The [Current Year] General Political/Salma Hayek discussion thread, part 4!!!

[T.Lex]

For the INGO lawyer contingent (real or imagined). ...

Trump Jr has a meeting with Russians, for what we now know was to dig up dirt on Clinton. It was originally told to us, falsely, as a meeting about Russian adoptions. A statement was drafted, which presented the idea that the meeting was about adoptions, supposedly written by Trump Jr. We know know that was also false, and that the statement was dictated by the president.

What is "Consciousness of Guilt," and can it relate, in any way, to the above?

My friend, this is the court of public opinion.

Most people - Trump supporters and dissenters - figured POTUS was involved in the statement anyway (to the extent they even cared). So, this isn't really news.

The cover up is almost always a bigger problem than the malfeasance. This seems like a big "meh" though.

 

[printcraft]

For the INGO lawyer contingent (real or imagined). ...

Trump Jr has a meeting with Russians, for what we now know was to dig up dirt on Clinton. It was originally told to us, falsely, as a meeting about Russian adoptions. A statement was drafted, which presented the idea that the meeting was about adoptions, supposedly written by Trump Jr. We know know that was also false, and that the statement was dictated by the president.

What is "Consciousness of Guilt," and can it relate, in any way, to the above?

Meh.
























I'm not a lawyer, but I did sleep with one last night.

 

[Kutnupe14]

My friend, this is the court of public opinion.

Most people - Trump supporters and dissenters - figured POTUS was involved in the statement anyway (to the extent they even cared). So, this isn't really news.

The cover up is almost always a bigger problem than the malfeasance. This seems like a big "meh" though.

That the hitch, isn't it? Is it not news because it's not not noteworthy that the president's son conspired with the Russians, in this instance, to potentially receive information damaging to the Clinton campaign, or is it not news because, we have already been acclimated to lies that we are repeated told.. from the President, his family, His press secretary, his lawyers, and friends?

Anyways, back to the consciousness of guilt thing. Keeping in mind this stuff was revealed after the election, is it not indicative (at least to some), that Trump at least believed that his son's meeting with the Russians, was improper (maybe illegal), hence why they lied about it? I mean, if they believed the meeting was totally on the up and up, why was there a reason to repeatedly lie about it?

 

[mmpsteve]

My understanding was that the Don Jr. meeting in Trump tower was originally to discuss dirt about Hillary (something every campaign tries to do, and normally not considered illegal - it's called opposition research), and then during the meeting, it became obvious that the people who set up the meeting were more interested in talking about adoption matters, and that Don Jr. left the meeting, realizing he'd been brought there under misleading circumstances. I havn't researched it, but that was my initial impression, way back when it first came out. Am I wrong?

I don't believe it's illegal to conduct opposition research, no matter who the other party is; could be Russian, French, American. What am I missing?

 

[Kutnupe14]

My understanding was that the Don Jr. meeting in Trump tower was originally to discuss dirt about Hillary (something every campaign tries to do, and normally not considered illegal - it's called opposition research), and then during the meeting, it became obvious that the people who set up the meeting were more interested in talking about adoption matters, and that Don Jr. left the meeting, realizing he'd been brought there under misleading circumstances. I havn't researched it, but that was my initial impression, way back when it first came out. Am I wrong?

So begs the question why lie about it repeatedly?

 

[T.Lex]

So begs the question why lie about it repeatedly?

You've seen The Crying Game, right? Something something frog and scorpion something something. Then THAT something.

 

[nonobaddog]

My understanding was that the Don Jr. meeting in Trump tower was originally to discuss dirt about Hillary (something every campaign tries to do, and normally not considered illegal - it's called opposition research), and then during the meeting, it became obvious that the people who set up the meeting were more interested in talking about adoption matters, and that Don Jr. left the meeting, realizing he'd been brought there under misleading circumstances. I havn't researched it, but that was my initial impression, way back when it first came out. Am I wrong?

I don't believe it's illegal to conduct opposition research, no matter who the other party is; could be Russian, French, American. What am I missing?

