Trump and Russia; Spasiba, Harasho!

[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?

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

Except that the emails don't prove that. What a suggested future meeting is presented to be about is one thing. What it actually was about, when the people who did not have the information that it was suggested the had actually arrived at the meeting, can be two totally different things.

He said it was "primarily" about the adoption issue. Is that a lie? On what basis would you say so? What, exactly, is the lie? Is the lie that the meeting was actually about information negative to Clinton? What if the meeting wasn't actually about that, even though the people setting up the meeting said it would be, and Trump Jr. was overjoyed over the prospect? What would happen would be just what Trump jr says happened - they met with the lady, it turned out to be a big nothing, and so they dropped it and never talked to them again.

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 haven't based anything on anyone's word. One, you did not present a "lie" - you said that it was "backtracking." Based on the example you gave, nobody has "backtracked." The emails ahead of the meeting do not "backtrack" from Trump Jr's description of the meeting, and he has not modified his statement about what happened at the meeting. He has not backtracked.

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

Can't remember is not a lie, unless you can show that he actually did remember at the time. And, it's also not backtracking. What's to respond?

Do you think not remembering is lying?

A lie is an intentionally false statement of fact. What, precisely, did he say that was a lie?

Backtracking is when you say something today, and then later you walk the statement back to change what you said. Whether that's improper depends on the statement and why and how it was backtracked. But, you've not even presented a single example of a statement that was later tracked back.

[Forty Two]

Let's talk about the memory lapses. I've been reading through them. So what?

He doesn't remember if they attendees of the meeting were introduced, but he thinks they probably were. So? I can definitely see how this banal and mundane point would not be something specifically remembered.

He doesn't remember speaking to Emin Agalarov on the phone? So? He says he may have left voice messages, and may have gotten them in return. So what? These guys are on the phone all the time. I'm probably not on the phone half as much, but I am a lot, and this kind of memory lapse is not abnormal, in my view.

Where he was when he got email, and whether he was traveling at the time? He says he doesn't recall. So what? Email can be accessed from anywhere. I couldn't tell you where I was when I read half the emails I get. I get dozens a day. Am I at home? Office? Did I travel that weekend? Was it received the same day as it was delivered to my email box? People remember this kind of thing with dead on accuracy?

Receiving an email from Goldstone? How many emails do you think Trump gets? He said he doesn't specifically recall receiving it, but he would have interpreted it as general congratulations.

Whether Goldstone tried to set up any meetings with Russian officials? He said "not that I recall, no." That's all he can say, isn't it? I mean, he doesn't control what Goldstone might be up to without his knowledge, right? So, he doesn't recall Goldstone doing it. Scandal?

Who did you speak to at 8:40pm on June 6, 2016? He doesn't remember. So? What answer would be expected? I remember the dates and times of all my phone calls?

It sounds like somebody answering questions at a deposition. He's under oath. If he doesn't recall exact particulars being asked, he has to say he doesn't recall. If he was to answer based on vague or unclear recollections of events, then he would be setting himself up to get it all wrong, and then he would be accused of being a liar.

Most of those questions, moreover, bear little resemblance to anything nefarious. Did you speak to Manafort? Did you speak to your father? Who referred you a Ft. Lauderdale project? Did you travel on a given date? What answers would expose illegality?

[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.

Except that the emails don't prove that. What a suggested future meeting is presented to be about is one thing. What it actually was about, when the people who did not have the information that it was suggested the had actually arrived at the meeting, can be two totally different things.

He said it was "primarily" about the adoption issue. Is that a lie? On what basis would you say so? What, exactly, is the lie? Is the lie that the meeting was actually about information negative to Clinton? What if the meeting wasn't actually about that, even though the people setting up the meeting said it would be, and Trump Jr. was overjoyed over the prospect? What would happen would be just what Trump jr says happened - they met with the lady, it turned out to be a big nothing, and so they dropped it and never talked to them again.

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 haven't based anything on anyone's word. One, you did not present a "lie" - you said that it was "backtracking." Based on the example you gave, nobody has "backtracked." The emails ahead of the meeting do not "backtrack" from Trump Jr's description of the meeting, and he has not modified his statement about what happened at the meeting. He has not backtracked.

