Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Re: Trump voters don't think Donald Trump Jr. met with Russia, even after he said he did: poll
38 views
Skip to first unread message
rumpelstiltskin
Jul 20, 2017, 12:05:21 PM7/20/17
to
On Thu, 20 Jul 2017 05:11:47 GMT, aw...@blackhole.nyx.net (arthur
wouk) wrote:
>
>http://www.salon.com/2017/07/19/trump-voters-dont-think-donald-trump-jr-met-with-russia-even-after-he-said-he-did-poll/
>
>
>A new survey by Public Policy Polling reveals most Trump voters
>are still skeptical of the Russia investigation
That's what happens when a government lies and lies
and lies. People stop believing it.
wouk) wrote:
>
>http://www.salon.com/2017/07/19/trump-voters-dont-think-donald-trump-jr-met-with-russia-even-after-he-said-he-did-poll/
>
>
>A new survey by Public Policy Polling reveals most Trump voters
>are still skeptical of the Russia investigation
That's what happens when a government lies and lies
and lies. People stop believing it.
GLOBALIST
Jul 20, 2017, 12:22:45 PM7/20/17
to
quote:
So, a dinner conversation in front of several world leaders now amounts to a secret, undisclosed meeting? If that’s the new standard, then doesn’t that fall under classification? Will the press need to have a hand-written copy of every single word uttered by the President when speaking with any foreign actor? Or is that just the standard as applied to Trump and not everyone else?
end of quote:
=====================
At the dinner our First Lady was assigned a seat right next to Putin. After the dinner our President simply went over and sat next to his wife. Now that is clandestine?
-------------------
GLOBALIST
Jul 20, 2017, 12:24:14 PM7/20/17
to
Well anyway the Democrats obsession with Russia
is sick.
Jack Fate
Jul 20, 2017, 12:29:10 PM7/20/17
to
GLOBALIST wrote:
> Well anyway the Democrats obsession with Russia is sick.
No, it's the Trump family committing treason, dumb fucking Village Idiot.
> Well anyway the Democrats obsession with Russia is sick.
Josh Rosenbluth
Jul 20, 2017, 12:41:22 PM7/20/17
to
rumpelstiltskin
Jul 20, 2017, 2:38:57 PM7/20/17
to
you doing now that we don't know about yet?"
Josh Rosenbluth
Jul 20, 2017, 4:27:04 PM7/20/17
to
reaction is Junior didn't meet with a Russian.
bfla...@gmail.com
Jul 20, 2017, 5:16:12 PM7/20/17
to
I am nonplussed as to the why some are reacting favorably to
Trump's machinations (about 35%).
This is what he does and has always done likely from the time
his Father put him in the military school in an attempt to
cure his obstreperousness. Obviously it didn't take and
he continues to be the same bozo he always was.
As one observer said, "Trump is a symptom not the cause."
I mean, can you imagine a country that can't figure our
a way to provide health care to all our citizens but can
spend gazillions to attempt to control through military
means the rest of the world especially those who don't
agree with our skued idea of how to act. Trump is presiding
over a declining empire and is not managing that fact very
well so far.
Trump's machinations (about 35%).
This is what he does and has always done likely from the time
his Father put him in the military school in an attempt to
cure his obstreperousness. Obviously it didn't take and
he continues to be the same bozo he always was.
As one observer said, "Trump is a symptom not the cause."
I mean, can you imagine a country that can't figure our
a way to provide health care to all our citizens but can
spend gazillions to attempt to control through military
means the rest of the world especially those who don't
agree with our skued idea of how to act. Trump is presiding
over a declining empire and is not managing that fact very
well so far.
rumpelstiltskin
Jul 21, 2017, 12:51:10 AM7/21/17
to
On Thu, 20 Jul 2017 13:27:00 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
I don't know, I'm not responsible for that. All I can
say is that there must be some folks who don't WANT
us to talk to the Russians, since they feel they have to
deny that anybody did. We SHOULD be talking to the
Russians, and to the Iranians and Cubans, IMV. I'd
even favour talking to ISIS, though I wouldn't want to
give them any information, and I wouldn't have any
faith in the truthfulness or integrity of anything they
said to me. I know what their intent is, and I know
they'll be perfectly willing to lie or kill with startling
abandon if they feel there's even a small chance of
advancing their holy cause thereby.
I'm not so sure about the North-Korea dude with
the square hair. In my fantasy world, things will
get so desperate for the people in North Korea
that they'll rise up and overthrow the government.
If they do that, All the transportation lines in
South Korea will immediately be employed in
carrying food and supplies up to their people in
North Korea. Then we'll have one Korea again,
as "God", or somebody like that, intended.
say is that there must be some folks who don't WANT
us to talk to the Russians, since they feel they have to
deny that anybody did. We SHOULD be talking to the
Russians, and to the Iranians and Cubans, IMV. I'd
even favour talking to ISIS, though I wouldn't want to
give them any information, and I wouldn't have any
faith in the truthfulness or integrity of anything they
said to me. I know what their intent is, and I know
they'll be perfectly willing to lie or kill with startling
abandon if they feel there's even a small chance of
advancing their holy cause thereby.
I'm not so sure about the North-Korea dude with
the square hair. In my fantasy world, things will
get so desperate for the people in North Korea
that they'll rise up and overthrow the government.
If they do that, All the transportation lines in
South Korea will immediately be employed in
carrying food and supplies up to their people in
North Korea. Then we'll have one Korea again,
as "God", or somebody like that, intended.
Josh Rosenbluth
Jul 21, 2017, 1:16:02 AM7/21/17
to
On 7/20/2017 9:51 PM, rumpelstiltskin wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Jul 2017 13:27:00 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
> <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>> On 7/20/2017 11:39 AM, rumpelstiltskin wrote:
>>> On Thu, 20 Jul 2017 09:41:17 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
>>> <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 7/20/2017 9:05 AM, rumpelstiltskin wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 20 Jul 2017 05:11:47 GMT, aw...@blackhole.nyx.net (arthur
>>>>> wouk) wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.salon.com/2017/07/19/trump-voters-dont-think-donald-trump-jr-met-with-russia-even-after-he-said-he-did-poll/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A new survey by Public Policy Polling reveals most Trump voters
>>>>>> are still skeptical of the Russia investigation
>>>>>
>>>>> That's what happens when a government lies and lies
>>>>> and lies. People stop believing it.
>>>>
>>>> People don't believe when someone admits to doing something?
>>>
>>> It provokes the understandable question "What are
>>> you doing now that we don't know about yet?"
>>
>> Exactly! So, why aren't Trump voters reacting that way? Instead, their
>> reaction is Junior didn't meet with a Russian.
>
>
> I don't know, I'm not responsible for that.
