Trump and Russia; Spasiba, Harasho!

[Forty Two]

Was that meeting illegal? If so, what law?

[pErvinalia]

You asked about lies. He provided some examples.

[Joe]

Yeah, but what's the point of goalposts if you don't move them?

[pErvinalia]

He's got motorised goalposts!

[Forty Two]

You asked about lies. He provided some examples.

Regarding "lies" that "they" were caught telling, the bit Joe posted refers to recollections of a meeting in which various people have various differing recollections of what happened during a meeting which was attended by many different people. One person, for example, says the lady lawyer spoke English. Everyone else who was interviewed said that she spoke Russian through an interpreter. Who is lying?

[pErvinalia]

No one?

[Forty Two]

Yeah, but what's the point of goalposts if you don't move them?

I haven't moved any goalposts. You've not identified any lies.

Also, the issue of the meeting is not a question of a lie, unless you're suggesting that failing to publicize the meeting taking place constitutes a lie. If so, explain your assertion.

The issue of what law was broken by the meeting is a different question than whether lies were told. It's not goalpost moving to say (a) you haven't identified a lie, and (b) you haven't demonstrated that the alleged meeting was unlawful in the first place.

Just quote the guy, please. What statement did he make that was intentionally false?

[pErvinalia]

Yeah, but what's the point of goalposts if you don't move them?

I haven't moved any goalposts.

Um yeah you did. You asked about lies, and then when you got a response showing alleged lies, you didn't refute them but asked if the meeting was illegal. Equivocation in 3...2...1

The issue of what law was broken by the meeting is a different question than whether lies were told.

Oh, so you do agree it was a goalpost shift?

It's not goalpost moving

Wait on...

It's not goalpost moving to say (a) you haven't identified a lie,

You didn't say he hadn't identified a lie.

and (b) you haven't demonstrated that the alleged meeting was unlawful in the first place.

The legality of the meeting is irrelevant to whether lies were told. That's why it's a goalpost shift.

[Forty Two]

Pervin, this is the post - and you need to cut this shit out, because you are embarrassing yourself.

One, I was responding to Brian Peacock, asking for him to respond to me.
Joe did not quote my post, as if he was responding to me. He posted some article about Jared Kushner, and it's not apparent he was even responding to my question.

Now, what was my question to Brian Peacock, which he has not answered -- it was NOT limited to just lies.
http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 5#p1769844

Brian Peacock wrote: ↑Fri May 18, 2018 5:41 pm
Yeah, it's just the media, and Democrats making trouble. I mean, the Mueller probe is a year old and there's been "no shred of evidence" of any collusion despite 19 people being indicated and 6 of them pleading guilty. Pretty poor show all in all.

I responded - For collusion with Russia? There are indictments for collusion? Who? What were the charges?

So, see there, pErvin - I was also referring to illegal collusion. Illegal. Was the meeting illegal? It's all related to the issue under discussion.

Brian Peacock wrote: ↑Fri May 18, 2018 5:41 pm
Oh, and we won't mention those members of the campaign and administration who've had to backtrack on the things they said they didn't remember and the lies they were caught telling.

I responded with - Like?

Lies they were caught telling? Peacock hasn't provided any, and the article posted by Joe identifies differences in recollections by different people. To conclude that that means Jared Kushner is lying is not an identification of someone being "caught in a lie."

So shove the goalposts up your ass. They haven't moved. I was in a conversation with Peacock, not Joe, and not you. I don't want to be in any more conversations with you, because the idiocy and trolling nonsense you post is only going to make everyone around you stupider.

I'm happy to talk with Joe, but the question still stands - what's the "lie?"

[pErvinalia]

God you are a piece of work. Don't pretend you can't follow a conversation. You don't even have to read more than one post. Joe's post that you were responding to had the quotes from me and Brian. You asked for lies (as well as other stuff), and Joe provided alleged lies. You ignored that and replied to him as if he hadn't addressed your question. You then lied about it by saying "It's not goalpost moving to say (a) you haven't identified a lie,", when you never addressed the alleged lies at all.

So shove the goalposts up your ass. They haven't moved. I was in a conversation with Peacock, not Joe, and not you.

Um, dude, you replied to Joe.

[Forty Two]

Jesus Christ pErvin, it never ends with you.

Look - this is what Joe wrote -

Either that or his memory's as bad as Don Jr's.
Donald Trump Jr. has no memory of Rinat Akhmetshin attending the infamous June 9, 2016, Trump Tower meeting, even though he was apparently dressed entirely in pink, and according to at least one attendee, did most of the talking.

Rob Goldstone, the music manager who helped set up the meeting on behalf of his Russian oligarch client, remembers Natalia Veselnitskaya speaking in English, even though everyone else who testified said she spoke in Russian and used an interpreter.

More than one person who attended the meeting told Senate investigators that they remember more Americans in the conference room than has publicly been reported, but they don’t remember any details about who these people were.

These are just a few of the discrepancies in people’s stories that stood out as I made my way through the trove of documents released earlier this week by the Senate Judiciary Committee. The varying tales, along with Donald Trump Jr.’s severe lapses in memory, and the changing cover-up stories that emerged when the story first broke in July 2017, leave you with the nagging feeling that you still don’t have the complete story about what happened in that conference room in Trump Tower that fateful summer before Donald Trump won the election.

