If donald jr. said he got nothing from the russian lawyer, I would venture to say

[shraby]

he wasn't supposed to get anything tangible in his hands. She was delivering the info that Russia had hacked into the DNC and was going to tweak it and put it out there for the public's consumption before the election. She needed to know how much and when the trump campaign wanted it, then this would have been transmitted to Russia first hand with nothing that could be picked up through monitoring phone calls.

lack of capitals in the post is due to I don't capitalize anything to do with trump and republicans. They don't deserve the honor.

[FM123]

1. "they don't deserve the honor" YES!

[Yonnie3]

2. From his record, you can't believe anything he says,

but what you say makes sense. That little donnie (jr) gave direction rather than got information.

In a way then, he did get something, action on the part of the Russians.

[HopeAgain]

3. It's not about what Trump got from the Russians!

It's about what the Russians got from Trump!

the RNC platform, a promise on sanctions and the sellout of the National Interests.

That is why this is treason.

[Botany]

4. The meeting was part of a deal in that

Russia would hack computers, feed doctored information to targeted people,
and rig the elections and in return the Trump administration would drop the
case against Natalia Veselnitskaya's client Provision Holdings, that laundered
Russia mob money by buying NYC real estate.


http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/341695-democrats-want-to-know-why-doj-dismissed-money-laundering-case

[pnwest]

5. If Jr says he got nothing from the lawyer,

I assume the precise opposite is true - as with every word that comes out of their lying fucking faces. Any time a repuke speaks, assume the exact opposite is true.

[alcibiades_mystery]

8. Yup

[pirateshipdude]

6. It really wasn't anything. As much as they dug, cheated and stole, there wasn't anything on Clinton.

Good for Clinton, a good stable, strong, honest candidate. Bad for Trump because colluding with Russia with success or failure is still a crime.

[alcibiades_mystery]

7. I'd venture to say he has lied consistently about everything and he's matching lies to statute

What we know so far is that everything he says that attempts to protect him from charge elements in the statutes has been a lie. So, we have two outstanding claims: he received nothing (disputes the "something of value" charge element in the election law statute) and "there was no follow up" (dispute the "additional overt act" element in conspiracy statutes). Since he's lied on each other element of the statutes, why should we suppose he's telling the truth now.

Not only did they receive materials from the Russians, they immediately committed further overt acts with that material and their co-conspirators, I'd wager. There are probably a dozen possible distinct criminal acts they've committed, just in reference to this specific meeting (and there were likely many more).

These people are criminals.