Everybody Is Forgetting That Clinton Allies Did The Same Thing As Don Jr.

[Restored]

Non-politician Don Jr., is guilty of being naïve. More savvy advisors would have kept his hands clean, instead of letting him be the person directly in the loop.

You missed the entire Obama Presidency, didn't you? They were famous for this kind of stuff and the MSM just looked away and even defended them.

[edpc]

Non-politician Don Jr., is guilty of being naïve. More savvy advisors would have kept his hands clean, instead of letting him be the person directly in the loop.

We agree on his naïvety.   One big problem I have, though, is the presence of Manafort. He had been part of presidential campaigns before and should know the law.  Perhaps he did and that's why he stayed silent and buried himself in the phone activities, as described by the Russian lawyer.  Still, it does not  have the component of an overt act, as I had mentioned previously.

[roamer_1]

Like the Kremlin tells the truth..

Like the White House tells the truth... 

[ConservativeGranny]

Then you have to appreciate the irony.  Initially, the meeting was set to provide information about illegal contributions.  I wish they had informed authorities on this, because a couple weeks after the meeting, the Clinton/Jarrett tarmac pow wow took place.  The implications would have shut this down long ago.

It gets even better. The Russian attorney that Trump Jr. met with represented the Katsyv family. The patriarch of the family is a former Russian politician whose son owns a real estate company named Prevezon. The DOJ was investigating Prevezon for money laundering in NYC. Russian money was being laundered via purchase of high priced real estate in Manhattan. In May, just two days before trial the case was suddenly settled. What's more interesting is the connection between the Trumps, the Russian attorney and Prevezon. The Russian attorney was representing Prevezon and has a history of being the legal representation for Russian mob families.

This was a $230 million fraud case that the DOJ settled for less than $6 million. Jeff Sessions has recently been questioned about this case and we are awaiting answers.

There is more to all of this. Tons more. In fact we are finding out that Trump has not been truthful about the extent of his business dealings in Russia, specifically involving real estate. Trump Jr. had intents of entering some real estate deals in the past with some of these Russian companies and these people's names keep popping up. Remember that Trump's son had said that they DID have business dealings with Russia.  To think that Trump Jr. was naive and didn't know who he was dealing with is not proven out when you delve into the relationships between these people. The Trump family all know them and know them well.

The lawyer who was involved in exposing this case died in a Russian prison. It was determined that he was not treated for a serious medical condition and that he had also been tortured. The lawyer representing his family mysteriously "fell out of a window" the day before he was to testify. The so-called "adoption" issues that Trump Jr. is touting actually involve this man who died and in fact, the travel and economic sanctions that the US passed are named after him (Magnitsky Act). The attorney who met with Trump Jr. is heavily involved in anti-Magnitsky act lobbying to have these sanctions removed.

If you want to get more interesting the attorney pressing charges against Prevezon is none other than Preet Bharara. Ring a bell? He was the DA fired by Trump after being told he was keeping his job. He refused to resign.

This stuff is just the tip of the iceberg. There is much more that will be coming out and I don't know how much longer people are going to keep being willfully blind. This is why people were warning about Trump and don't trust him. And it's why I always say that Trump will make Hillary look like a girl scout. When you vote the lesser of two evils you will still get evil but with just an "R" after the name instead of a "D". We have gained nothing but have lost much over a charlatan and a fraud.

[skeeter]

It gets even better. The Russian attorney that Trump Jr. met with represented the Katsyv family. The patriarch of the family is a former Russian politician whose son owns a real estate company named Prevezon. The DOJ was investigating Prevezon for money laundering in NYC. Russian money was being laundered via purchase of high priced real estate in Manhattan. In May, just two days before trial the case was suddenly settled. What's more interesting is the connection between the Trumps, the Russian attorney and Prevezon. The Russian attorney was representing Prevezon and has a history of being the legal representation for Russian mob families.

This was a $230 million fraud case that the DOJ settled for less than $6 million. Jeff Sessions has recently been questioned about this case and we are awaiting answers.

There is more to all of this. Tons more. In fact we are finding out that Trump has not been truthful about the extent of his business dealings in Russia, specifically involving real estate. Trump Jr. had intents of entering some real estate deals in the past with some of these Russian companies and these people's names keep popping up. Remember that Trump's son had said that they DID have business dealings with Russia.  To think that Trump Jr. was naive and didn't know who he was dealing with is not proven out when you delve into the relationships between these people. The Trump family all know them and know them well.

