frame
Howdy Debater!
Sign In Register


Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Trump: "most people would have taken that meeting"

Trump stated that his son was okay to take that meeting with the Russian lawyer who had info on Hilary.
most people would have taken that meeting"

Is Trump right that no issues for His son to take the meeting? I think that Donald Trump Jr did nothing wring to take the initial meeting, and it doesn't prove any Trump-Russia conspiracy.

northsouthkoreaaarongbillpassed
  1. was it okay to take the meeting?6 votes
    1. Yes
      50.00%
    2. No
      50.00%

Comments

  • Yes, the meeting was opposition research, just from a foreign source. They should have though about the cost to do that.
  • While it could be argued that there is no problem in opposition research, if that were the extent of what the e-mails were about, it would not have been controversial in the slightest. The issue comes from the specific language in the e-mails that imply not only collusion with Russia, but that the entire administration is in hot water, not just the Trump family. The emails posted below in the form of Twitter links were tweeted directly and voluntarily from Donald Trump Jr, just to be clear. Rob Goldstone is an affiliate of Trump through Russian pop-star Emin Agalarov, who Rob works as a music producer for. Emin’s father, Aras Agalarov, is the president of the Crocus group, a Russian development company who has ties to the Kremlin and worked on the Miss Universe Pageant, bringing all three together as business partners with Trump Sr. (1). So, when the first e-mail sent says this:

    “Emin just called and asked me to contact you with something very interesting.

    The Crown prosecutor of Russia met with his father Aras this morning and in their meeting offered to provide the Trump campaign with some official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary…”

    It becomes obvious as to the collusion between people with ties to the Kremlin. Not only this, but this evidence was literally handed over incriminating evidence that tied him to officials that are close to Putin, while also mentioning that this information comes from the “Crown prosecutor of Russia,” implicating support of the Trump campaign from the Russian government. No “Crown prosecutor” would act unilaterally to support a campaign without government support. But if you don’t believe me, you can literally read the text of the email:

    “This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump…”

    Not only was this information meant to be kept secret, but it was part of Russia’s attempt to aid Trump’s campaign. This basically refutes the premise that there is no collusion, as the response from Trump Jr. was the following:

    “if it’s what you say I love it…”

    Also, in response to the idea of a meeting so this information can be divulged, the following was said about others who were going to the meeting:

    “Great. It will likely be Paul Manafort (campaign boss) my brother in law and me. 725 Fifth Ave 25th floor.”

    It is also worth noting that the first e-mail was forwarded to other people on the Trump campaign, including Jared Kushner. This means that others were aware before the emails were even tweeted, and they were quiet about the issue. Trump Jr. ended up attending the meeting, according to the e-mails, at 4pm at his offices. Thus, there was willingness to collude with Russia, and we may not know the outcome of the meeting, but the ominous words about Russia’s support for Trump not deterring the administration also says a lot about the people in charge. To remind the original poster, this is the country that illegally annexed Crimea, started an insurgency in Ukraine, has a penal code outlawing homosexual behavior, and going against US interests in Syria and abroad by attacking the Peshmerga fighters that the US needs as they are an effective fighting force abroad.

    To collude with this sort of entity is suspicious at best, and at worst, undermining American interests internationally. This becomes worse when one considers the long history of finger pointing and denial of the truth from Trump Sr. and his staff. All have repeatedly denied the collusion narrative and labeled it as “fake news.” Regardless, the Trump administration has explaining to do about the meeting with witnesses and hard evidence to back up their assertions. It is no longer acceptable to expect people to believe what is said by the administration at face value.

    The claim that was made thus far was that this is just opposition research, but he/she is ignoring the context of where this research is coming from, and the admission of support from the Kremlin. Under this context, it would be inappropriate for a presidential candidate to seemingly allow this relationship to develop as the American people would be at risk, and that typically the support of any organization, whether it is a special interest group or a person, will inevitably lead to the person elected trying to benefit them as the cycle of reciprocation for political and monetary donations continue. The University of Rochester examines this issue through a recent report from the University of Michigan study in 2012 showing the real effects that lobbying has on political favors in real, tangible policy making. The author of the study explains that the changes in policy can be as small as a changed sentence, or even simply preventing a bill from coming to a vote at all (2). Apply this concept to the presidency and realize that in issues of policy making and decisions made by Trump, he has advocated for cooperation with Russia in ceasefires, praised him as a leader, and talked of a cybersecurity agreement with Putin while denying the possibility of Putin being involved in the hacking of the DNC and involvement in the election despite intelligence community overwhelmingly demonstrated that Russia played some role in the 2016 election (3). This might indicate that Trump is trying to protect Trump as generally paying back debts to those that helped you get elected is a trend in Washington. This is speculation, of course, but Trump has been rather stubborn in his belief of Putin being a good leader despite actions of the Kremlin being overwhelmingly negative for the US and its democratic values. Regardless, at the very least the public needs some answers as to what is happening and Trump Sr. has been silent on the issue for the most part besides a brief, weak defense of his son’s action being something that others would do. However, the deflection of the issue as to what others would do is ridiculous, the accusation seems to be conceded by the Trump administration through this tactic because they have not provided a rebuttal, just an admission that others in Washington would likely do the same thing that Trump Jr. had done in accepting the e-mails. Also, in his interview with Pat Robertson, an early supporter, Trump explained that under Hilary the US would be weaker. Regardless of Hilary’s plans as a president, what Trump relied on is a straw-man fallacy by attacking the issues that Hilary supported, like alternative energy and wind power. This shows that Trump Sr. may be trying to deflect the issue instead of answering it directly, a change of tactics from the usual name-calling of the news trying to distort the facts. This may mean that Trump Sr. may feel cornered since this evidence is concrete and that his responses would not be sufficient.

     Thus, by looking at much of evidence and the context of how the meetings were set up we see that collusion is likely and not something the US should embrace.

     

     

                                                    Emails

    https://twitter.com/DonaldJTrumpJr/status/884789418455953413
    https://twitter.com/DonaldJTrumpJr/status/884789839522140166

     

                                                    Other sources

    1. (https://www.wired.com/story/rob-goldstone-trump-family-timeline/)
    2. (http://www.rochester.edu/news/show.php?id=4060)
    3. (https://www.dhs.gov/news/2016/10/07/joint-statement-department-homeland-security-and-office-director-national)

     

     

     

     

    islander507billpassed
  • @blamonkey, great points, but the key issue remains - this is a complex story with many circumstantial evidence.  It is a great opportunity for nay-sayers to attack Trump, but taking that meeting was a reasonable thing to do, given possibility of getting dirt on his political opponent helping to win the election.
  • billpassedbillpassed 56 PtsPremium Member
    Premium Member
    There is no real evidence that has been placed against Trump's son.

    All of these so called sources have not been able to provide claims to back up their seemingly false evidences for the news networks.
    agsrislander507
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

Debate Anything on DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2017 DebateIsland.com, All rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Awesome Debates
Terms of Service

Get In Touch