Do you believe Junior meet with a Russian, and thought he was meeting
> On Thu, 20 Jul 2017 13:27:00 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
> <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>> On 7/20/2017 11:39 AM, rumpelstiltskin wrote:
>>> On Thu, 20 Jul 2017 09:41:17 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
>>> <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 7/20/2017 9:05 AM, rumpelstiltskin wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 20 Jul 2017 05:11:47 GMT, aw...@blackhole.nyx.net (arthur
>>>>> wouk) wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.salon.com/2017/07/19/trump-voters-dont-think-donald-trump-jr-met-with-russia-even-after-he-said-he-did-poll/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A new survey by Public Policy Polling reveals most Trump voters
>>>>>> are still skeptical of the Russia investigation
>>>>>
>>>>> That's what happens when a government lies and lies
>>>>> and lies. People stop believing it.
>>>>
>>>> People don't believe when someone admits to doing something?
>>>
>>> It provokes the understandable question "What are
>>> you doing now that we don't know about yet?"
>>
>> Exactly! So, why aren't Trump voters reacting that way? Instead, their
>> reaction is Junior didn't meet with a Russian.
>
>
> I don't know, I'm not responsible for that.
with a Russian government agent, specifically to get dirt on Clinton?
> All I can
> say is that there must be some folks who don't WANT
> us to talk to the Russians, since they feel they have to
> deny that anybody did. We SHOULD be talking to the
> Russians, and to the Iranians and Cubans, IMV.
rumpelstiltskin
Jul 21, 2017, 8:51:13 AM7/21/17
to
On Thu, 20 Jul 2017 22:15:57 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
In an "ideal" society perhaps. We're not an ideal
society, and there has never been one.
society, and there has never been one.
Josh Rosenbluth
Jul 21, 2017, 10:27:59 AM7/21/17
to
>>> All I can
>>> say is that there must be some folks who don't WANT
>>> us to talk to the Russians, since they feel they have to
>>> deny that anybody did. We SHOULD be talking to the
>>> Russians, and to the Iranians and Cubans, IMV.
>>
>> Of course. But not to get dirt on one's political opposition.
>
> In an "ideal" society perhaps. We're not an ideal
> society, and there has never been one.
to get dirt on one's political opposition should be condemned?
GLOBALIST
Jul 21, 2017, 10:46:42 AM7/21/17
to
with all this silly talk about Russia.
Jack Fate
Jul 21, 2017, 10:47:45 AM7/21/17
to
GLOBALIST wrote:
> Trump voters are sick to death and bored shitless with all this silly
> talk about Russia.
It's not silly. Trump is so fucking scared, he's trying to find out if
> Trump voters are sick to death and bored shitless with all this silly
> talk about Russia.
he can pardon himself. Try to keep up, fart face.
Josh Rosenbluth
Jul 21, 2017, 12:02:04 PM7/21/17
to
Russian to get dirt on Trump?
mg
Jul 21, 2017, 2:08:09 PM7/21/17
to
On Thu, 20 Jul 2017 05:11:47 GMT, aw...@blackhole.nyx.net
(arthur wouk) wrote:
>
>http://www.salon.com/2017/07/19/trump-voters-dont-think-donald-trump-jr-met-with-russia-even-after-he-said-he-did-poll/
>
>
>A new survey by Public Policy Polling reveals most Trump voters
>are still skeptical of the Russia investigation
>
>
The behavior of a herd of human beings is often highly
(arthur wouk) wrote:
>
>http://www.salon.com/2017/07/19/trump-voters-dont-think-donald-trump-jr-met-with-russia-even-after-he-said-he-did-poll/
>
>
>A new survey by Public Policy Polling reveals most Trump voters
>are still skeptical of the Russia investigation
>
>
predictable, just as the behavior of a troop of monkeys or a
flock of birds is highly predictable. So, for example, I
would expect that a polling company could get a similar
reaction from Hillary voters if they had done a similar-type
of poll on Hillary when the Benghazi hearings were in the
headlines.
So, I don't think that there's much news value in an opinion
poll that "reveals" most Trump voters are skeptical of the
Russia investigation anymore than there would be much news
value in a story that says that geese migrate south in
winter and north in summer. In fact, I myself am skeptical;
I think the Benghazi hearings were mostly, if not entirely,
a witch hunt and the same goes for the Russian
investigations.
Josh Rosenbluth
Jul 21, 2017, 2:22:02 PM7/21/17
to
Russian government agent in order to get dirt on Clinton ... even though
Junior has admitted doing exactly that.
rumpelstiltskin
Jul 21, 2017, 2:41:47 PM7/21/17
to
On Fri, 21 Jul 2017 07:27:54 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
I have no knowledge and no opinion about that,
nor do I wish to read any writeups about it then try
to guess what parts of the writeups are lies and
what parts, if any, aren't.
The election is over. If one wants to get Trump
removed from office, that probably isn't going to
do it, especially not with just allegations.
>
>>>> All I can
>>>> say is that there must be some folks who don't WANT
>>>> us to talk to the Russians, since they feel they have to
>>>> deny that anybody did. We SHOULD be talking to the
>>>> Russians, and to the Iranians and Cubans, IMV.
>>>
>>> Of course. But not to get dirt on one's political opposition.
>>
>> In an "ideal" society perhaps. We're not an ideal
>> society, and there has never been one.
>
>Do you think - in our less-than-ideal society - talking to the Russians
>to get dirt on one's political opposition should be condemned?
Yes, but a heckuva lot about the US political system
should be condemned That's part of the reason the USA
should surrender to Canada. I've never lived in Canada,
but I gather that the governance is more seemly than
the unending bitch-fight between street-hookers of US
politics.
My apologies to street hookers for insinuating that
they're like American politicians and policy wonks.
Some of them do honest work and deliver what they
promise instead of just stealing.
nor do I wish to read any writeups about it then try
to guess what parts of the writeups are lies and
what parts, if any, aren't.
The election is over. If one wants to get Trump
removed from office, that probably isn't going to
do it, especially not with just allegations.
>
>>>> All I can
>>>> say is that there must be some folks who don't WANT
>>>> us to talk to the Russians, since they feel they have to
>>>> deny that anybody did. We SHOULD be talking to the
>>>> Russians, and to the Iranians and Cubans, IMV.
>>>
>>> Of course. But not to get dirt on one's political opposition.
>>
>> In an "ideal" society perhaps. We're not an ideal
>> society, and there has never been one.
>
>Do you think - in our less-than-ideal society - talking to the Russians
>to get dirt on one's political opposition should be condemned?
should be condemned That's part of the reason the USA
should surrender to Canada. I've never lived in Canada,
but I gather that the governance is more seemly than
the unending bitch-fight between street-hookers of US
politics.
My apologies to street hookers for insinuating that
they're like American politicians and policy wonks.
