into Trump, Manafort and Russia on her own.

She began researching Manafort’s role in Yanukovych’s rise, as well as his ties to the pro-Russian oligarchs who funded Yanukovych’s political party as part of some pro bono work she was doing for another client interested in the Ukrainian crisis.
The Clinton campaign may have used some of Chalupa's findings to their advantage, but they did not solicit them, and she was not working for the campaign.

She continued her research, on her own, even after she left her consulting gig at the DNC and was no longer being paid by them.

Curious that you believe that if HRC's campaign had solicited dirt on Manafort from Ukraine, that would be a felony, but when Fredo and two other top people on the Trump campaign are actually being shown to have solicited dirt on HRC from Russia, that's just an 'imagined fake crime.'

Double standard much?

Also from my source:
If Chelsea Clinton and her husband and John Podesta had conspired with a foreign entity, in order to gather oppo research on Trump, I would have no problem saying that was wrong.