The moral aspect of Trump Jr.'s actions

[Go Braves]

I think the NY Post was 1 of the few papers who'd endorsed Trump for POTUS, so I took note of the criticism. I think he makes a good point that there is not enough focus on the moral aspect.

https://nypost.com/2017/07/11/trump-jr-just-defined-disgraceful/

But enough about legal jeopardy. There is too much focus on the criminal aspect of this event, which might or might not be significant. There is not enough focus on the moral aspect of this event, which is far more significant.

Donald Trump Jr.’s conduct defines the word “disgraceful.” He may not have colluded in the disruption of an American election, but the evidence of the emails he released himself indicates he was only too willing and eager to do so.

Now, politicians have had ne’er-do-well relatives throughout all history who have sought to use their kinship to their own advantage. Donald Jr. was up to something else here. He was actively seeking to aid his father’s attempt to secure the presidency of the United States.

 

[GingerBeer]

I think that electing Donald will prove to be as damaging to the USA as G W Bush's decision to invade Iraq. The former was a decision of millions the latter of a few. Donald junior's emails and the implied amorality behind them is only part of the beginning of moral decrepitude in the current administration.

 

[Saucy]

I'm sure you knew I was going to disagree "Collusion" and "election hacking" and "treason" and "adversary" and even "watergate" are all liberal talking points right now, so any time something happens, all they have to do is connect the dots.

What do we know happened from Don Jr. himself? He did say in hindsight, he would've done differently. But at the time, there was no Russia hysteria going on. He had no idea the Russians were hacking. He had no idea that Hillary's emails were hacked. They didn't receive classified information and Obama didn't even say anything until after the election happened.

He gets an email from a friend (who's the father of a singer, not some Russian official, not a Russian government figure head...a singer's father), saying they might have information on Hillary.

Again, NOT KNOWING OF THE HACK, he agreed to sit down and have a chat. For all Don Jr. knew, this was something to do with legally obtained information. The Clintons have dealings with Russia too. It could've been anything, but it turned out it was a ruse. This lawyer said she had dirt on Hillary so she can get an audience and talk about Russian adoption stuff.

All Don Jr. did was sit down and try to get dirt on the opponent, which is what happens in politics all the time. He didn't even know the name of the person he was meeting with. He was doing a favor for a friend, not knowing what was happen later. And in the back of his mind, it was about adoption stuff, so it was easily forgettable. They didn't even have any information about Clinton.

Honestly, if it turns out there's nothing to this Russia hysteria and the Trump's are innocent, this would be a colossal coincidence that someone used 'dirt on Hillary' to get close to a member of the Trump team weeks before the scandal was 'invented' by Hillary and the left as an excuse for why they lost the election.

So, morally, what did Don Jr. do wrong? Absolutely nothing. He had a meeting with someone who had dirt. That's all he knew. It was a forgettable meeting and talking about adoption stuff and the only reason why it has made the news is because, "Oh look! A Trump sat down with a Russian! GUILTY!"

 

[KWCrazy]

So the people who excused multiple felonies by Hillary Clinton are crying about somebody doing a little opposition research? Call me when Trump has a whistle blower shot in the back on the street.

 

[Saucy]

 

[Nithavela]

Propably not. Neither would they if he dyed his hair green. What's your point?

 

[Saucy]

Propably not. Neither would they if he dyed his hair green. What's your point?

Hillary did that to her emails and the media treated her like she was innocent and the left still supported her. Don Jr. sits down for a meeting with a Russian and it's TREASON! SCANDAL!

 

[Nithavela]

Hillary did that to her emails and the media treated her like she was innocent and the left still supported her. Don Jr. sits down for a meeting with a Russian and it's TREASON! SCANDAL!

She lost, get over it.

 

[Saucy]

She lost, get over it.

No, you get over it.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

So the people who excused multiple felonies by Hillary Clinton are crying about somebody doing a little opposition research? Call me when Trump has a whistle blower shot in the back on the street.

Hilarious. It's gone from "No contact with Russians! No evidence!" to "It's just opposition research!"

If in 2012 David Axelrod was CCd in an email about meeting with someone linked to a foreign nation in attempts to get dirt on Mitt Romney, Sean Hannity would be beat red, screaming on his show.

 

[KWCrazy]

Even the craziest of nutcases gave up on the collusion angle.
Nations try to influence the elections of other nations all the time... maybe not as much as Obama did trying to effect the election in Israel.

Let's face it. Your candidate was one of the poorest excuses for a candidate in the history of elections. Nobody likes her; even her biggest fans. If there were justice in America she's be in prison right now. She lost and the entire Democratic party threw a tantrum.