Some of them do honest work and deliver what they
promise instead of just stealing.
GLOBALIST
Jul 21, 2017, 5:00:50 PM7/21/17
to
normal.
Tzatz Ziki
Jul 21, 2017, 5:14:31 PM7/21/17
to
On 7/21/2017 7:47 AM, Jack Fate wrote:
> It's not silly.
"...but I will no longer be posting here. No one here is going to change
so, basically, I'm wasting the little time I have left by posting to
this obscure little group full of stupid bigoted and racist Trump
lovers."
> It's not silly.
"...but I will no longer be posting here. No one here is going to change
so, basically, I'm wasting the little time I have left by posting to
this obscure little group full of stupid bigoted and racist Trump
lovers."
Josh Rosenbluth
Jul 21, 2017, 9:09:57 PM7/21/17
to
Junior himself released. You think Junior lied about himself?
> The election is over. If one wants to get Trump
> removed from office, that probably isn't going to
> do it, especially not with just allegations.
>
>>
>>>>> All I can
>>>>> say is that there must be some folks who don't WANT
>>>>> us to talk to the Russians, since they feel they have to
>>>>> deny that anybody did. We SHOULD be talking to the
>>>>> Russians, and to the Iranians and Cubans, IMV.
>>>>
>>>> Of course. But not to get dirt on one's political opposition.
>>>
>>> In an "ideal" society perhaps. We're not an ideal
>>> society, and there has never been one.
>>
>> Do you think - in our less-than-ideal society - talking to the Russians
>> to get dirt on one's political opposition should be condemned?
>
> Yes, but a heckuva lot about the US political system
> should be condemned
that. Very odd.
El Castor
Jul 22, 2017, 1:21:48 AM7/22/17
to
On Fri, 21 Jul 2017 09:02:02 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
a Jew. Does that make you an agent of Israel?
<no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>On 7/21/2017 7:46 AM, GLOBALIST wrote:
>> On Thursday, July 20, 2017 at 3:27:04 PM UTC-5, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
>>> On 7/20/2017 11:39 AM, rumpelstiltskin wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 20 Jul 2017 09:41:17 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
>>>> <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 7/20/2017 9:05 AM, rumpelstiltskin wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 20 Jul 2017 05:11:47 GMT, aw...@blackhole.nyx.net (arthur
>>>>>> wouk) wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://www.salon.com/2017/07/19/trump-voters-dont-think-donald-trump-jr-met-with-russia-even-after-he-said-he-did-poll/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A new survey by Public Policy Polling reveals most Trump voters
>>>>>>> are still skeptical of the Russia investigation
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's what happens when a government lies and lies
>>>>>> and lies. People stop believing it.
>>>>>
>>>>> People don't believe when someone admits to doing something?
>>>>
>>>> It provokes the understandable question "What are
>>>> you doing now that we don't know about yet?"
>>>
>>> Exactly! So, why aren't Trump voters reacting that way? Instead, their
>>> reaction is Junior didn't meet with a Russian.
>>
>> Trump voters are sick to death and bored shitless
>> with all this silly talk about Russia.
>
>Would you be saying that if it was Chelsea Clinton who had met with a
>Russian to get dirt on Trump?
I would. And what exactly is a "Russian". An agent of Russia? You are
>On 7/21/2017 7:46 AM, GLOBALIST wrote:
>> On Thursday, July 20, 2017 at 3:27:04 PM UTC-5, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
>>> On 7/20/2017 11:39 AM, rumpelstiltskin wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 20 Jul 2017 09:41:17 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
>>>> <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 7/20/2017 9:05 AM, rumpelstiltskin wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 20 Jul 2017 05:11:47 GMT, aw...@blackhole.nyx.net (arthur
>>>>>> wouk) wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://www.salon.com/2017/07/19/trump-voters-dont-think-donald-trump-jr-met-with-russia-even-after-he-said-he-did-poll/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A new survey by Public Policy Polling reveals most Trump voters
>>>>>>> are still skeptical of the Russia investigation
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's what happens when a government lies and lies
>>>>>> and lies. People stop believing it.
>>>>>
>>>>> People don't believe when someone admits to doing something?
>>>>
>>>> It provokes the understandable question "What are
>>>> you doing now that we don't know about yet?"
>>>
>>> Exactly! So, why aren't Trump voters reacting that way? Instead, their
>>> reaction is Junior didn't meet with a Russian.
>>
>> Trump voters are sick to death and bored shitless
>> with all this silly talk about Russia.
>
>Would you be saying that if it was Chelsea Clinton who had met with a
>Russian to get dirt on Trump?
a Jew. Does that make you an agent of Israel?
El Castor
Jul 22, 2017, 4:41:22 AM7/22/17
to
of the Russian government"? Cite? And please no "it has been
reported", or "sources say".
Josh Rosenbluth
Jul 22, 2017, 10:21:18 AM7/22/17
to
you the benefit of the doubt, I guess that means you think it's OK to
solicit the Russian government for dirt on your political opponents.
> And what exactly is a "Russian". An agent of Russia? You are
> a Jew. Does that make you an agent of Israel?
Prosecutor of Russia.
Josh Rosenbluth
Jul 22, 2017, 10:22:42 AM7/22/17
to
rumpelstiltskin
Jul 22, 2017, 12:20:25 PM7/22/17
to
On Fri, 21 Jul 2017 18:09:53 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
<snip>
>And yet, you don't care about Junior's emails which show he did exactly
>that. Very odd.
I realize nobody has ever tried to collect dirt on an
opposing candidate before, but we all remember from
quite recently the craftily inflammatory buzzphrase
of Russians "hacking" the US election. It's the kind
of propaganda that got us stuck to the old Vietnam
and the current Southwest-Asian tar-babies. We
should know better than to fall for it again.
<snip>
>And yet, you don't care about Junior's emails which show he did exactly
>that. Very odd.
opposing candidate before, but we all remember from
quite recently the craftily inflammatory buzzphrase
of Russians "hacking" the US election. It's the kind
of propaganda that got us stuck to the old Vietnam
and the current Southwest-Asian tar-babies. We
should know better than to fall for it again.
Josh Rosenbluth
Jul 22, 2017, 12:31:22 PM7/22/17
to
a red herring.
I was talking about Junior's admission he solicited dirt on Clinton from
what he believed was a Russian government agent. With regard to that
one issue, you have said both "I have no knowledge and no opinion about
that" and talking to the Russians to get dirt on one's political
opposition should be condemned. I don't see how those two opinions can
be reconciled. Which is it? Should Junior be condemned? Or, should we
not care about what Junior did?
rumpelstiltskin
Jul 22, 2017, 2:10:30 PM7/22/17
to
On Sat, 22 Jul 2017 09:31:19 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
<no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>On 7/22/2017 9:20 AM, rumpelstiltskin wrote:
>> On Fri, 21 Jul 2017 18:09:53 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
>> <snip>
>>
>>
>>> And yet, you don't care about Junior's emails which show he did exactly
>>> that. Very odd.