You are right. He was lured there so they could talk about the adoption thing so there were no lies - that is what the meeting was about. Simple.

 

[Fargo]

So begs the question why lie about it repeatedly?

There are a bunch of potential reasons, not the least of which was the concerted effort being made by the outgoing administration/DNC to attempt to delegitimize the election because "Russia". Or, it could be because people act in accord with their nature.

Im with Tlex on this, it is a bunch of meh. What if Hillary's people had met with some Russian contact to find out if Trump's campaign was colluding with the Russian government?

 

[BugI02]

My understanding was that the Don Jr. meeting in Trump tower was originally to discuss dirt about Hillary (something every campaign tries to do, and normally not considered illegal - it's called opposition research), and then during the meeting, it became obvious that the people who set up the meeting were more interested in talking about adoption matters, and that Don Jr. left the meeting, realizing he'd been brought there under misleading circumstances. I havn't researched it, but that was my initial impression, way back when it first came out. Am I wrong?

I don't believe it's illegal to conduct opposition research, no matter who the other party is; could be Russian, French, American. What am I missing?

British. Don't forget British

 

[BugI02]

That the hitch, isn't it? Is it not news because it's not not noteworthy that the president's son conspired with the Russians, in this instance, to potentially receive information damaging to the Clinton campaign, or is it not news because, we have already been acclimated to lies that we are repeated told.. from the President, his family, His press secretary, his lawyers, and friends?

Anyways, back to the consciousness of guilt thing. Keeping in mind this stuff was revealed after the election, is it not indicative (at least to some), that Trump at least believed that his son's meeting with the Russians, was improper (maybe illegal), hence why they lied about it? I mean, if they believed the meeting was totally on the up and up, why was there a reason to repeatedly lie about it?

Maybe the just talked about "golf and grandchildren"

 

[Kutnupe14]

There are a bunch of potential reasons, not the least of which was the concerted effort being made by the outgoing administration/DNC to attempt to delegitimize the election because "Russia". Or, it could be because people act in accord with their nature.

Im with Tlex on this, it is a bunch of meh. What if Hillary's people had met with some Russian contact to find out if Trump's campaign was colluding with the Russian government?

I'm betting the INGO collective would've have seen that as a "meh" too. /purple

 

[Fargo]

I'm betting the INGO collective would've have seen that as a "meh" too. /purple

Really? I assumed they did, or if they didn’t it was only out of laziness or incompetence.

Seriously, You think that John Podesta and/or the Obama administration didn’t have contacts with the Russians about the Trump campaign?

 

[KLB]

 

[Fargo]

Really? I assumed they did, or if they didn’t it was only out of laziness or incompetence.

Seriously, You think that John Podesta and/or the Obama administration didn’t have contacts with the Russians about the Trump campaign?

Actually, strike all that. We know that they did that exact thing. A firm was hired to use intelligence contacts to make contact with Russian Government officials to do opposition research on Trump.

 

[nonobaddog]

Liberals always accuse others of what they themselves are guilty of. It must be easier to come up with stuff that way.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Actually, strike all that. We know that they did that exact thing. A firm was hired to use intelligence contacts to make contact with Russian Government officials to do opposition research on Trump.

And you're saying conservatives were "meh" about it? By the way, which instance are you speaking about?

 

[KLB]

And you're saying conservatives were "meh" about it? By the way, which instance are you speaking about?

So there was more than one?

 

[Kutnupe14]

Liberals always accuse others of what they themselves are guilty of. It must be easier to come up with stuff that way.

I can't help but notice that you used the word "guilty."

 

[Kutnupe14]

So there was more than one?

I'm asking for a cite, where with knowledge and cooperation of the Russian government, opposition research was gathered on Trump.

 

[Fargo]

Liberals always accuse others of what they themselves are guilty of. It must be easier to come up with stuff that way.

To me, it’s meh going both ways.

Right up until the point the government starts seeking secret warrants using unverified political opposition research as if it were fact...