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

Can't remember is not a lie, unless you can show that he actually did remember at the time. And, it's also not backtracking. What's to respond?

Do you think not remembering is lying?

A lie is an intentionally false statement of fact. What, precisely, did he say that was a lie?

Backtracking is when you say something today, and then later you walk the statement back to change what you said. Whether that's improper depends on the statement and why and how it was backtracked. But, you've not even presented a single example of a statement that was later tracked back.

I see a lot of questions and more base assertions, but I don't see an argument. I will dispense with one claim though.

Don Jr's initial statement, aside from lying about the purpose of the meeting, backtracked from the administration's repeated assertions that the campaign had no contacts with Russians. That this isn't obvious to you is simply amazing. It was well covered.

It never happened,” she [Hope Hicks] said. “There was no communication between the campaign and any foreign entity during the campaign.

This was in response to.

A top Russian diplomat and Vladimir Putin’s spokesman said Thursday that Russian experts were in contact with some members of President-elect Donald Trump’s staff during the presidential campaign, a period in which the United States accused Russia of hacking into Democratic Party emails systems.

And then

JOHN DICKERSON: -- in the Trump campaign have any contact with Russians trying to meddle with the election?

KELLYANNE CONWAY: Absolutely not. And I discussed that with the president-elect just last night. Those conversations never happened. I hear people saying it like it’s a fact on television. That is just not only inaccurate and false, but it’s dangerous.

WALLACE: So, I’m asking a direct question: was there any contact in any way between Trump or his associates and the Kremlin or cutouts they had?

PENCE: I joined this campaign in the summer, and I can tell you that all the contact by the Trump campaign and associates was with the American people. We were fully engaged with taking his message to make America great again all across this country. That’s why he won in a landslide election.

(CROSSTALK)

WALLACE: -- if there were any contacts, sir, I’m just trying to get an answer.

PENCE: Yes. I -- of course not. Why would there be any contacts between the campaign?

Chris, the -- this is all a distraction, and it's all part of a narrative to delegitimize the election and to question the legitimacy of this presidency, the American people see right through it.

Sarah Huckabee Sanders said

This is a nonstory because to the best of our knowledge, no contacts took place, so it’s hard to make a comment on something that never happened.

Reince Priebus denied it.

White House Chief of Staff Reince Preibus went on “Fox News Sunday,” and when Chris Wallace asked whether the Trump team had any connections to Russia, Preibus said “no.” Preibus later went on to add, “Let me give you an example. First of all, The New York Times put out an article with no direct sources that said that the Trump campaign had constant contacts with Russian spies, basically, you know, some treasonous type of accusations. We have now all kinds of people looking into this. I can assure you and I have been approved to say this—that the top levels of the intelligence community have assured me that that story is not only inaccurate, but it’s grossly overstated and it was wrong. And there’s nothing to it.”

So there you go. They lied, Don Jr walked back the lie with another, which he later walked back with another statement, and he had all kinds of memory loss under oath.

Make all the excuses you like, parse words enthusiastically as you like to do, but the evidence supports what Brian was saying.

[Brian Peacock]

Sessions didn't lie to Congress under oath, Donald Jnr didn't lie about the Trump Tower meeting, then he didn't lie about what it was about, and then didn't lie again about who was there, before suffering some sort of rapid onset memory loss disease (which he must've caught from Sessions), Flynn didn't lie to the FBI, nor to Pence, Trump didn't lie about not helping draft Jnr's statement, nor did he lie about what Clapper said to him, neither did he lie about how "sick" Obama put a "tapp" on his phones, or about how firing Comey had nothing to do with "this Russia-Trump thing", and Jared didn't lie about meeting the Russians before the election, nor about meeting them during the transition, nor did he lie about asking the Russians for a communications channel with Moscow even though he told Congress that he did - which means he must've lied to Congress I guess. And these are just some of things that haven't been lied about that I can remember off the top of my head - but then again, I guess the Dems and the #FAKENEWS media have made things so very confusing for lil' ol' me, like they have for everyone else - the sneaky fakers. And besides, its not like lying is against the law or anything, and everybody does it, right guys? Right?

