I don't buy the Trump is working with the Russians angle. It's clear as day that the Russians were trying to sow discord and taint the election (whether or not they could actually impact it).
We have emails verifying the offers.
I have emails with all kinds of offers in my in-box, that doesn't represent me "working with" anyone. In fact, it's complete nonsense to cite as evidence that Trump was working with the Russians, emails that clearly demonstrate the Russians were trying to solicit the campaign to
start working with the Russians. It's doubly so, when you can see from the facts
now in the record that the approach was made to a political neophyte, was designed to play on a fairly complex legal issue (opposition dirt and research is perfectly legal, even if unsolicited, but, and its a big but, not if it's coming from a foreign national in a way that violates campaign laws). When you couple the fact the meeting seems to have been coordinated by the other political party or its agents who were in fact working with the Russians in setting up the meeting and paying foreign agents, and that it seems to have been deliberately set up to produce evidence of a technical violation of the campaign restriction (the fact that the conversation wasn't about dirt, but the email trail was, provides cover to the Russians involved to deny any illegal intent while still providing the evidence need to try to establish the campaign violation) and frankly, you have to believe a convoluted and disingenous set of facts to see it as the Trump campaign "working with the Russians."
What did I miss?
We have emails and public statements verifying the meetings of his top staff with Russian operatives.
Yes you have the same emails that have always
inexplicably been on false pretenses for the meeting itself. If you twist one fact, ie that they were deliberately set up, then the reason falls right into line. If you don't then all you really have is evidence that Trump Jr. didn't know about, understand or possibly care about a campaign finance law, really wanted to help his dad and was gullible and that sophisticated Russian operatives who wanted to "help" the Trump campaign decided the best way to do it was to create an email record of potentially illegal actions to cover up a meeting that only makes sense if the Trump campaign wins the election and even then not really. Nothing about that remotely demonstrates the campaign was "working with the Russians," in fact it's pretty directly hostile to the campaign.
Virtually everything else you cite is little more than drawing innuendo from the fact that international businessmen talk to Russian nationals from time to time. Again, big whoop. I've said it before, find me any person who lives in NYC and doesn't talk to or know a Russian national and I'll show you a shut in or a coma patient.
We have a large number of his staff failing to disclose their contact with Russian nationals on federal disclosure forms, and lying under oath that no such contact occurred, and lying under oath that they knew of no such contact.
Mostly what you have is stretching beyond the scope of what the form requires. Contact with Russian nationals is not required to be disclosed on any of the forms. Are you aware of that, or are you only relating second hand rumor?
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/06/us/politics/jared-kushner-russians-security-clearance.html
This has already been asked and answered. The rumor that is reported there was further clarified, maybe you missed it. I don't know why you guys are so worked up about Kushner's erroneous early filing, when he told the government the very next day it was erroneous and would be supplemented. In any event, I wrote up a substantial response on it in the other thread and unless you have new information (or you care to address the analysis head on) I consider the point refuted.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/11/3-times-jeff-sessions-made-false-statements-to-congress-under-oath/
Lol. In my view this is just stupid.
The first example, re: Franken's question is just blatant wishful thinking. It comes no where close to the level required for perjury, which is exactly why no one has even tried to bring charges on it. In my view, it discredits any article it appears.
Second one is just as dumb. Literally relies on the Russian ambassador's statements about the meeting (which were either leaked by the Russians, or intercepted - which the Russian's know we do - and then leaked by the US), which given that you guys are upset about a deliberate Russian campaign to discredit the election and the US government is an odd reliance. In any event, Session's response is directly responsive to the question and literally true.
And the third item is just a restatement of Franken again. Where Sessions asserted what I said in item 1 that what he said was an honest response and confirmed he didn't talk to the Russians and he wasn't aware that anyone else did either. And again, all that "contradicts" this is a claim that Sessions was at a meeting where the idea of contacting the Russians was shot down and that according to sources he knew Page would be traveling to Russia. Which your "source" helpfully boils down to "ongoing contacts with Russia" as if touching Russian soil is a test, rather than what's actually the test.
I'm really curious what rational explanation you have for all of the above.
I honestly don't feel like you are. All of the above barely even qualifies as circumstantial evidence, that fact that you think it needs even more explanation is what baffles me. How about this, go back and read the Sessions stuff, but start with one premise different. Read it as if Sessions is telling the truth and that he wasn't aware of any contacts with the Russian government, then consider how the answers would have been the same or different if he was aware of it and was intentionally covering it up. Tell us what you honestly come up with.