>>
>>
>> I realize nobody has ever tried to collect dirt on an
>> opposing candidate before, but we all remember from
>> quite recently the craftily inflammatory buzzphrase
>> of Russians "hacking" the US election. It's the kind
>> of propaganda that got us stuck to the old Vietnam
>> and the current Southwest-Asian tar-babies. We
>> should know better than to fall for it again.
>
>I wasn't talking about the alleged Russian hacking, hence your reply is
>a red herring.
Bullshit.
<no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>On 7/22/2017 9:20 AM, rumpelstiltskin wrote:
>> On Fri, 21 Jul 2017 18:09:53 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
>> <snip>
>>
>>
>>> And yet, you don't care about Junior's emails which show he did exactly
>>> that. Very odd.
>>
>>
>> I realize nobody has ever tried to collect dirt on an
>> opposing candidate before, but we all remember from
>> quite recently the craftily inflammatory buzzphrase
>> of Russians "hacking" the US election. It's the kind
>> of propaganda that got us stuck to the old Vietnam
>> and the current Southwest-Asian tar-babies. We
>> should know better than to fall for it again.
>
>I wasn't talking about the alleged Russian hacking, hence your reply is
>a red herring.
El Castor
Jul 22, 2017, 8:30:20 PM7/22/17
to
On Sat, 22 Jul 2017 07:21:14 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Very good! You had me laughing and rolling in the aisles! Now answer
my question.
my question.
Josh Rosenbluth
Jul 22, 2017, 8:36:11 PM7/22/17
to
>>> And what exactly is a "Russian". An agent of Russia? You are
>>> a Jew. Does that make you an agent of Israel?
>>
>> In this case, Junior thought he was going to be meeting with the Crown
>> Prosecutor of Russia.
>
> Very good! You had me laughing and rolling in the aisles! Now answer
> my question.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/07/11/us/politics/donald-trump-jr-email-text.html
El Castor
Jul 22, 2017, 8:41:08 PM7/22/17
to
On Sat, 22 Jul 2017 07:22:40 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
''The first email on June 3, 2016 was from Rob, who was relating a
request from Emin, a person I knew from the 2013 Ms. Universe Pageant
near Moscow. Emin and his father have a very highly respected company
in Moscow. The information they suggested they had about Hillary
Clinton I thought was Political Opposition Research. I first wanted to
just have a phone call but when that didn't work out, they said the
woman would be in New York and asked if I would meet. I decided to
take the meeting. The woman, as she has said publicly, was not a
government official. And, as we have said, she had no information to
provide and wanted to talk about adoption policy and the Magnitsky
Act. To put this in context, this occurred before the current Russian
fever was in vogue. As Rob Goldstone said just today in the press, the
entire meeting was “the most inane nonsense l ever heard. And I was
actually agitated by it.”"
... Donald Trump, Jr.
Sounds reasonable. I'd take the same from Chelsea. By the way, when
are we going to be hearing less about "Russian Fever", and more about
the Democrat program for peace and prosperity?
request from Emin, a person I knew from the 2013 Ms. Universe Pageant
near Moscow. Emin and his father have a very highly respected company
in Moscow. The information they suggested they had about Hillary
Clinton I thought was Political Opposition Research. I first wanted to
just have a phone call but when that didn't work out, they said the
woman would be in New York and asked if I would meet. I decided to
take the meeting. The woman, as she has said publicly, was not a
government official. And, as we have said, she had no information to
provide and wanted to talk about adoption policy and the Magnitsky
Act. To put this in context, this occurred before the current Russian
fever was in vogue. As Rob Goldstone said just today in the press, the
entire meeting was “the most inane nonsense l ever heard. And I was
actually agitated by it.”"
... Donald Trump, Jr.
Sounds reasonable. I'd take the same from Chelsea. By the way, when
are we going to be hearing less about "Russian Fever", and more about
the Democrat program for peace and prosperity?
Josh Rosenbluth
Jul 22, 2017, 8:56:53 PM7/22/17
to
the emails actually say:
Rob Goldstone: "Emin just called and asked me to contact you with
something very interesting. The Crown prosecutor of Russia met with his
[Emin's] father Aras this morning and in their meeting offered to
provide the Trump campaign with some official documents and information
that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be
very useful to your father [...] What do you think is the best way to
handle this information?"
Junior replies: "if it's what you say I love it [...] Could we do a
call first thing next week".
What Junior's summary left out was the request from Emin and his father
was on behalf of the Crown prosecutor of Russia. This isn't about
meeting with Russians to get dirt on Clinton. It's about meeting with
(what Junior believed to be) Russian government agents to get dirt on
Clinton. And you are OK with that?
El Castor
Jul 23, 2017, 2:59:54 PM7/23/17
to
On Sat, 22 Jul 2017 17:36:08 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Donald Jr. didn't solicit the Russian government -- he was solicited,
and indirectly at that. Were I in his position and a Russian, German,
Mexican, or Cambodian offered info, I would listen.
>>>> And what exactly is a "Russian". An agent of Russia? You are
>>>> a Jew. Does that make you an agent of Israel?
>>>
>>> In this case, Junior thought he was going to be meeting with the Crown
>>> Prosecutor of Russia.
>>
>> Very good! You had me laughing and rolling in the aisles! Now answer
>> my question.
>
>That's the answer, no joke.
>
>https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/07/11/us/politics/donald-trump-jr-email-text.html
>
And you saw my comment to the other post. (-8
Don't you find the current Russian hysteria a little strange? At one
time the American Left was very cozy with the Soviet Union -- very.
and indirectly at that. Were I in his position and a Russian, German,
Mexican, or Cambodian offered info, I would listen.
>>>> And what exactly is a "Russian". An agent of Russia? You are
>>>> a Jew. Does that make you an agent of Israel?
>>>
>>> In this case, Junior thought he was going to be meeting with the Crown
>>> Prosecutor of Russia.
>>
>> Very good! You had me laughing and rolling in the aisles! Now answer
>> my question.
>
>That's the answer, no joke.
>
>https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/07/11/us/politics/donald-trump-jr-email-text.html
>
Don't you find the current Russian hysteria a little strange? At one
time the American Left was very cozy with the Soviet Union -- very.
El Castor
Jul 23, 2017, 3:10:38 PM7/23/17
to
On Sat, 22 Jul 2017 17:56:48 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Yes. The truth, if that is what they had to offer, is still the truth,
regardless of the source, and in the case of the president of the
United States, the truth is very important. Hilary was so negligent
with her mail server, the Russians were probably reading her mail
before she was. The 33,000 emails she deleted may have contained
information disqualifying her from service as a dog catcher.
regardless of the source, and in the case of the president of the
United States, the truth is very important. Hilary was so negligent
with her mail server, the Russians were probably reading her mail
before she was. The 33,000 emails she deleted may have contained
information disqualifying her from service as a dog catcher.
