User avatar
By JW
#489507
Phaedrus wrote:
JW wrote:"During the meeting, Akhmetshin said Veselnitskaya brought with her a plastic folder with printed-out documents that detailed what she believed was the flow of illicit funds to the Democratic National Committee. Veselnitskaya presented the contents of the documents to the Trump associates and suggested that making the information public could help the Trump campaign, he said.
"This could be a good issue to expose how the DNC is accepting bad money," Akhmetshin recalled her saying.
Trump Jr. asked the attorney if she had all the evidence to back up her claims, including whether she could demonstrate the flow of the money. But Veselnitskaya said the Trump campaign would need to research it more. After that, Trump Jr. lost interest, according to Akhmetshin."
"They couldn't wait for the meeting to end," he said.



That's why I said you are not following it. There was no evidence. Had there been evidence, it would have been released during the campaign. That's why your suggestion regarding the Clinton campaign is not paying attention. You are just parroting trump Jr., again.

Actually I took it from an interview Akhmetshin gave. Where he said he was quite willing to testify.
User avatar
By Phaedrus
#489508
That is obvious given the quotes, but he is just providing additional detail for Trump's story. There is no evidence for any of it and saying you are willing to testify, is not the same as testifying.

What would he testify? That he was in the meeting, or that they had the goods? If the latter, why weren't the goods transferred and released by the Trump campaign?

No, this is all just a red-herring to try and focus attention onto the DNC and away from the admitted FACT that Trump was willing to collude with a foreign power.
User avatar
By eriknben10
#489509
She was planted by the DNC but the fish didn't bite. Nothing to see here will be the outcome.
User avatar
By Phaedrus
#489510
You really believe that?
eriknben10 wrote:She was planted by the DNC but the fish didn't bite.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
User avatar
By eriknben10
#489512
Phaedrus wrote:You really believe that?
eriknben10 wrote:She was planted by the DNC but the fish didn't bite.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


Everyone has ideas and they put them out there. I thought this one was funny as all the rest. I firmly believe this clan is going to pass the Clinton scandals and nothing will come from them.
User avatar
By JW
#489513
The Obama administration let her in to the US under special circumstance then when she met with Tjr Obama had Trumps lines tapped. This goes deeper then you think.
I'd also like to add that Manafort also reported the meeting.
Last edited by JW on Sat Jul 15, 2017 3:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.
By Crowbird23
#489514
The three stooges screwed up, you can't even admit it. You are like Trump it is always somebody else.
User avatar
By JW
#489515
Phaedrus wrote:That is obvious given the quotes, but he is just providing additional detail for Trump's story. There is no evidence for any of it and saying you are willing to testify, is not the same as testifying.

What would he testify? That he was in the meeting, or that they had the goods? If the latter, why weren't the goods transferred and released by the Trump campaign?

No, this is all just a red-herring to try and focus attention onto the DNC and away from the admitted FACT that Trump was willing to collude with a foreign power.

So if she had no evidence, why was she there what was the purpose?
By the way the term nothing burger or nothingburber has been around since 1953. Which alludes to something that looks juicy but when you bite into it there is nothing there and you want to bring up deflection.. :shock: :? :lol:
This is nothing but to deflect the new administration from the business at hand and who is responsible? Who would benefit from the disruption?