Director Comey fired

[snapper]

Some background on all the people involved in this smaller Trump email...

Aras Agalarov (son Emin) is Azerbaijanian born (moved to Moscow in the mid 1990s or thereabouts) developer and oligarch (worth about $1.5bn). His company is called Crocus International and he knows Trump (and his family) because he was part of the Moscow side on the hosting of the 2013 "Miss Universe" competition - which was actually held at Crocus Hall in Moscow. That year Putin also awarded him the Order of Honour (before the "Miss Universe" show I seem to recall). After that Trump wanted to have a 'Trump tower' in Moscow and Agalarov was involved in these plans until they fell through - some say because sanctions were imposed in 2014. Basically he gets Government contracts - or obtains permission (which amounts to the same process) to do developments such as the Far Eastern (Vladivostok) University campus or develop shopping malls in Moscow and this of course relies on having 'friends and influence' within the ruling kleptocracy who expect 'reciprocity' if nothing else.
His son, Emin, is essentially a rich mans son. On paper he is a deputy Director of Crocus but he wants to be pop star. He was educated in the West (the US). He performed one of his songs at the "Miss Universe" do in 2013 after which Trump (apparently) did some cameo in one of his pop videos. His publicist (for his pop career) is this Goldstone chap who wrote to the smaller Trump. Additionally Emin was married to Leyla Aliyeva, the oldest daughter of the Azerbaijanian dictator/President (since 2003) Ilham Aliyev. Leyla is said to have substantial real estate investments in Dubai that her Father in law payed for and though Emin and Layla were divorced in 2014/15 the Agalarov - Aliyev financial relationship still continues. Obviously the Agalarov connection in Moscow is useful to the Aliyev clan ruling in Baku and they have alot of oil and gas money to spend.

Natalia Veselnitskaya claims to represent, among others, some organisation called the "Human Rights Accountability Global Initiative Foundation", a US registered NGO. She claims to have done "an extensive investigation of the [Sergei] Magnitsky case", the lawyer who died in prison and who the Muscovite authorities put on trial and found guilty of money laundering AFTER his death. This all goes back to the Bill Browder business and is a long story in all; read Browder's book 'Red Notice' if you want the full details but basically this involves the theft of $230m from Muscovite tax revenue - which Browder's company Hermitage was then charged with tax evasion; Magnitsy was a lawyer hired by Browder to find out where the money went. So in 2012 the Magnitsy Act passed in the US which effectively sanctions those involved in the death of Magnitsy. In retaliation Moscow refused to alow US couples to adopt Muscovite children. She basically works for a guy called Petr Katsyv (a former vice president of Russian Railways and deputy Governor of Moscow) and his son Denis Katsyv who owns a Cyprus registered investment company called Prevezon Holdings. In 2013 'Preet' Bharara, U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, froze $24m worth of Prevezon assets and alleged that some of the real estate purchases in which Prevezon had been involved involved the missing tax money which had been effectively stolen (Browder alleges) from the Muscovite treasury. Veselnitskaya was one of the lawyers acting for the defence. The case was settled on May 13th this year with Prevezon agreeing to pay $6m, two days after 'Preet' Bahara was dismissed from his post.

So the fallout and other questions... Well Trumps (the older) comments about his sons 'transparency' are clearly BS. The NYT phoned the son, told him they had the email record and asked for his comment so he shot himself rather than be shot. It is also now abundantly clear that all "no connections/no collusion", "I don't know anyone in 'Russia'", "no contacts" and all the rest of the denials was lies. Nothing can be believed - not even the younger Trump's first attempt to explain this meeting "it was about adoption"... where is adoption mentioned in the emails? Presumably he must have known of the Muscovite act of retaliation after the Magnitsy Act to connect these requests for a meeting to adoption and in that case he must have had some idea of who he was to meet. It is more likely he got some background on Veselnitskaya/Magnitsy and the Prevezon case AFTER the meeting and then linked the adoption retaliation as an excuse for the meeting. There can be little doubt that Veselnitskaya was pushing for the settlement of the Prevezon case and the withdrawal of the Magnitsy law at the very least. Did she think she could get something for nothing? She must have had something to reciprocate with. The 'wikileaks' dumps started the next month (July). Why did Kushner later ask for a secret channel to Moscow? In the emails Goldstone says that Muscovite Government is backing Trump; "This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government's support for Mr Trump". Was this "news"? He appears to react as if not... if it was not a new revelation how did the Trump campaign know earlier? If it was a new revelation would the son (and son in law and campaign manager Manafort) really not have mentioned it to the candidate? The sons denial of his Father's knowledge is worthless - he has lied enough already about this one meeting. The final question of course is who is leaking? Maybe the Whitehouse staff? Goldstone perhaps? Certainly none of the accounts match... or Moscow?