We'll be laughing at you guys for years to come.

 

[wing2000]

I agree.


There is too much focus on the criminal aspect of this event, which might or might not be significant. There is not enough focus on the moral aspect of this event, which is far more significant.

Donald Trump Jr.’s conduct defines the word “disgraceful.” He may not have colluded in the disruption of an American election, but the evidence of the emails he released himself indicates he was only too willing and eager to do so.

 

[wing2000]

I'm sure you knew I was going to disagree "Collusion" and "election hacking" and "treason" and "adversary" and even "watergate" are all liberal talking points right now, so any time something happens, all they have to do is connect the dots.

All of those terms are premature.....but that doesn't stop you and FOX news obsession over whether there was a crime.

What do we know happened from Don Jr. himself? He did say in hindsight, he would've done differently.

Based on the title of the email alone, he should have gone directly to the FBI...or at least consulted with a campaign lawer before agreeing to meet. He readily accepted the invitation to meet with a agent who represents a foreign, hostile state. He will face the consequences of his decision.

 

[bhsmte]

I think the NY Post was 1 of the few papers who'd endorsed Trump for POTUS, so I took note of the criticism. I think he makes a good point that there is not enough focus on the moral aspect.

https://nypost.com/2017/07/11/trump-jr-just-defined-disgraceful/

Politics and morality, don't mix well together.

 

[LinguaIgnota]

Let's face it. Your candidate was one of the poorest excuses for a candidate in the history of elections. Nobody likes her; even her biggest fans.

And still she raked in significantly more votes than Donald. That should tell you something about his quality.

 

[Ada Lovelace]

I'm sure you knew I was going to disagree "Collusion" and "election hacking" and "treason" and "adversary" and even "watergate" are all liberal talking points right now, so any time something happens, all they have to do is connect the dots.

What do we know happened from Don Jr. himself? He did say in hindsight, he would've done differently. But at the time, there was no Russia hysteria going on. He had no idea the Russians were hacking. He had no idea that Hillary's emails were hacked. They didn't receive classified information and Obama didn't even say anything until after the election happened.

He gets an email from a friend (who's the father of a singer, not some Russian official, not a Russian government figure head...a singer's father), saying they might have information on Hillary.

Again, NOT KNOWING OF THE HACK, he agreed to sit down and have a chat. For all Don Jr. knew, this was something to do with legally obtained information. The Clintons have dealings with Russia too. It could've been anything, but it turned out it was a ruse. This lawyer said she had dirt on Hillary so she can get an audience and talk about Russian adoption stuff.

All Don Jr. did was sit down and try to get dirt on the opponent, which is what happens in politics all the time. He didn't even know the name of the person he was meeting with. He was doing a favor for a friend, not knowing what was happen later. And in the back of his mind, it was about adoption stuff, so it was easily forgettable. They didn't even have any information about Clinton.

Honestly, if it turns out there's nothing to this Russia hysteria and the Trump's are innocent, this would be a colossal coincidence that someone used 'dirt on Hillary' to get close to a member of the Trump team weeks before the scandal was 'invented' by Hillary and the left as an excuse for why they lost the election.

So, morally, what did Don Jr. do wrong? Absolutely nothing. He had a meeting with someone who had dirt. That's all he knew. It was a forgettable meeting and talking about adoption stuff and the only reason why it has made the news is because, "Oh look! A Trump sat down with a Russian! GUILTY!"

Three weeks into my first year at college I had the privilege of taking a special foreign policy class focused on cybersecurity taught by Senator John McCain during which he discussed how Russia would interfere with the 2016 election. He spoke of this factually, without it being delivered as some revelation. It did not elicit surprised reactions from anyone, because it perfectly fit within Russia's modus operandi. In order to obtain a coveted spot in the class all students had to submit an application and essay, so we had some basic knowledge on the subject, but all of us were undergraduates.

In February of 2016 I attended this event:

Please note that it was hosted by Republicans and Conservatives. Though Stanford is predominantly liberal, the Hoover Institute on our campus is characterized as a conservative think tank. The fellow from there who spoke is an expert on Soviet and Russian politics from the 1980s through present day. In testimony before a subcommittee of the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the US House of Representatives in July 91, he predicted the collapse of the Soviet Union, which occurred the following December. He's not a soothsayer, but merely someone who pays attention to patterns of the past and present to explain what will happen next. He explained the methods Putin was employing to sway our election.