Josh Rosenbluth
Jul 23, 2017, 4:43:54 PM7/23/17
to
with it had it been Chelsea Clinton.
El Castor
Jul 24, 2017, 4:18:43 AM7/24/17
to
On Sun, 23 Jul 2017 13:43:49 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
You don't believe me? I am crushed! Nevertheless, it's true. My value
system is obviously not as partisan dependent as yours. Would you be
as outraged if it was Chelsea Clinton? I doubt it, but if you insist
that you would be, I respect you enough that I would be willing accept
your word in the matter.
system is obviously not as partisan dependent as yours. Would you be
as outraged if it was Chelsea Clinton? I doubt it, but if you insist
that you would be, I respect you enough that I would be willing accept
your word in the matter.
mg
Jul 24, 2017, 5:02:35 AM7/24/17
to
(Democrats and Republicans) has been avoiding discussing the
actual issues ever since the political campaigns began and
the Democrats are still avoiding discussing the issues. Some
of the actual issues that voters are interested in are:
immigration, foreign worker visas, TPP, the decline of the
working class and middle class, SS and Medicare, political
corruption, the contents of the leaked DNC emails and
Hillary emails, and the wars against Muslim countries.
Instead of discussing the actual issues, Democrats have been
conducting witch hunts and they have launched personal
attacks against Trump and his supporters. You, yourself,
have been an enthusiastic participant in that kind of
political strategy -- you and about half of the rest of the
country.
I can't remember when the personal attacks against Trump
supporters started, but I do remember the bigotry attacks
and the less-educated attacks, and Hillary calling Trump
supporters deplorables. It seems that Democrats will do
anything to avoid discussing the actual issues.
In regard to this particular poll, you appear to be
motivated to prove something, or another, about Trump
voters. So, what is it that you think this poll proves in
regard to Trump voters being able to vote in their
self-interest, or even in their enlightened self interest?
In one poll, incidentally, Betty Crocker was once rated as
the second most admired woman in America. In some other
polls, one in ten people think HTML is a sexual disease,
most people think stormy weather affects cloud computing,
one in four people thinks the Sun goes around the earth, and
most Americans don't trust survey results. :-)
rumpelstiltskin
Jul 24, 2017, 8:18:26 AM7/24/17
to
On Mon, 24 Jul 2017 03:02:31 -0600, mg <no...@none.nl> wrote:
<snip>
>In one poll, incidentally, Betty Crocker was once rated as
>the second most admired woman in America. In some other
>polls, one in ten people think HTML is a sexual disease,
>most people think stormy weather affects cloud computing,
>one in four people thinks the Sun goes around the earth, and
>most Americans don't trust survey results. :-)
Those are funny!
<snip>
>In one poll, incidentally, Betty Crocker was once rated as
>the second most admired woman in America. In some other
>polls, one in ten people think HTML is a sexual disease,
>most people think stormy weather affects cloud computing,
>one in four people thinks the Sun goes around the earth, and
>most Americans don't trust survey results. :-)
GLOBALIST
Jul 24, 2017, 8:40:56 AM7/24/17
to
They have their own problems and we have our
own.
The Russian people are great people and they
find this whole thing comical and very odd.
Jack Fate
Jul 24, 2017, 9:06:10 AM7/24/17
to
GLOBALIST wrote:
> Who in God's name is worried about the Russians? They have their own
> problems and we have our own. The Russian people are great people and
> they find this whole thing comical and very odd.
So, how long have you been a traitor, comrade?
> Who in God's name is worried about the Russians? They have their own
> problems and we have our own. The Russian people are great people and
> they find this whole thing comical and very odd.
Josh Rosenbluth
Jul 24, 2017, 10:55:10 AM7/24/17
to
On 7/24/2017 1:18 AM, El Castor wrote:
> On Sun, 23 Jul 2017 13:43:49 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
> On Sun, 23 Jul 2017 13:43:49 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
>>>> What Junior's summary left out was the request from Emin and his father
>>>> was on behalf of the Crown prosecutor of Russia. This isn't about
>>>> meeting with Russians to get dirt on Clinton. It's about meeting with
>>>> (what Junior believed to be) Russian government agents to get dirt on
>>>> Clinton. And you are OK with that?
>>>
>>> Yes.
>>
>> Amazing! And I still don't believe you when you say you would be OK
>> with it had it been Chelsea Clinton.
>
> You don't believe me? I am crushed! Nevertheless, it's true. My value
> system is obviously not as partisan dependent as yours. Would you be
> as outraged if it was Chelsea Clinton? I doubt it, but if you insist
> that you would be, I respect you enough that I would be willing accept
> your word in the matter.
The reason I don't believe you is I remain amazed you think it is just
peachy to take a meeting with (what you believe is) a Russian government
agent to receive (what might be) dirt on your political opponent. To
me, that is such an obvious ethical and national security breach, it is
a very easy call to just say "no". By assuming you would react
differently had it been Clinton, I am giving you the benefit of the
doubt to think this through again and to change your mind and accept the
obvious.
Josh Rosenbluth
Jul 24, 2017, 11:00:30 AM7/24/17
to
herring. And for the record, the Junior email story isn't a witch hunt
or a personal attack. It is a fact. And the poll shows that Trump
voters cannot accept facts.
El Castor
Jul 24, 2017, 3:25:30 PM7/24/17
to
National security breach? How does listening to accusations delivered
by a foreign national constitute a national security breach? Not
ethical? Listening to accusations against a political opponent is not
ethical? I can't pick up a copy of the New York Times without reading
accusations against the president of the United States delivered by
undisclosed and unnamed sources. Is it illegal or unethical for me (or
you) to read the NY Times?
Josh Rosenbluth
Jul 24, 2017, 4:02:45 PM7/24/17
to
is a *Russian government agent*.
El Castor
Jul 25, 2017, 3:38:56 AM7/25/17
to
On Mon, 24 Jul 2017 13:02:42 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Oh, listening to an employee of the Russian embassy, that would be a
national security breach, but if it was an employee of a bank or
airline, that would be OK?
Josh, you are a smart guy, but let's face it, you stepped in it this
time. There is no breach of national security in the act of listening
to a foreigner speak. The breach occurs when the listener shares
classified information with anyone, foreign or not, who is not
qualified to receive that information. There has been no suggestion
that I am aware of that Jr did any such thing. If Chelsea had done
what Jr did, I would be compelled to make the same argument. Junior's
mistake was in opening himself up to speculation and accusations by
yourself and others -- his father's political opponents, but there is
no evidence of a breach of national security.
national security breach, but if it was an employee of a bank or
airline, that would be OK?