[bfng3569]

bfng,



lol, you mean by pointing out all the various doings the Trump campaign had with the Russians? pro-tip: if the campaign didn't want the media to look into its connections with the Russians, then maybe they shouldn't have hired people with connections to the Russians.

and btw, i'm curious as to how Dems are 'obstructing his policies' when REPUBLICANS CONTROL CONGRESS.

Dems have congress tied up with how many investigations?

Dems pushed off confirmation hearings on how many people for how long for all sorts of positions?

the list goes on but is fairly irrelevant to larger point.

and you seem like a smart guy, are you saying that's all that's been going on?

They are just pointing out things, right?

nothing beyond the normal level of political discourse and bickering?

Same with the main stream and leftist media?

[bfng3569]

No Moscow planned to engineer this - precisely this; a dunce President with no idea of foreign affairs or intelligence operations in their pocket if need be. The fool never understood their games from the start and by the time he did it was too late. He is compromised goods and if he was not actively colluding he would have the honour to resign.

My guess was that this Veselnitskaya outreach was perhaps a 'test' to see if the Trump campaign would bite. When they did others contacts and agreements were made; thus the other meetings and the start of the 'reveals' of the hacked DNC emails the next month. By the time the Trump lot realised what they got themselves into it was too late; thus all the denials - which are now worthless. He is compromised even if he did not willing collude with a hostile power which aims the largest nuclear arsenal in the world at you. Best bet is to get rid of the lot asap.

more tin foil hat conspiracy crap.

[JAD_333]

There's no question that Trump Jr. tried to fuzz the purpose of the meeting with Veselnitskaya. He was in it for the promise of dirt on HRC plain and simple, and had no idea he was going to be the victim of bait and switch where it turns out Veselnitskaya's real purpose was to talk about the Magnitsky Act. Smart woman. That much we get, but the media, smelling blood, is getting ahead of itself in several respects.

For one thing, no crime was actually committed, and would not have been committed unless Trump Jr. actually received the expected documents detailing dirt on HRC and then failed to report it to the FBI. Also, the media and their analysts have yet to ask the question, what if Trump Jr. had actually been given the promised Russian documents at the meeting. What would he have done with them? Of course, no need to ask him. He's shot his credibility by initially trying to fuzz over the purpose of the meeting. His best answer would be to say that he would have discussed what to do with others in the campaign.

Here's what I think would have happened had Veselnitskaya given Trump the documents he expected. Once in hand, there would have been an internal meeting of campaign big shots on what to do with them. At that point, the circle of advisors would have widened to include legal counsel. In short order, leaking the documents or using the information in them would have been identified as a crime against US law (receiving campaign help from a foreign source). At that point, the risk of using the material would have obviously outweighed the benefit of full disclosure to the FBI. Doing the latter would have been a silver bullet to quell suspicions that later arose that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia to defeat HRC. Even reporting the meeting at the time would have been a plus, but, hey, junior ain't that bright when it comes to politics.

[zraver]

z,



sure...we'll see if the FBI agrees with this assessment or not. they're not running an investigation into the HRC campaign

Given how many Clintonistas are on Mullers staff this is probably an accurate statement. I still hope (forelorny) that Sessions will take the FBI investigation already completed and prosecute.

and the Ukrainians or whatever Hannity is spewing now. my guess is that what Trump Jr did would be a violation of campaign finance law, but by itself would not be enough to justify arrest/jail time.