Trump Jr. doesn't remember Rinat Akhmetshin being there
Discrepancies in people's stories
More than one person told investigators they remember more americans in the conference room, but they don't remember the details.
Rod Goldstone says the lady spoke English

That's not identifying any lies. It's just more of the same shit - declaring some Trump affiliated person a liar because someone else has a different recollection.

Just admit that Joe did not identify a "lie."

[pErvinalia]

It's very likely someone is lying. You don't get such big discrepancies due to differing "recollections". There's also a repeated pattern with this administration. With Trump the biggest liar of them all.

[Joe]

Yeah, but what's the point of goalposts if you don't move them?

I haven't moved any goalposts. You've not identified any lies.

Also, the issue of the meeting is not a question of a lie, unless you're suggesting that failing to publicize the meeting taking place constitutes a lie. If so, explain your assertion.

The issue of what law was broken by the meeting is a different question than whether lies were told. It's not goalpost moving to say (a) you haven't identified a lie, and (b) you haven't demonstrated that the alleged meeting was unlawful in the first place.

Just quote the guy, please. What statement did he make that was intentionally false?

Let me refresh your memory Forty Two. You asked for examples of "members of the campaign and administration who've had to backtrack on the things they said they didn't remember and the lies they were caught telling."

Young Don did a fair bit of not remembering and backtracking about that meeting, especially since he first claimed it was about the adoptions of Russian children.

It was a short introductory meeting. I asked Jared and Paul to stop by. We primarily discussed a program about the adoption of Russian children that was active and popular with American families years ago and was since ended by the Russian government, but it was not a campaign issue at the time and there was no follow up.

But then the emails came out.

The June 3, 2016, email sent to Donald Trump Jr. could hardly have been more explicit: One of his father’s former Russian business partners had been contacted by a senior Russian government official and was offering to provide the Trump campaign with dirt on Hillary Clinton.

The documents “would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father,” read the email, written by a trusted intermediary, who added, “This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump.”

If the future president’s eldest son was surprised or disturbed by the provenance of the promised material — or the notion that it was part of a continuing effort by the Russian government to aid his father’s campaign — he gave no indication.

He replied within minutes: “If it’s what you say I love it especially later in the summer.”

Four days later, after a flurry of emails, the intermediary wrote back, proposing a meeting in New York on Thursday with a “Russian government attorney.”

Donald Trump Jr. agreed, adding that he would most likely bring along “Paul Manafort (campaign boss)” and “my brother-in-law,” Jared Kushner, now one of the president’s closest White House advisers.

On June 9, the Russian lawyer was sitting in the younger Mr. Trump’s office on the 25th floor of Trump Tower, just one level below the office of the future president.

Quite a different story, eh? Perhaps he was lying, but he sure backtracked on the original story, and his Congressional testimony about the meeting was noted for his apparent memory lapses.

This Trump tower meeting is a terrific example of what Brian was talking about.

[Forty Two]

So, no example of lies then? Good. So that part's agreed.

Is what you set out an example of "backtracking on things they say they couldn't remember?" Did he say on date X that he couldn't remember and then later backtracked, saying he could? Not in the example you gave. In the example you gave, you said he described the meeting he had as a preliminary meeting "primarily" about the Russian adoption thing. Then you proceed to see the emails which discussed what was told to him originally the meeting would be about - the offer of information on Hillary Clinton.

The emails ahead of the meeting, however, do not contradict what actually happened at the meeting, because Trump Jr was quite clear that the people that were said to have information on Hillary really did not. So, when it came down to it, the meeting was, in fact, primarily about the adoption issue, and they did not bring the juicy information to the table. The meeting ended up not being about campaign issues.

Nobody backtracked - he hasn't corrected the earlier statement about what went on in the meeting at all, has he? Where? Where has he said something to the effect of, "no, now that I think about it, the people we met with who Rod said would have juicy information really did come through with it, and that's what the meeting was about?

[Joe]

So, no example of lies then? Good. So that part's agreed.

Is what you set out an example of "backtracking on things they say they couldn't remember?" Did he say on date X that he couldn't remember and then later backtracked, saying he could? Not in the example you gave. In the example you gave, you said he described the meeting he had as a preliminary meeting "primarily" about the Russian adoption thing. Then you proceed to see the emails which discussed what was told to him originally the meeting would be about - the offer of information on Hillary Clinton.

The emails ahead of the meeting, however, do not contradict what actually happened at the meeting, because Trump Jr was quite clear that the people that were said to have information on Hillary really did not. So, when it came down to it, the meeting was, in fact, primarily about the adoption issue, and they did not bring the juicy information to the table. The meeting ended up not being about campaign issues.

Nobody backtracked - he hasn't corrected the earlier statement about what went on in the meeting at all, has he? Where? Where has he said something to the effect of, "no, now that I think about it, the people we met with who Rod said would have juicy information really did come through with it, and that's what the meeting was about?

Nice pettifoggery, Forty Two, but the example stands. Don Jr's first press release lied by omission, and the emails prove that.

The rest of your statement is unsupported assertion, a weak and unconvincing effort on your part. Do you have anything except the word of a known liar to back up what you contend? A transcript or recording perhaps?

I notice you have no comment about the link to all the things Don couldn't remember under oath.