Josh, you are a smart guy, but let's face it, you stepped in it this
time. There is no breach of national security in the act of listening
to a foreigner speak. The breach occurs when the listener shares
classified information with anyone, foreign or not, who is not
qualified to receive that information. There has been no suggestion
that I am aware of that Jr did any such thing. If Chelsea had done
what Jr did, I would be compelled to make the same argument. Junior's
mistake was in opening himself up to speculation and accusations by
yourself and others -- his father's political opponents, but there is
no evidence of a breach of national security.
Josh Rosenbluth
Jul 25, 2017, 10:49:42 AM7/25/17
to
of the Crown Prosecutor of Russia (*)
The Crown Prosecutor doesn't exist, but in the lexicon of Goldstone (the
guy who offered to setup the meeting), it means the equivalent of the DOJ.
El Castor
Jul 25, 2017, 2:33:41 PM7/25/17
to
On Tue, 25 Jul 2017 07:49:33 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
What I grasp is that you are unable to admit that you are wrong.
Listening is not a crime, and it certainly isn't a violation of
national security.
Since you seem to be an expert in ethics, here is something I would
like your opinion on. During the time Hillary Clinton served as
Secretary of State, her husband gave 11 speeches in foreign nations,
including Russia, for which he charged $500,00 -- or more. Since he
and Hillary were married, she shared this income. Do you see any
problem with this
"2010 -- Russia, $500,000, Renaissance Capital (Russian finance
corporation);
2010 -- United Arab Emirates, $500,000, Novo Nordisk (Danish
pharmaceutical company);
2011 -- Nigeria, $700,000, THISDAY (newspaper);
2011 -- Austria, $500,000, Center for Global Dialogue and Cooperation
(Austrian nongovernmental organization);
2011 -- Netherlands, $600,000, Achmea (Dutch finance corporation);
2011 -- China, $550,000, Huatuo CEO Forum (business conference);
2011 -- United Arab Emirates, $500,000, Abu Dhabi Global Environmental
Data Initiative (international environmental information
organization);
2011 -- Hong Kong, $750,000, Ericsson (Swedish multinational
communications technology company);
2012 -- Nigeria, $700,000, THISDAY (newspaper);
2012 -- Austria, $500,000, Center for Global Dialogue and Cooperation
(Austrian nongovernmental organization);
2012 -- Italy, $500,000, Technogym (fitness equipment manufacturer)."
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/apr/26/peter-schweizer/fact-checking-clinton-cash-author-claim-about-bill/
And to quote the same Politifact piece ...
"... Schweizer suggests that Clinton’s speaking fees went up in 2009
in part because companies wanted leverage within Hillary Clinton’s
State Department. For example, New York Times reporters -- building
off of Schweizer’s work -- found that while the State Department was
involved in securing a uranium mining deal with Russia, investors in
the company involved in the deal, Uranium One, gave millions to the
Clinton Foundation. Additionally, "shortly after the Russians
announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One,
Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian
investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium
One stock." The article’s talking about speech No. 3 on the list
above, the 2010 speech paid for by Renaissance Capital."
Do you have a problem with any of this? BTW -- Jr did not pay the
"agent" to hear her talk, and neither was he paid to listen. -8
Listening is not a crime, and it certainly isn't a violation of
national security.
Since you seem to be an expert in ethics, here is something I would
like your opinion on. During the time Hillary Clinton served as
Secretary of State, her husband gave 11 speeches in foreign nations,
including Russia, for which he charged $500,00 -- or more. Since he
and Hillary were married, she shared this income. Do you see any
problem with this
"2010 -- Russia, $500,000, Renaissance Capital (Russian finance
corporation);
2010 -- United Arab Emirates, $500,000, Novo Nordisk (Danish
pharmaceutical company);
2011 -- Nigeria, $700,000, THISDAY (newspaper);
2011 -- Austria, $500,000, Center for Global Dialogue and Cooperation
(Austrian nongovernmental organization);
2011 -- Netherlands, $600,000, Achmea (Dutch finance corporation);
2011 -- China, $550,000, Huatuo CEO Forum (business conference);
2011 -- United Arab Emirates, $500,000, Abu Dhabi Global Environmental
Data Initiative (international environmental information
organization);
2011 -- Hong Kong, $750,000, Ericsson (Swedish multinational
communications technology company);
2012 -- Nigeria, $700,000, THISDAY (newspaper);
2012 -- Austria, $500,000, Center for Global Dialogue and Cooperation
(Austrian nongovernmental organization);
2012 -- Italy, $500,000, Technogym (fitness equipment manufacturer)."
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/apr/26/peter-schweizer/fact-checking-clinton-cash-author-claim-about-bill/
And to quote the same Politifact piece ...
"... Schweizer suggests that Clinton’s speaking fees went up in 2009
in part because companies wanted leverage within Hillary Clinton’s
State Department. For example, New York Times reporters -- building
off of Schweizer’s work -- found that while the State Department was
involved in securing a uranium mining deal with Russia, investors in
the company involved in the deal, Uranium One, gave millions to the
Clinton Foundation. Additionally, "shortly after the Russians
announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One,
Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian
investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium
One stock." The article’s talking about speech No. 3 on the list
above, the 2010 speech paid for by Renaissance Capital."
Do you have a problem with any of this? BTW -- Jr did not pay the
"agent" to hear her talk, and neither was he paid to listen. -8
Josh Rosenbluth
Jul 25, 2017, 8:51:25 PM7/25/17
to
On 7/25/2017 11:33 AM, El Castor wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Jul 2017 07:49:33 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
> <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
{snip}
> On Tue, 25 Jul 2017 07:49:33 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
> <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>> National security breach? How does listening to accusations delivered
>>>>> by a foreign national constitute a national security breach?
>>>>
>>>> Not (just) a foreign national (or the NY Times). Someone who you think
>>>> is a *Russian government agent*.
>>>
>>> Oh, listening to an employee of the Russian embassy, that would be a
>>> national security breach, but if it was an employee of a bank or
>>> airline, that would be OK?
>>>
>>> Josh, you are a smart guy, but let's face it, you stepped in it this
>>> time. There is no breach of national security in the act of listening
>>> to a foreigner speak.
>>
>> It is apparent you cannot grasp the importance of listening to an agent
>> of the Crown Prosecutor of Russia (*)
>
> What I grasp is that you are unable to admit that you are wrong.
> Listening is not a crime, and it certainly isn't a violation of
> national security.