Several law professors including liberals have opined that there is no violation of law. If there was then Ukraine's action would rise to the top.

[quote]in any case, considering how the Trump campaign has always disavowed any connection with Russia, it's sort of hard to believe this statement now considering Jr's response to an e-mail regarding a Russian purporting to have derogatory HRC information sourced from the Russian government. as i said, all grist for the Mueller investigation to dig deeper and tie things together.

consider Kushner's attempt to set up back-channel communications with Russia.

Not illegal...

consider Manafort's connections with Russia.

Less than Podestas and Clinton

consider Mike Flynn's lying about contacts with Russia.

He did not lie, he reported the contacts, he did not report the payments.

even ..stranger... is why none of them came forward to actively volunteer this information, if all of this was so innocent. each time it's dug up, we go through a round of denials and excuses before said person admitted to what they did. oh, Jr was there to collect Russian information regarding the HRC campaign and NOT talk about adoption like he originally said? i'm shocked, shocked i tell you.

Closing on a year and still zero evidence of any broken laws except for Flynn not reporting payments and that was before he was on the campaign. But hey keep harping on this giant nothing burger. Have you seen the poll from Huff Po? Less than 1 in 10 Americans cares,, they no its a non-story driven by partisan hacks. 0-5 in elections and can't even get double digit percentages in polls to care about THE issue the partisans are driving. 18 is shaping up to be very good for the GOP.

[astralis]

bfng,

Dems have congress tied up with how many investigations?

lol...none?

Senate intelligence committee investigation head: Burr (R)/ Warner (D)
Senate judiciary committee investigation head: Grassley (R)
House intelligence committee investigation head: Conaway (R), Schiff (D)
House oversight committee investigation: Gowdy (R)
Special counsel: Mueller...reporting to Trump appointee, Rubenstein.

Dems pushed off confirmation hearings on how many people for how long for all sorts of positions?

there are 564 executive branch jobs that require Presidential nominations, 384 of them have not been nominated by the administration.

of 130 formally nominated, 46 have been confirmed. you tell me who is more responsible, lol...especially considering that once again, the Senate is held by Republicans.

and you seem like a smart guy, are you saying that's all that's been going on?

nothing beyond the normal level of political discourse and bickering?

nope, in fact, this is -better- than the normal level of political discourse and bickering. you tell me, if the shoe was on the other foot and it was Obama or HRC in Trump's current position, do you really think the GOP would only do what the Dems are doing right now?

think of it this way: there were impeachment proceedings against Bill Clinton in 1998-- and do you honestly think what he did was -worse- than what the Trump campaign did?

[astralis]

JAD,

There's no question that Trump Jr. tried to fuzz the purpose of the meeting with Veselnitskaya. He was in it for the promise of dirt on HRC plain and simple, and had no idea he was going to be the victim of bait and switch where it turns out Veselnitskaya's real purpose was to talk about the Magnitsky Act. Smart woman. That much we get, but the media, smelling blood, is getting ahead of itself in several respects.

For one thing, no crime was actually committed, and would not have been committed unless Trump Jr. actually received the expected documents detailing dirt on HRC and then failed to report it to the FBI

as you see with my response to z above, i agree that Jr's actions in this case alone probably don't rise to the level of criminality. having said that:

Doing the latter would have been a silver bullet to quell suspicions that later arose that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia to defeat HRC. Even reporting the meeting at the time would have been a plus, but, hey, junior ain't that bright when it comes to politics.

it shouldn't just have been an issue of being "that bright when it comes to politics". what type of American sees an e-mail promising dirt coming from a hostile foreign government and -eagerly takes it-?

and even assuming that Jr wasn't "that bright", what about the other people invited to said meeting-- Kushner and Manafort?

it's pretty impressive just how easily all of these things were, oh, forgotten.

[zraver]

think of it this way: there were impeachment proceedings against Bill Clinton in 1998-- and do you honestly think what he did was -worse- than what the Trump campaign did?