The lawyer who was involved in exposing this case died in a Russian prison. It was determined that he was not treated for a serious medical condition and that he had also been tortured. The lawyer representing his family mysteriously "fell out of a window" the day before he was to testify. The so-called "adoption" issues that Trump Jr. is touting actually involve this man who died and in fact, the travel and economic sanctions that the US passed are named after him (Magnitsky Act). The attorney who met with Trump Jr. is heavily involved in anti-Magnitsky act lobbying to have these sanctions removed.

If you want to get more interesting the attorney pressing charges against Prevezon is none other than Preet Bharara. Ring a bell? He was the DA fired by Trump after being told he was keeping his job. He refused to resign.

This stuff is just the tip of the iceberg. There is much more that will be coming out and I don't know how much longer people are going to keep being willfully blind. This is why people were warning about Trump and don't trust him. And it's why I always say that Trump will make Hillary look like a girl scout. When you vote the lesser of two evils you will still get evil but with just an "R" after the name instead of a "D". We have gained nothing but have lost much over a charlatan and a fraud.

Gosh thats quite an indictment (you left out her connection with Fusion GPS and the "Trump dossier").

Any proof she discussed any of it, or anything else at all other than the Magnitsky Act, with Junior?

Or did you toss it out there for effect only?

[edpc]

This stuff is just the tip of the iceberg. There is much more that will be coming out and I don't know how much longer people are going to keep being willfully blind. This is why people were warning about Trump and don't trust him. And it's why I always say that Trump will make Hillary look like a girl scout. When you vote the lesser of two evils you will still get evil but with just an "R" after the name instead of a "D". We have gained nothing but have lost much over a charlatan and a fraud.

Trump is a fraud, especially when it comes to building reputation.  More often than not, he just licenses his name, collects a percentage, and has nothing to do with the building, operation, and maintenance of the property.  The other long list, however, it a stretch yoga instructors admire.  The fact Russia is a kleptocracy where people mysteriously die and disappear is not news.  Prevezon was found to have received around $2M of the $230M scheme, which they did use to buy NYC property.  That's less than 1% of the overall scheme and hardly the great, deep morass you've attempted to portray.  Yes, Bharara was fired, but 45 other US Attorneys were also let go, as is often the case with admin changes.  Quit the nonsense.

[ConservativeGranny]

Was Jr foolish for taking the meeting himself? Yes, but he broke no laws, even if he flew to Moscow and had a meeting with Putin himself about Hillary he still would not have broken any laws.

 I just posted earlier today a link to an article about how his actions may have violated Federal election/campaign laws. It may be of some help to you.  If he flew to Moscow to meet with Putin to get information to help his father's campaign he certainly would have been violating the law.

[ConservativeGranny]

I disagree - its Trump's critics that are being political. Selective application of the law is as unethical as it gets.

And who said anything about contact with Russian officials? Unless new info has come out since yesterday this lady is a lawyer who claims no connection with her government.

I am concerned about both Hillary and Trump but I am not in charge of who gets prosecuted and who doesn't. I am  also concerned about having a corrupt individual in the WH as POTUS. Hillary is irrelevant. Is that the new standard now going forward? We should let any POTUS get away with whatever because Trump did? Hillary isn't and has never been the POTUS. If members of the Trump administration start turning up dead in a park somewhere should we avoid our eyes because after all...Hillary? What kind of new morality is this? Is this what our founders intended? I know if I would have used the defense that "my brother did it first" when I was a kid I would get twice the grounding I would have gotten if I had just kept my mouth shut.

And Veselnitskaya  is not just some Russian attorney. She has serious ties to the Russian government and intelligence. She is known to represent Russian crime families. She is a known lobbyist against the Maginsky Act. When a Russian lawyer starts talking about those sanctions they aren't really concerned about adoptions. If they are talking adoptions they are talking the Maginsky Act.

http://www.businessinsider.com/magnitsky-act-russian-adoptions-donald-trump-jr-meeting-2017-7

Trump Jr. wasn't some naive kid that just made a judgment error. He knows exactly who this woman is and what the Maginsky Act is all about.

[driftdiver]

@driftdiver

Maybe Jeff Sessions should be asked that question.  Wasn't Trump going to prosecute her?

I don't see how Jr.'s actions fit the Constitutional definition of treason...he would have to be giving aid and comfort to a declared enemy in order to damage this country.  Clearly that isn't the case.  But it was a stupid thing to do, and it's indefensible.  It stuns me that anyone on our side is trying to make excuses for it.