> Since you seem to be an expert in ethics, here is something I would
> like your opinion on. During the time Hillary Clinton served as
> Secretary of State, her husband gave 11 speeches in foreign nations,
> including Russia, for which he charged $500,00 -- or more. Since he
> and Hillary were married, she shared this income. Do you see any
> problem with this
El Castor
Jul 26, 2017, 3:12:57 AM7/26/17
to
On Tue, 25 Jul 2017 17:51:20 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Atilla the Hun! Returning to reality, it was some Russian woman.
>> Since you seem to be an expert in ethics, here is something I would
>> like your opinion on. During the time Hillary Clinton served as
>> Secretary of State, her husband gave 11 speeches in foreign nations,
>> including Russia, for which he charged $500,00 -- or more. Since he
>> and Hillary were married, she shared this income. Do you see any
>> problem with this
>
>Sure, they could cause conflicts of interest.
Did you protest the conflicts while Bill's speeches were raking in the
dough, and Hillary's State Department was doing business with her
husband's bankrollers? Perhaps you demanded that Hillary be
investigated by a special prosecutor? Question her fitness to be
president? I seriously doubt it, for the simple reason that this
discussion is not about Russians or Putin, but just partisan politics.
<no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>On 7/25/2017 11:33 AM, El Castor wrote:
>> On Tue, 25 Jul 2017 07:49:33 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
>> <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>{snip}
>
>>>>>> National security breach? How does listening to accusations delivered
>>>>>> by a foreign national constitute a national security breach?
>>>>>
>>>>> Not (just) a foreign national (or the NY Times). Someone who you think
>>>>> is a *Russian government agent*.
>>>>
>>>> Oh, listening to an employee of the Russian embassy, that would be a
>>>> national security breach, but if it was an employee of a bank or
>>>> airline, that would be OK?
>>>>
>>>> Josh, you are a smart guy, but let's face it, you stepped in it this
>>>> time. There is no breach of national security in the act of listening
>>>> to a foreigner speak.
>>>
>>> It is apparent you cannot grasp the importance of listening to an agent
>>> of the Crown Prosecutor of Russia (*)
>>
>> What I grasp is that you are unable to admit that you are wrong.
>> Listening is not a crime, and it certainly isn't a violation of
>> national security.
>
>How about if it were Putin?
Why stop at Putin? My God, what if it were Hitler! Genghis Khan!
>On 7/25/2017 11:33 AM, El Castor wrote:
>> On Tue, 25 Jul 2017 07:49:33 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
>> <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>{snip}
>
>>>>>> National security breach? How does listening to accusations delivered
>>>>>> by a foreign national constitute a national security breach?
>>>>>
>>>>> Not (just) a foreign national (or the NY Times). Someone who you think
>>>>> is a *Russian government agent*.
>>>>
>>>> Oh, listening to an employee of the Russian embassy, that would be a
>>>> national security breach, but if it was an employee of a bank or
>>>> airline, that would be OK?
>>>>
>>>> Josh, you are a smart guy, but let's face it, you stepped in it this
>>>> time. There is no breach of national security in the act of listening
>>>> to a foreigner speak.
>>>
>>> It is apparent you cannot grasp the importance of listening to an agent
>>> of the Crown Prosecutor of Russia (*)
>>
>> What I grasp is that you are unable to admit that you are wrong.
>> Listening is not a crime, and it certainly isn't a violation of
>> national security.
>
>How about if it were Putin?
Atilla the Hun! Returning to reality, it was some Russian woman.
>> Since you seem to be an expert in ethics, here is something I would
>> like your opinion on. During the time Hillary Clinton served as
>> Secretary of State, her husband gave 11 speeches in foreign nations,
>> including Russia, for which he charged $500,00 -- or more. Since he
>> and Hillary were married, she shared this income. Do you see any
>> problem with this
>
>Sure, they could cause conflicts of interest.
dough, and Hillary's State Department was doing business with her
husband's bankrollers? Perhaps you demanded that Hillary be
investigated by a special prosecutor? Question her fitness to be
president? I seriously doubt it, for the simple reason that this
discussion is not about Russians or Putin, but just partisan politics.
Josh Rosenbluth
Jul 26, 2017, 10:47:45 AM7/26/17
to
representative of the Russian Crown prosecutor. We have established you
think it is OK for Junior to accept a meeting from (what he thinks) is
the Russian Crown prosecutor in order to obtain dirt on Clinton. It is
entirely appropriate in understanding the logic behind your position to
find out if you think it is OK for Junior to accept a meeting from (what
he thinks) is Putin in order to obtain dirt on Clinton.
>>> Since you seem to be an expert in ethics, here is something I would
>>> like your opinion on. During the time Hillary Clinton served as
>>> Secretary of State, her husband gave 11 speeches in foreign nations,
>>> including Russia, for which he charged $500,00 -- or more. Since he
>>> and Hillary were married, she shared this income. Do you see any
>>> problem with this
>>
>> Sure, they could cause conflicts of interest.
>
> Did you protest the conflicts while Bill's speeches were raking in the
> dough, and Hillary's State Department was doing business with her
> husband's bankrollers? Perhaps you demanded that Hillary be
> investigated by a special prosecutor? Question her fitness to be
> president? I seriously doubt it, for the simple reason that this
> discussion is not about Russians or Putin, but just partisan politics.
was no evidence of Russian meddling. What you forget is the current
investigation was not about Trump or partisanship. It began with the
intelligence agencies discovering evidence of Russian meddling in the
election. There is near unanimous agreement in the government that the
Russians did meddle. The House voted yesterday 419-3 to further
sanction Russia for their actions. The Senate did likewise earlier this
year by a vote of 97-2.
rumpelstiltskin
Sep 19, 2017, 6:31:41 PM9/19/17
to
On Fri, 21 Jul 2017 18:09:53 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
<no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
<snip>
>>>>> Do you believe Junior meet with a Russian, and thought he was meeting
>>>>> with a Russian government agent, specifically to get dirt on Clinton?
>>>
>>> Well?
>>
>>
>> I have no knowledge and no opinion about that,
>> nor do I wish to read any writeups about it then try
>> to guess what parts of the writeups are lies and
>> what parts, if any, aren't.
>
>The only write-up you need is the verbatim text of Junior's emails which
>Junior himself released. You think Junior lied about himself?
I'd guess he didn't lie. but I don't really know,
What would be the big deal about talking
with a Russian anyway? Surely the USA
SHOULD be talking with the RUssians.
>
>> The election is over. If one wants to get Trump
>> removed from office, that probably isn't going to
>> do it, especially not with just allegations.
>>
>>>
>>>>>> All I can
>>>>>> say is that there must be some folks who don't WANT
>>>>>> us to talk to the Russians, since they feel they have to
>>>>>> deny that anybody did. We SHOULD be talking to the
>>>>>> Russians, and to the Iranians and Cubans, IMV.
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course. But not to get dirt on one's political opposition.
