re: So Don Jr. Exchanged Messages with Wikileaks; Someone Explain to Me The Issue

quote:

---

You're an idiot

---

Unfortunately I'm not. If I were, I could wander through life as blissfully ignorant and myopic as you. Probably sleep more.

quote:

---

Why the media does not simply applaud the truth, or at least acknowledge that regardless of how these emails came to light, they did in fact exist, and their existence is undeniable. 

---

Funny isn't it? Especially when they consider Snowden a hero and rabidly defend his actions as a brave champion exposing corruption and we should focus on what he exposed and not how he exposed it even though technically it was a crime.

Liberal hypocrisy at its finest.

quote:

---

what was their intent,

---

Seemingly, the most important piece of the puzzle if you are to believe Honorable James.

I think you may be a liar.

quote:

---

Such contact might generate a "Dossier" full of fake accusations targeted at disrupting the opposition, and American politics in general. Right? Is that the "Plus Hillary Clinton" reference?

---

The dossier was compiled by a sub-contractor of a US-based research firm hired to do opposition research. The same firm also gathered information damaging to some Clinton donors and allies as part of a separate investigation. The same firm was also hired to conduct other investigations into both democrats and republicans and business interests and personal matters prior to and subsequent to the 2016 election--going back six years. It's a business that conducts investigations for profit. I fail to see the problem.

quote:

---

Regarding "6" and "7", Trump publicly joked that if Russia had the 30K "lost" emails, he hoped they would publish them. Does that honestly sound like someone engaged in a secret coordinated collusion with a foreign entity? Be honest.

---

Maybe you live in a country governed by a different Donald Trump.

quote:

---

compare presently apparent veracity of Trump's denials

---

Uh what? I'm seeing links out of the arse right now. Do they trace all the way to the top? We don't know yet (well I don't know, at least). We do know that one staffer made contacts that he apparently felt were dodgy enough to lie about and get his arse in the sling with the FBI (plead guilty). We know Trump's son, according to a witness claiming first-hand knowledge, "indicated that a law targeting Russia could be re-examined if his father won the election, and asked her for written evidence that illegal proceeds went to Hillary Clinton’s campaign." We know that he was invited to discuss a quid pro quo relationship in an e-mail offering the Trump campaign official documents that would incriminate Clinton "as part of the Russian government’s effort to help Mr. Trump’s candidacy." And that's just the shite on the surface.

quote:

---

FusionGPS and its Kremlin-seeded "Dossier".

---

For the last time.

Situation 1: I contract with a firm to gather oppo research. My contractor hires a subcontractor whom I've never heard of to assist in completing that job. That subcontractor, likely through prior contacts as an intelligence officer, runs down info through Russian (and other) sources and drafts a dossier which reportedly includes both good and bad information. It isn't used during the campaign.

Situation 2. Still unfolding.
My son and at least three other members of my circle (including my son-in-law and campaign manager) accept overtures for assistance from government of Russia-linked entities under the auspices of, quote, "the Russian government's effort to help Mr. Trump's candidacy." He replies that "he loves it." He attends a meeting, along with his brother-in-law and the campaign's manager, at which a first-hand witness (who may be lying) says he mused about our government reconsidering the Magnitsky Act in exchange for information that could incriminate Hillary Clinton. He later lied and said the meeting was about adoptions. He also communicated with a foreign actor, WikiLeaks, with strongly suggestive ties to the Kremlin, attempting to leverage their illegal hacking and other cyber crimes against Clinton, while at least passively receiving advice from them on contesting the election (if they lost) and/or working to have Julian Assange appointed Australian Ambassador to the United States--presumably as payback for the help. WikiLeak's subsequent revelations strangely coincided with some of these exchanges.

Which situation concerns you more?