He (an attorney) lied under oath in an attempt to deny an American citizen their day in Court in order to try and escape consequences for sexual harassment. He was impeached but the Dems refused to convict. The Courts however were not barred by this and stripped him of his law license. He broke trust with his office, his career and is quilty of moral turpitude. What he did undermined faith in the system, that justice is blind and equal.

Trump has done nothing that would see him convicted of a crime of moral turpitude.

[JAD_333]

JAD,


it shouldn't just have been an issue of being "that bright when it comes to politics". what type of American sees an e-mail promising dirt coming from a hostile foreign government and -eagerly takes it-?

and even assuming that Jr wasn't "that bright", what about the other people invited to said meeting-- Kushner and Manafort?

it's pretty impressive just how easily all of these things were, oh, forgotten.

Point taken, at least in part. Manafort would have (or should have known) accepting help "of value" from a foreign government is illegal, but again no help was forthcoming at the meeting. We simply have no way of knowing what Manafort would have done had she actually handed over documents from the Russians.

As for Kushner, he left the meeting early, probably after he realized the woman had no goods to offer. In his case, being a political neophyte at the time, he probably didn't know accepting such documents could be illegal. BTW, accepting help from a foreign national is only illegal if such help is deemed to have significant value. Foreign nationals have been known to work for political campaigns.

[JAD_333]

think of it this way: there were impeachment proceedings against Bill Clinton in 1998-- and do you honestly think what he did was -worse- than what the Trump campaign did?

What doings on the part of the Trump campaign are you referring to?

[DOR]

What do we know?

Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn was a paid foreign agent for Russia.

Political hack Paul Manafort was a paid foreign agent for Russia.

Natalia Veselnitskaya’s June 9, 2016, meeting with Jared Kushner – for the purpose of opening the way for a foreign government to interfere in the US 2016 Presidential Election – was not reported to the FBI, as required by Kushner’s later having a formal position in the administration. In addition, a month later Carter Page traveled to Moscow. This was less than a week before Trump campaign staffers demanded that all language condemning Russian activities in the Ukraine be deleted from the GOPer party platform.

On Aug 23, 2016, political scumbag Roger Stone privately communicated with Guccifer 2.0. Given Guccifer 2.0’s role in hacking the DNC, this does not fall into the category of “coincidence,” or “unproven allegations.”

As late as August 2016, The Flynn Intel Group signs on as a paid foreign agent for a Turkish business, Inovo BV, with close ties to President Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

On Nov 18, Flynn is offered the job of National Security Adviser.
On Nov 30, the Justice Department tells Flynn he’s under investigation for nondisclosure of his foreign lobbying.
On Dec 29, President Obama orders new sanctions against Russia in response to their interference in the US election. Flynn and Page are all over the Russians, telling them to keep calm and let the new administration handle it. This is a direct violation of the Hatch Act.

Jan 24, 2017: The FBI interviews Flynn.
Jan 26, 2017: Acting Attorney General Sally Yates tells the White House what the FBI has on Flynn.
Jan 27, 2017: Trump asks Comey for his loyalty. Declined.
Jan 30, 2017: Trump fires Sally Yates.
Feb 11, 2017: Flynn’s financial disclosure omits his payments from Russia.
Feb 13, 2017: Flynn resigns.
Feb 14, 2017: Trump asks Comey to drop the Flynn investigation. Yeah, those aren’t the exact words but only a GOPer boot-licker would argue otherwise.
Mar 22, 2017: Trump asks National Intelligence Director Dan Coats and Central Intelligence Director Mike Pompeo to interfere in the FBI’s Flynn investigation.
May 9, 2017: Trump fires Comey.
May 10, 2017: Trump discloses to Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov previously classified (i.e., classified up to the moment Trump opened his mouth) information about American military and intelligence operations.

[snapper]

For one thing, no crime was actually committed, and would not have been committed unless Trump Jr. actually received the expected documents detailing dirt on HRC and then failed to report it to the FBI. Also, the media and their analysts have yet to ask the question, what if Trump Jr. had actually been given the promised Russian documents at the meeting. What would he have done with them? Of course, no need to ask him. He's shot his credibility by initially trying to fuzz over the purpose of the meeting. His best answer would be to say that he would have discussed what to do with others in the campaign.