Putin's seething hatred of Clinton was to an extent advantageous to Republicans because his intent was to defeat her, but detrimental to the country as a whole. This was before Trump cinched the nomination, and though it was already known then that he likely would, there was fervent hope a higher quality Republican candidate would be the victor because his business dealings, personality, and inexperience made him the plum for Putin.

Trump Jr. is sometimes referred to as a kid, but he's more than twenty years my senior. At the time I took McCain's class and went to the talk about Russian's meddling in our election I was a minor too young to vote. I knew about Russia's hacking, about their having hired a think tank to strategize how to sway the election, before Trump Jr. accepted the meeting. So did students from both McCain's class and the discussion on the meddling who went on to work as unpaid interns on Trump's campaign. So if you buy into the "golly shucks, this was before the Russia hysteria, and I just didn't know a darn thing about the hacking" story he's spinning, then you're believing that Donald Trump Jr. was less knowledgable than me. He shouldn't be. That would imply a surreal level of amateurish ignorance, ineptitude, and incompetence.

The flippant minimization of the meeting, the shrugging it off as if they were just three dudes casually meeting up with some girl who was a friend of a friend, also makes my eyes feel like they're at Six Flags riding the longest, highest of roller coasters. But let's roll with it anyways. This took place during the height of the campaign when all the key members involved in the operation of it have their days meticulously planned; each minute is to be used productively. To try to paint this as a casual meeting of three dudes with some girl who was a friend of a friend they didn't really know for a casual chat depicts them as the Three Stooges, but less funny. "He didn't even know the name of the person he was meeting with." Oh. Come. On. Lowly interns are required to research the background of anyone they write or even Tweet about, and you're telling me that Trump's son didn't even bother to find out the name of the person he was meeting with during one of the most crucial times of the campaign? They should've had a capable staff who could properly vet her, but at the very least he could have asked an intern to Google her for him.

 

[Saucy]

I appreciate you taking the time to write all of that and I respect your position, but it's been long known that Russia has interfered in our elections going way, way back. They knew how the Russians would try to do it because they're in the inside. They're a part of the government. They know Putin's MO. They know his hatred for Clinton, so it was easy to predict they would go all out for Trump.

But it doesn't prove that Trump went all out for Russia's help or intervention. It doesn't prove that they colluded with the Russians or that they knew the details of it.

And yes, if you were running a campaign, and a friend emailed and said, "Hey, I know this person who has dirt on your opponent. Will you meet with her?" Of course you trust your friend. The email show exactly how the conversation went down. You don't have Trump soliciting her. She solicited Trump using a ruse of having information on Clinton.

I'm glad the emails got release because they show he had no idea what she was going to reveal. It could've been about anything, since the Clintons do have history with Russia.

And that's what I don't understand about this. This is supposed to be about the elections right? Not an attempt to impeach Trump. It's about the integrity of our elections. If that was true, then why isn't the DNC and Hillary's connections with the Ukraine government under scrutiny? You have actual proof of the DNC colluding with the Ukrainian government to get dirt on Trump.

Why isn't that dominating the headlines? There's more proof of Hillary's collusion than anything they have on Trump, but that's not in the news. No one crying foul or talking about treason.

This is clearly a witch hunt against Donald Trump. Just because it was accurately predicted that Russia would interfere, like it always interferes, like China interferes, like North Korea interferes, like the U.S. interferes in other elections, it's something that happens. And the only time the democrats make a stink about it is when they lose.

 

[Nithavela]

No, you get over it.

No, you get over it.

I also love how the narrative has shifted from "the russians never did that" to "well, that's what the russians do".

 

[KWCrazy]

And still she raked in significantly more votes than Donald. That should tell you something about his quality.

Look at the election map.
Democrats win in the big cities where there are vast concentrations of people living off the government. Remove the five largest cities and Hillary got slaughtered. The electoral vote, which is what matters, was a landslide for Trump. The Clintons are not now and never were good people. America finally woke up and realized this.

There is one advantage to the sore loser baby squall. We now know that both Comey and Lynch violated federal law on behalf of Hillary. We might get to drain the stinking swamp yet.

 

[wing2000]

I'm glad the emails got release because they show he had no idea what she was going to reveal. It could've been about anything, since the Clintons do have history with Russia.

Don Trump demonstrated intent.

From: Donald Trump Jr. To: Rob Goldstone June 3, 2016, 10:53
Thanks Rob I appreciate that. I am on the road at the moment but perhaps I just speak to Emin first. Seems we have some time and if it’s what you say I love it especially later in the summer. Could we do a call first thing next week when I am back?

Donald Trump Jr.'s Emails About Meeting With Russian Lawyer, Annotated