>>>>
>>>> In an "ideal" society perhaps. We're not an ideal
>>>> society, and there has never been one.
>>>
>>> Do you think - in our less-than-ideal society - talking to the Russians
>>> to get dirt on one's political opposition should be condemned?
I'm sure it happens and has happened since the
beginning of time, but why would you assume that
the Russians have anything startling on Hillary that
the Trump forces don't already know?
<snip>
<no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
<snip>
>>>>> Do you believe Junior meet with a Russian, and thought he was meeting
>>>>> with a Russian government agent, specifically to get dirt on Clinton?
>>>
>>> Well?
>>
>>
>> I have no knowledge and no opinion about that,
>> nor do I wish to read any writeups about it then try
>> to guess what parts of the writeups are lies and
>> what parts, if any, aren't.
>
>The only write-up you need is the verbatim text of Junior's emails which
>Junior himself released. You think Junior lied about himself?
I'd guess he didn't lie. but I don't really know,
What would be the big deal about talking
with a Russian anyway? Surely the USA
SHOULD be talking with the RUssians.
>
>> The election is over. If one wants to get Trump
>> removed from office, that probably isn't going to
>> do it, especially not with just allegations.
>>
>>>
>>>>>> All I can
>>>>>> say is that there must be some folks who don't WANT
>>>>>> us to talk to the Russians, since they feel they have to
>>>>>> deny that anybody did. We SHOULD be talking to the
>>>>>> Russians, and to the Iranians and Cubans, IMV.
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course. But not to get dirt on one's political opposition.
>>>>
>>>> In an "ideal" society perhaps. We're not an ideal
>>>> society, and there has never been one.
>>>
>>> Do you think - in our less-than-ideal society - talking to the Russians
>>> to get dirt on one's political opposition should be condemned?
I'm sure it happens and has happened since the
beginning of time, but why would you assume that
the Russians have anything startling on Hillary that
the Trump forces don't already know?
<snip>
Josh
Sep 19, 2017, 9:11:32 PM9/19/17
to
On 9/19/2017 3:31 PM, rumpelstiltskin wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Jul 2017 18:09:53 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
> <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> <snip>
>
>
>>>>>> Do you believe Junior meet with a Russian, and thought he was meeting
>>>>>> with a Russian government agent, specifically to get dirt on Clinton?
>>>>
>>>> Well?
>>>
>>>
>>> I have no knowledge and no opinion about that,
>>> nor do I wish to read any writeups about it then try
>>> to guess what parts of the writeups are lies and
>>> what parts, if any, aren't.
>>
>> The only write-up you need is the verbatim text of Junior's emails which
>> Junior himself released. You think Junior lied about himself?
>
>
> I'd guess he didn't lie. but I don't really know,
> What would be the big deal about talking
> with a Russian anyway? Surely the USA
> SHOULD be talking with the RUssians.
And you decided to reply to this July post now?
> On Fri, 21 Jul 2017 18:09:53 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
> <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> <snip>
>
>
>>>>>> Do you believe Junior meet with a Russian, and thought he was meeting
>>>>>> with a Russian government agent, specifically to get dirt on Clinton?
>>>>
>>>> Well?
>>>
>>>
>>> I have no knowledge and no opinion about that,
>>> nor do I wish to read any writeups about it then try
>>> to guess what parts of the writeups are lies and
>>> what parts, if any, aren't.
>>
>> The only write-up you need is the verbatim text of Junior's emails which
>> Junior himself released. You think Junior lied about himself?
>
>
> I'd guess he didn't lie. but I don't really know,
> What would be the big deal about talking
> with a Russian anyway? Surely the USA
> SHOULD be talking with the RUssians.
It's a big deal because Junior thought he was going to get embarrassing
information on Clinton from the Russian government. That's not the type
of talking we should be doing with the Russians.
>>> The election is over. If one wants to get Trump
>>> removed from office, that probably isn't going to
>>> do it, especially not with just allegations.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>> All I can
>>>>>>> say is that there must be some folks who don't WANT
>>>>>>> us to talk to the Russians, since they feel they have to
>>>>>>> deny that anybody did. We SHOULD be talking to the
>>>>>>> Russians, and to the Iranians and Cubans, IMV.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Of course. But not to get dirt on one's political opposition.
>>>>>
>>>>> In an "ideal" society perhaps. We're not an ideal
>>>>> society, and there has never been one.
>>>>
>>>> Do you think - in our less-than-ideal society - talking to the Russians
>>>> to get dirt on one's political opposition should be condemned?
>
>
> I'm sure it happens and has happened since the
> beginning of time, but why would you assume that
> the Russians have anything startling on Hillary that
> the Trump forces don't already know?
rumpelstiltskin
Sep 19, 2017, 9:40:06 PM9/19/17
to
On Tue, 19 Sep 2017 18:11:28 -0700, Josh <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>On 9/19/2017 3:31 PM, rumpelstiltskin wrote:
>> On Fri, 21 Jul 2017 18:09:53 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
>> <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> <snip>
>>
>>
>>>>>>> Do you believe Junior meet with a Russian, and thought he was meeting
>>>>>>> with a Russian government agent, specifically to get dirt on Clinton?
>>>>>
>>>>> Well?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I have no knowledge and no opinion about that,
>>>> nor do I wish to read any writeups about it then try
>>>> to guess what parts of the writeups are lies and
>>>> what parts, if any, aren't.
>>>
>>> The only write-up you need is the verbatim text of Junior's emails which
>>> Junior himself released. You think Junior lied about himself?
>>
>>
>> I'd guess he didn't lie. but I don't really know,
>> What would be the big deal about talking
>> with a Russian anyway? Surely the USA
>> SHOULD be talking with the RUssians.
>
>And you decided to reply to this July post now?
Sorry, didn't realize it was July.
>On 9/19/2017 3:31 PM, rumpelstiltskin wrote:
>> On Fri, 21 Jul 2017 18:09:53 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
>> <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> <snip>
>>
>>
>>>>>>> Do you believe Junior meet with a Russian, and thought he was meeting
>>>>>>> with a Russian government agent, specifically to get dirt on Clinton?
>>>>>
>>>>> Well?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I have no knowledge and no opinion about that,
>>>> nor do I wish to read any writeups about it then try
>>>> to guess what parts of the writeups are lies and
>>>> what parts, if any, aren't.
>>>
>>> The only write-up you need is the verbatim text of Junior's emails which
>>> Junior himself released. You think Junior lied about himself?
>>
>>
>> I'd guess he didn't lie. but I don't really know,
>> What would be the big deal about talking
>> with a Russian anyway? Surely the USA
>> SHOULD be talking with the RUssians.
>
>And you decided to reply to this July post now?
I guess I must have accidentally
marked it "unread".
0 new messages