There's a lot going on to keep up with.

quote:

---

Yeah, I think I was in the Team6 sort of camp from the near the very start of the campaign in 2015, and didn't really move fully into the Team7 camp's view of things until the summer of 2016. If I may make a brief case why I believe Team6's position is implausible, I would highlight that the Trump team has taken many otherwise inexplicable reciprocating actions, and has engaged in several deceptive coverups now, that could only have come straight from the top. There was the Flynn-Artemenko affair and the Yates-McGahn conversation and the subsequent Nunes diversions and the lie told about why Flynn was fired; the anti-Ukraine lobbying effort; the coordinated tweets and messaging with WikiLeaks; the drafting of false stories in defense of DJTJ from Air Force One; etc. Plus, we now know that the Trump campaign was informed several times at least (from Page-Papadopoulos-Mifsud to DJTJ-Agalarov-Manafort-Veselnitskaya to Assange-Nix-Bannon-Farage) that the Russian government was reaching out to them and working hard in their favor. And beyond that, let's be honest, nobody who has been in the business of helping to launder Russian oligarch money for decades puts people like Manafort (working for free), Flynn, Bannon, Page, etc., on his campaign without assuming that they will be coordinating with Russian oligarchs. Finally, Manafort knew Russian agents were offering assistance in that Trump Tower meeting, and Trump himself had to have been informed about it, having been right there at the time.

---

You seem to be following this pretty intimately yourself. Be interested in picking your brain sometime. The media are doing a pretty poor job of actually covering all of the moving parts (it is admittedly complex) and I imagine that conservative and alternative media have blacked it out altogether, which is why so few here seem to appreciate the scale, depth, and complexity of the issues the special council is peeling through.

There is a lot more going on here than some "sore loser MSM" conspiracy.

They want something against the Trumps so bad it's great entertainment watching the libs try so hard. They thought he wouldn't last the year. Now there's no end in sight. Desperation at it's finest.

quote:

---

WikiLeaks is a cyber terrorism organization aligned with Russia who ferried Snowden to Russia for political sanctuary, and published damaging US intelligence that set the CIA back years and got people killed.

---

Translation: Assange and Snowden each revealed embarrassing information about the government, exposing the lies and corruption from the top down. How dare they let the little people know what's going on outside of our MSM propaganda!

quote:

---

Come on NT! Save that BS for someone else. We aren't talking about information "gatherers". That's all Assange is. We are talking about information producers. What is the SOURCE of the Hooker-Watersports Caught On Film BS? We can be damn certain if there actually was a source, it was not an American subcontractor. Right?

---

1. Assange is not just an information gatherer. Ignoring wikileaks' ties to the Kremlin, the organization itself has established contacts and coordinates with criminal enterprises. Hacking is a crime. A literal crime. It's not a cute precocious kid in his parent's basement. It's dedicated cyber-criminals stealing money, information, intellectual property, and corporate and state secrets. When state secrets are involved, it's also espionage.

2. I have no idea what the source of the watersports info was. I doubt that the contractor was under any obligation to reveal that information, and I doubt the consumers of the information were interested. I imagine if this British guy was a professional, he didn't cut his customers in on that information.

quote:

---

Were favors actually exchanged? Did money change hands? Was there collusion? Was there anything illegal?

---

Well we've have one kid (Papadopolous) convicted of lying to the FBI about his efforts to establish contacts with the Krelim though "the Professor." I don't know if there was anything illegal besides that. But I think I'd have to be an idiot to bet against more pending indictments. That's why we have $30M worth of highly skilled Attorneys and investigators looking into this. Because what we want to believe doesn't and shouldn't count. I do know that actual execution of an overt act isn't necessary for criminal conspiracy among other offenses.

quote:

---

A US POTUS candidate delivers a scripted and starkly partisan (and IMO anti-American) political speech to thousands of Germans in Berlin. To what end?

---

Come on, man.

quote:

---

It's dedicated cyber-criminals stealing money, information, intellectual property, and corporate and state secrets. When state secrets are involved, it's also espionage.

---

When those “state secrets” are blatant corruption and dirty and illegal politics I don’t really care what you call it. At least he isn’t an information manufacturer like the American media is.