The only evidence you are ever going to have for that meeting is from people who were there. Obviously.
Or the tapes the Russians almost certainly made while talking to these rubes.
Yes, Goldstone was there. I suggest you learn the matter first before commenting on it. Or snarking on it, I guess.
The burglars were arrested June 17, 1972. Nixon didn’t resign until August 1974.
Nixon’s approval rating on the day he resigned was 29%. Good memory you’ve got. 
And Kellyann Conway has said that the Russia investigation is falling apart.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk
…yes. I agree.
That’s not the question.
The question is whether the evidence about what happened in that meeting, if it consists solely of statements by people who have lied about the meeting, or who may have worked for the Kremlin, or who have a vested interest in lying about the meeting, comprises credible evidence.
You keep avoiding this question. Why is that?
I just imagine her stuck in a permanent Opposite Day.
The worse it gets for Trump, the more she looks like how I always pictured Maris from Frasier. Only scarier.
Yes, it does. It is consistent, it matches, and it makes sense. Unlike anything you can come up with.
It’s not consistent at all. The story has changed multiple times. That’s why we’re so skeptical, and why we wonder why you’re so eager to believe the White House narrative, no matter how it shifts.
It only “changed multiple times” if you have an agenda.
AFAIR, at first Don Jr. said it was about the adoptions law. It was. The “we have incriminating information” was bait. And as soon as they realized it was bait, and no such information was forthcoming, they stopped the meeting.
You didn’t get the “whole story” because there just wasn’t much to the story. The breathless hysterical crap about the “KGB agent” that was at the meeting is just that - crap. The guy is a US citizen for the last 23 years, a Russian immigrant who when he was 18 for 2 years was drafted (like all Russians are) into the Russian military and served in some unit that had to do with counterintelligence.
The moronic biased media is trying to make a master spy out of him because it fits their agenda. And you (plural) are swallowing it because it fits your agenda. Stupidity squared.
I continue to be in awe of the mental gymnastics you use to rationalise Trump’s/Repub behaviours.
Quite amazing.
How in the hell is Trump Jr. saying allegations about Russia are “phony” and “disgusting,” then releasing an email showing that he had intimate knowledge the Russian government WAS trying to help, not changing his story?
Because the Russian government wasn’t. The “Russian lawyer”, whose connections to Kremlin are most likely imaginary, was using the story that she had information from Russians about DNC and Hillary’s crimes as bait in order to get a meeting and talk about something else. She didn’t have the information.
You may call that “the Russian government WAS trying to help”. But only if you twist yourself into a pretzel.
Agreed. We can probably do this electronically, so if you can have Bricker tell me where to forward funds, that works for me.
The fact that she didn’t have the intel is immaterial. Trump-squared believed that she had it, and that’s why he agreed to meet her.
Of course he did. And if she had materials that showed that Russians funded DNC, that meeting would have been a great success. Except it wasn’t. And if (you didn’t give a cite) Don Jr. said that Russian government wasn’t trying to help, he was absolutely correct.
Agreed to what? Cash or checks? Electronically would require all 3 of us to have Paypal accts or the equivalent and I am not sure we do.
Talky-talk this. I read it. However, I prefer to retain something called credulity. Until Bricker is defending Donnie Jr. or another possible defendant in the case, or is a recognized legal expert, I’ll stay that way.
But one indicator is the original assumption of ‘regardless what occurred during the meeting.’ Generalizing some kind of defense without having the facts is a recipe for catastrophe, or providing people with ulterior motives comfort and license not to question their own motivations.
So thanks, but no thanks. Hope my lack of ability to comprehend complexity doesn’t cause you any discomfort.