@CatherineofAragon
Making excuses for what?  Meeting with someone who may have dirt on your political opponent?   Thats been done in every election for the past 230 years,

I'm far more concerned with the HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS $$$$ that have been given to the Clintons, Fiensteins, McCains, Mcconnells, Rubios and others.  The millions spent on lobbying by China and India to push laws for offshoring.    The idea that our govt buys cell phones from Carlos Slim in Mexico and gives them to "poor" people without oversight.

Then theres the inaction by CONGRESS on so many many things including repeal of Obamacare.   This russia nonsense is a shiny object they have flashed before peoples eyes to distract them from the real issues.

[driftdiver]

I just posted earlier today a link to an article about how his actions may have violated Federal election/campaign laws. It may be of some help to you.  If he flew to Moscow to meet with Putin to get information to help his father's campaign he certainly would have been violating the law.

@ConservativeGranny
What law is that?

[ConservativeGranny]

Please site one instance of the courts defining political information as being the same as a donation. You can't because that would be a huge expansion of the definition of a donation. Not to mention in conflict with freedom of speech and freedom of association. In short your argument has no merit.

Let me help. The FEC has already clarified this. Yes receiving opposition research from a foreign national would be in violation. This type of research is not unusual for a campaign to obtain but the legal way to do it is to hire a company and pay them to do it for you.

http://electionlawblog.org/?p=93752

[edpc]

Let me help. The FEC has already clarified this. Yes receiving opposition research from a foreign national would be in violation.

Let me help.  He didn't receive it.  As far as the attorney goes and her deep ties and interest in Magnisky, the meeting certainly didn't further her cause, since Trump submitted a memorandum to congress in April supporting the continuation of the act.

Presidential Memorandum #25

What It Is: A memo from President Trump to: the chairmen of the House and Senate committees on the appropriations and judiciary, the House committees on foreign affairs and financial services and the Senate committees on foreign relations and banking, housing and urban affairs about the Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act which makes “significant” acts of corruption sanctionable offenses in foreign countries. The memo effectively shows President Trump’s support for the act and the administration’s quest to “hold perpetrators of human rights abuses and corruption accountable.”

What It Means: It means, at least for now, that the act isn’t in any jeopardy under this administration. During the 2016 transition period, there were concerns that the act might go away under a Trump administration that was signaling a softer stance on Russia. The original Magnitsky Act came in 2012 and applied visa bans and asset freezes on Russian officials linked to the 2009 death of Sergei Magnitsky who was a Russian whistleblower.

Actions and reality aren't supporting your theories about settling cases, firing US Attorneys, and money laundering being tied to this admin and influencing the act.

[ConservativeGranny]

There's only one problem with that.  In order for the conspiracy charge to stick, it has to coincide with an overt act.  Just showing up to the meeting doesn't count.  Had he accepted phony documents or made some kind of monetary/political favor offer for them, he'd be in serious trouble.  Nothing like that happened.  Instead, it was a bait and switch.

How do we know he didn't? We don't. All we have is Trump Jr.'s say so and he has lied about this more than once. The only reason we know about it now is because the NYT had the smoking gun and gave him a heads up.

It's a pretty good guess that the Russians wanted something in return. And that was the repeal of the Maginsky Act which included Russian sanctions.

We do know that around this time Trump was promising some damaging information about Hillary that didn't materialize. Coincidence? Maybe and maybe not. Of course Trump will always claim he knew nothing about it but does anyone really believe that all of this stuff is going on without him being informed?

A 10 minute research on this attorney will show anyone that she is not just a Russian lawyer minding her own business. To think that she wasn't acting without the Russian government's knowledge would be naive.

[skeeter]

Let me help. The FEC has already clarified this. Yes receiving opposition research from a foreign national would be in violation. This type of research is not unusual for a campaign to obtain but the legal way to do it is to hire a company and pay them to do it for you.

http://electionlawblog.org/?p=93752

Perhaps you meant to link to another article. The one here pertains only to limitations concerning  "contributions or donations of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal State, or local election. 'Anything of value' including all in-kind contributions, including the provision of goods or services without charge or at a charge that is less than the usual and normal charge."

I'd be interested to see the source for your above comment claiming that third parties (presumably opposed to a member of the campaign) can legally buy oppo research from foreign sources. Please provide the correct link.

[edpc]

How do we know he didn't? We don't.