[Joe]

[JimC]

Everything we know paints a pretty ugly picture of deception and potentially corrupt behaviour in those around Trump, but it is quite possible that insufficient evidence will be found to mount either criminal proceedings against highly placed Trump aides, or for impeachment of the man himself. So, 42 might be right in a narrow legal sense, even though there is clearly something rotten in the state of Denmark...

[Joe]

Forty Two's correctness is irrelevant. Highly placed members of the President's campaign and administration had contact with agents of an adversary nation with a history of espionage against the US.

A counterintelligence investigation is a necessity. Its politicization is an unfortunate inevitability in today's DC. It highlights how far we've sunk as a nation that, for so many Americans, partisanship has eclipsed patriotism.

I rather doubt Trump directly colluded directly with the Russians, but there are more things to worry about here than simple collusion.

[JimC]

Forty Two's correctness is irrelevant. Highly placed members of the President's campaign and administration had contact with agents of an adversary nation with a history of espionage against the US.

A counterintelligence investigation is a necessity. Its politicization is an unfortunate inevitability in today's DC. It highlights how far we've sunk as a nation that, for so many Americans, partisanship has eclipsed patriotism.

I rather doubt Trump directly colluded directly with the Russians, but there are more things to worry about here than simple collusion.

I agree with you, but my only point is that the investigation may fail to get successful prosecutions (which is surely the main aim) on narrow legal grounds...

[Joe]

Forty Two's correctness is irrelevant. Highly placed members of the President's campaign and administration had contact with agents of an adversary nation with a history of espionage against the US.

A counterintelligence investigation is a necessity. Its politicization is an unfortunate inevitability in today's DC. It highlights how far we've sunk as a nation that, for so many Americans, partisanship has eclipsed patriotism.

I rather doubt Trump directly colluded directly with the Russians, but there are more things to worry about here than simple collusion.

I agree with you, but my only point is that the investigation may fail to get successful prosecutions (which is surely the main aim) on narrow legal grounds...

I know, but that's not a bad thing either. Sunlight is the best disinfectant, I hear.

[Brian Peacock]

Trump will go as he came (which is quickly according to Stormy) but he runs the risk of seriously damaging the operation of democracy in the US. Indeed, it may be too late - how will anyone ever trust that elections and the operation of executive power in the US can be anything but an insidiously corrupt bear pit populated by unscrupulous actors eager and willing to act against the broader interests of the citizenry just to get their corpulent arses on the big chair. It's all looking rather like The Hunger Games from over here - and we're hardly doing much better ourselves.

[Seabass]

Sessions didn't lie to Congress under oath, Donald Jnr didn't lie about the Trump Tower meeting, then he didn't lie about what it was about, and then didn't lie again about who was there, before suffering some sort of rapid onset memory loss disease (which he must've caught from Sessions), Flynn didn't lie to the FBI, nor to Pence, Trump didn't lie about not helping draft Jnr's statement, nor did he lie about what Clapper said to him, neither did he lie about how "sick" Obama put a "tapp" on his phones, or about how firing Comey had nothing to do with "this Russia-Trump thing", and Jared didn't lie about meeting the Russians before the election, nor about meeting them during the transition, nor did he lie about asking the Russians for a communications channel with Moscow even though he told Congress that he did - which means he must've lied to Congress I guess. And these are just some of things that haven't been lied about that I can remember off the top of my head - but then again, I guess the Dems and the #FAKENEWS media have made things so very confusing for lil' ol' me, like they have for everyone else - the sneaky fakers. And besides, its not like lying is against the law or anything, and everybody does it, right guys? Right?

[pErvinalia]

Does anyone else find it sadly ironic that 42 apparently doesn't know what a lie looks like? Perhaps he doesn't even realise that he is lying when he is...

[Brian Peacock]

Give it a rest mate.

[pErvinalia]

No.

[Scot Dutchy]

That's the trouble today everyone is lying so much we forget what the truth looks like.