So if someone wants to rob your house or kill you and watches when you are out (or when you are alone) then goes to whatever they intend toward you only to find that strangely your routine has changed that day you are not safe, he will try again but his criminal intent - if it can be proved and in this case it can - is arrestable. Kushner was certainly behaving illegally when he did not disclose this meeting. I wonder why he didn't?

[snapper]

So if someone wants to rob your house or kill you and watches when you are out (or when you are alone) then goes to whatever they intend toward you only to find that strangely your routine has changed that day you are not safe, he will try again but his criminal intent - if it can be proved and in this case it can - is arrestable. Kushner was certainly behaving illegally when he did not disclose this meeting. I wonder why he didn't?

more tin foil hat conspiracy crap.

It is not me that refuses to recognise it when facts make a familiar pattern.

[bfng3569]

bfng,


nope, in fact, this is -better- than the normal level of political discourse and bickering. you tell me, if the shoe was on the other foot and it was Obama or HRC in Trump's current position, do you really think the GOP would only do what the Dems are doing right now?

think of it this way: there were impeachment proceedings against Bill Clinton in 1998-- and do you honestly think what he did was -worse- than what the Trump campaign did?

and I'd have the same opinion.

what the dems and the left wing media are doing is dangerous.

plain and simple.

they are doing far far far more, and worse, than Putin could have ever dreamed of being able to.

or do you not see that?

and I don't care much about Clinton or 1988 at the moment, nor do I know if Ken Starr was a paid republican operative or not (nor am I going to compare what Clinton actually did in regards to sexually harassing females vs what trump said on a tour bus, because again, its really got nothing to do with this) but this is what I remember of Clinton:

The impeachment process of Bill Clinton was initiated by the House of Representatives on December 19, 1998, against Bill Clinton, the 42nd President of the United States, on two charges, one of perjury and one of obstruction of justice.[1] These charges stemmed from Clinton's sexual harassment lawsuit filed against him by Paula Jones. Clinton was subsequently acquitted of these charges by the Senate on February 12, 1999.[2] Two other impeachment articles – a second perjury charge and a charge of abuse of power – failed in the House.

Leading to the impeachment, Independent Counsel Ken Starr turned over documentation to the House Judiciary Committee. Chief Prosecutor David Schippers and his team reviewed the material and determined there was sufficient evidence to impeach the president. As a result, four charges were considered by the full House of Representatives; two passed, making Clinton the second president to be impeached, after Andrew Johnson in 1868, and only the third against whom articles of impeachment had been brought before the full House for consideration (Richard Nixon resigned from the presidency in 1974, while an impeachment process against him was underway).

The trial in the United States Senate began right after the seating of the 106th Congress, in which the Republican Party began with 55 senators. A two-thirds vote (67 senators) was required to remove Clinton from office. Fifty senators voted to remove Clinton on the obstruction of justice charge and 45 voted to remove him on the perjury charge; no member of his own Democratic Party voted guilty on either charge. Clinton, like Johnson a century earlier, was acquitted on all charges

so again, are you going to address the topic, of just turn around say 'well if it were HRC, republicans would be doing the same thing'.

the point is, the dems and the left wing media are doing Putins work for him, and yet all anyone is doing is accusing Trump of working with them, yet there is zero proof of that. Ironic a bit?

[zraver]

Point taken, at least in part. Manafort would have (or should have known) accepting help "of value" from a foreign government is illegal, but again no help was forthcoming at the meeting. We simply have no way of knowing what Manafort would have done had she actually handed over documents from the Russians.

As for Kushner, he left the meeting early, probably after he realized the woman had no goods to offer. In his case, being a political neophyte at the time, he probably didn't know accepting such documents could be illegal. BTW, accepting help from a foreign national is only illegal if such help is deemed to have significant value. Foreign nationals have been known to work for political campaigns.

Information freely given is not a thing of value under the law but legal personal services.