It's a pretty good guess that the Russians wanted something in return. And that was the repeal of the Maginsky Act which included Russian sanctions.

OK, then let's go on the things we DO know. As you said, the damaging information never materialized, so he didn't get it. Also, the memorandum I cited earlier shows the act is still in full effect. They got absolutely nothing.

[ConservativeGranny]

Gosh thats quite an indictment (you left out her connection with Fusion GPS and the "Trump dossier").

Any proof she discussed any of it, or anything else at all other than the Magnitsky Act, with Junior?

Or did you toss it out there for effect only?

I did research. You can do it too. But if you can point to where my information is incorrect I will share with you where I got it.

Yes, Trump Jr. himself admitted that was what she was talking about when he said Russian adoptions. If you research the Magintsky Act you will find that in retaliation for the sanctions the US put on Russia they put an end to Russian/American adoptions. It caused Americans who had already had money and emotion invested in these adoptions to put pressure on politicians to repeal the law. THAT is what Veselnitskaya was talking about and Trump Jr. confirmed it when he said she wanted to talk "adoptions".

Now we could just believe that Veselnitskaya was just an innocent caring unimportant Russian lawyer just trying to bring these poor little children and their American families together but she is a known to be lobbying for repeal of the law which put economic and travel restrictions on Russia for human rights violations.

http://www.businessinsider.com/magnitsky-act-russian-adoptions-donald-trump-jr-meeting-2017-7

There seems to be a problem from time to time with people not reading information that they do not want to hear. Trump Jr. has talked about pursuing real estate deals with Russian himself. He has said in at least one case that the deal didn't come to fruition.

The entire Magnitsky case and the people behind it and those involved makes for spy-novel type reading however that doesn't make it untrue. Russians who go against the government end up dead. These are not people who we want to be providing us any kind of information or having secret meetings with. The reading of the history of the lawyer, Veselnitskaya, is also very interesting reading. Our government and intelligence services are very well aware of her and who she is. That information is not in dispute even though she will swear it's not true.

[skeeter]

I did research. You can do it too. But if you can point to where my information is incorrect I will share with you where I got it.

Yes, Trump Jr. himself admitted that was what she was talking about when he said Russian adoptions. If you research the Magintsky Act you will find that in retaliation for the sanctions the US put on Russia they put an end to Russian/American adoptions. It caused Americans who had already had money and emotion invested in these adoptions to put pressure on politicians to repeal the law. THAT is what Veselnitskaya was talking about and Trump Jr. confirmed it when he said she wanted to talk "adoptions".

Now we could just believe that Veselnitskaya was just an innocent caring unimportant Russian lawyer just trying to bring these poor little children and their American families together but she is a known to be lobbying for repeal of the law which put economic and travel restrictions on Russia for human rights violations.

http://www.businessinsider.com/magnitsky-act-russian-adoptions-donald-trump-jr-meeting-2017-7

There seems to be a problem from time to time with people not reading information that they do not want to hear. Trump Jr. has talked about pursuing real estate deals with Russian himself. He has said in at least one case that the deal didn't come to fruition.

The entire Magnitsky case and the people behind it and those involved makes for spy-novel type reading however that doesn't make it untrue. Russians who go against the government end up dead. These are not people who we want to be providing us any kind of information or having secret meetings with. The reading of the history of the lawyer, Veselnitskaya, is also very interesting reading. Our government and intelligence services are very well aware of her and who she is. That information is not in dispute even though she will swear it's not true.

I didn't say anything was untrue. What you've posted is an amalgamation of details, alot of loose speculation and are implying conclusions that, while politically convenient for you, do not necessarily follow.

Again, why not mention the suggested link between Veselnitskaya and Fusion GPS?

[edpc]

There seems to be a problem from time to time with people not reading information that they do not want to hear.

 Yes, I think you have aptly demonstrated that.   

[ConservativeGranny]

Perhaps you meant to link to another article. The one here pertains only to limitations concerning  "contributions or donations of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal State, or local election. 'Anything of value' including all in-kind contributions, including the provision of goods or services without charge or at a charge that is less than the usual and normal charge."

I'd be interested to see the source for your above comment claiming that third parties (presumably opposed to a member of the campaign) can legally buy oppo research from foreign sources. Please provide the correct link.

No the link was correct. You just have to read it. Let me help...

"11 CFR 110.20(b). “Anything of value” includes all in-kind contributions, including the provision of goods or services without charge or at a charge that is less than the usual and normal charge. See 11 CFR 100.52(d)(1). “Usual and normal charge” is defined as the price of goods in the market from which they ordinarily would have been purchased at the time of the contribution, or the commercially reasonable rate prevailing at the time the services were rendered. See 11 CFR 100.52(d)(2).

Here, you propose accepting without charge, from Canadian third party and independent candidates, certain printed materials used in previous Canadian campaigns. The materials would include flyers, advertisements, door hangers, tri-folds, signs, and other printed material. You plan to use these items to assist you in your own campaign. Although the value of these materials may be nominal or difficult to ascertain, they have some value. The provision of these items without charge would relieve your campaign of the expense that it would otherwise incur to obtain such materials. Thus, the provision of such items without charge would constitute a contribution and, as such, would be prohibited, particularly in light of the broad scope of the prohibition on contributions from foreign nationals."

[skeeter]

No the link was correct. You just have to read it. Let me help...

"11 CFR 110.20(b). “Anything of value” includes all in-kind contributions, including the provision of goods or services without charge or at a charge that is less than the usual and normal charge. See 11 CFR 100.52(d)(1). “Usual and normal charge” is defined as the price of goods in the market from which they ordinarily would have been purchased at the time of the contribution, or the commercially reasonable rate prevailing at the time the services were rendered. See 11 CFR 100.52(d)(2).

Here, you propose accepting without charge, from Canadian third party and independent candidates, certain printed materials used in previous Canadian campaigns. The materials would include flyers, advertisements, door hangers, tri-folds, signs, and other printed material. You plan to use these items to assist you in your own campaign. Although the value of these materials may be nominal or difficult to ascertain, they have some value. The provision of these items without charge would relieve your campaign of the expense that it would otherwise incur to obtain such materials. Thus, the provision of such items without charge would constitute a contribution and, as such, would be prohibited, particularly in light of the broad scope of the prohibition on contributions from foreign nationals."

Help me understand how the above supports this statement of your's - "The FEC has already clarified this. Yes receiving opposition research from a foreign national would be in violation. This type of research is not unusual for a campaign to obtain but the legal way to do it is to hire a company and pay them to do it for you."

[ConservativeGranny]

I didn't say anything was untrue. What you've posted is an amalgamation of details, alot of loose speculation and are implying conclusions that, while politically convenient for you, do not necessarily follow.

Again, why not mention the suggested link between Veselnitskaya and Fusion GPS?

It's a secret. It's part of my loose speculation and conspiracy theories

[skeeter]

It's a secret. It's part of my loose speculation and conspiracy theories

I think its more likely you intended to post a big mass of nominally punctuated scary sounding text & hope those who endeavor to read it give up and just accept your conclusions.

[Rivergirl]

I have it on good authority that Truman did the same to Dewey.

[ConservativeGranny]

Help me understand how the above supports this statement of your's - "The FEC has already clarified this. Yes receiving opposition research from a foreign national would be in violation. This type of research is not unusual for a campaign to obtain but the legal way to do it is to hire a company and pay them to do it for you."

I can't help you if you can't read.

As far as opposition research goes it is not illegal and most campaigns do it. This can range from picking through candidate's speeches, tv appearances, newspaper statements etc. to going through court cases, legislation records etc. If you do some research you will even find printed material to teach it, classes for it, job listings and firms offering their research services. Nothing illegal about it. This is the type of work that typically is hired out just as they would hire firms to do polls and phone calls. When a foreign national or a foreign government offers to give this information to you without you paying for it it is a crime because it has monetary value. Whether or not you liked the information or found it useful is besides the point. If you attempt to rob a bank but find the safe empty does that mean you haven't committed a crime?

I'm not the only one who agrees with that. Do some googling and you will find other attorneys and officials saying that the FEC has clarified this already. You are welcome to disagree with that if you like.

[ConservativeGranny]

I think its more likely you intended to post a big mass of nominally punctuated scary sounding text & hope those who endeavor to read it give up and just accept your conclusions.

You sure are determined to make this personal for some reason. I would hope that no one would just accept my conclusions. Quite the opposite. I'm trying to encourage people to think for themselves and do some digging on their own.  I would hope that no one is just accepting what Trump, the Trump administration, and the media are saying. All have a history of being untruthful. I would encourage anyone to look into the things I have mentioned and form your own opinions. I happen to think that there are too many "coincidences".

Sorry for any punctuation mistakes. I'm pretty busy and don't always take the time to make things perfect.