Donald Trump Presidency discussion thread II

aloyisious

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Is a presidential pardon irrevocable?

This link might give the answer... https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiTzafskobVAhUMDMAKHeT1DDwQFgglMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Flegal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com%2FPresidential%2Bpardon&usg=AFQjCNGh_vKA_fM12IFmyVxIG1aRW0am-g

The US courts seem to say the presidential pardon has almost unlimited boundaries. However the pardon can have terms and conditions applied by the issuing president so it's possible they could include; go but break no more laws or the pardon issued to you will be automatically rescinded and be null and void.

There is one stricture laid on the power and that is that pardons cannot be granted to persons IMPEACHED in the US. The President is not the only person liable to impeachment from civil office. Granting a pardon reads as if the impeachment procedure was incomplete or failed in process.

Christy42

A Little Pony wrote: »

People are kidding themselves with this. The Republican Party and the Democratic Party are two cartels with the establishment backing up both parties and creating a carve up. Nothing will change once Trump era is over and both parties will carry on competing to see who can win over the special interests of donors and corporations.

Do not expect to see any revolutionary happenings taking place. America will continue playing war games and the industrial arms complex will carry on making monumental war profits along with the banks.

Posts like this entirely ignore the 20 million people who will end up uninsured if Republicans get their way (or more since most Republican issues with it is that it is far too nice to poor people).

Then you have climate change in which Dems have at least made an effort.

Education, just see the recent cuts or how any of the "teach the controversy" bull is always Republican. Evolution is an important scientific concept not just for figuring out who we are but also for immunology where evolution time scales are much smaller

Lgbt rights and the Dems not making laws that make it ok to discriminate against them.

Probably more but you get the picture.

Yes the democrats have massive issues but you have to ignore the facts to try and claim that Republicans are not far far worse.

B0jangles

Christy42 wrote: »

Yes the democrats have massive issues but you have to ignore the facts to try and claim that Republicans are not far far worse.

This is not occasional or accidental, it's a very visible and widely used strategy - if you convince enough voters that Both Sides Are The Same, they become apathetic, they don't vote and you have yet another means of lowering turnout to add to the various other voter suppression means.

Billy86

B0jangles wrote: »

This is not occasional or accidental, it's a very visible and widely used strategy - if you convince enough voters that Both Sides Are The Same, they become apathetic, they don't vote and you have yet another means of lowering turnout to add to the various other voter suppression means.

Which ties in nicely with the Republicans cultivating of an irrational, fundamentalist base, even to the point that many see voting for the letter (R) as part of being "a good christian". Fundamentalist towards Christ for some, towards the letter (R) for others, and for a crossover towards both.

A Little Pony

Christy42 wrote: »

A Little Pony wrote: »

People are kidding themselves with this. The Republican Party and the Democratic Party are two cartels with the establishment backing up both parties and creating a carve up. Nothing will change once Trump era is over and both parties will carry on competing to see who can win over the special interests of donors and corporations.

Do not expect to see any revolutionary happenings taking place. America will continue playing war games and the industrial arms complex will carry on making monumental war profits along with the banks.

Posts like this entirely ignore the 20 million people who will end up uninsured if Republicans get their way (or more since most Republican issues with it is that it is far too nice to poor people).

Then you have climate change in which Dems have at least made an effort.

Education, just see the recent cuts or how any of the "teach the controversy" bull is always Republican. Evolution is an important scientific concept not just for figuring out who we are but also for immunology where evolution time scales are much smaller

Lgbt rights and the Dems not making laws that make it ok to discriminate against them.

Probably more but you get the picture.

Yes the democrats have massive issues but you have to ignore the facts to try and claim that Republicans are not far far worse.

Both are establishment parties, both yearn for donors and special interests, both get involved in wars, both have tried to overthrow other countries governments. The whole system revolves around money usually, although Trump managed to spend less than Hillary.

It's a carve up, why some can't see that is beyond me.

Billy86

A Little Pony wrote: »

Both are establishment parties, both yearn for donors and special interests, both get involved in wars, both have tried to overthrow other countries governments. The whole system revolves around money usually, although Trump managed to spend less than Hillary.

It's a carve up, why some can't see that is beyond me.

Posts like this entirely ignore the 20 million people who will end up uninsured if Republicans get their way (or more since most Republican issues with it is that it is far too nice to poor people).

Then you have climate change in which Dems have at least made an effort.

Education, just see the recent cuts or how any of the "teach the controversy" bull is always Republican. Evolution is an important scientific concept not just for figuring out who we are but also for immunology where evolution time scales are much smaller

Lgbt rights and the Dems not making laws that make it ok to discriminate against them.

Probably more but you get the picture.

Yes the democrats have massive issues but you have to ignore the facts to try and claim that Republicans are not far far worse.



Edit: you didn't respond to a single one of these massive, glaring differences.

Leroy42

A Little Pony wrote: »

Both are establishment parties, both yearn for donors and special interests, both get involved in wars, both have tried to overthrow other countries governments. The whole system revolves around money usually, although Trump managed to spend less than Hillary.

It's a carve up, why some can't see that is beyond me.

Yes, and he agreed with you up to a point.

he then pointed out all the ways in which they are different. Maybe not as different as one would like but to try to claim they are the same is nonsenscial.

If they were the same why would they needs terms like Libtard and left and why would large swaths of the mid of the US be Red and the Major cities are Blue.

Claiming they are the same is simply showing a degree of ignorance. Like people saying FF/FG are the same. They are very close but there is a difference.

Whether the difference is enough to make you vote for one over the other is always a question, but it certainly does not give the excuse to simply vote for the same one regardless

A Little Pony

Leroy42 wrote: »

A Little Pony wrote: »

Both are establishment parties, both yearn for donors and special interests, both get involved in wars, both have tried to overthrow other countries governments. The whole system revolves around money usually, although Trump managed to spend less than Hillary.

It's a carve up, why some can't see that is beyond me.

Yes, and he agreed with you up to a point.

he then pointed out all the ways in which they are different.  Maybe not as different as one would like but to try to claim they are the same is nonsenscial.

If they were the  same why would they needs terms like Libtard and left and why would large swaths of the mid of the US be Red and the Major cities are Blue.

Claiming they are the same is simply showing a degree of ignorance.  Like people saying FF/FG are the same.  They are very close but there is a difference.

Whether the difference is enough to make you vote for one over the other is always a question, but it certainly does not give the excuse to simply vote for the same one regardless

A difference between progressives and liberals, a big one at that. You will always get differences, of course but compared to many other parties in Europe or even on this Island, they are attached to the hip on so many huge issues, the main ones I pointed out.

Christy42

A Little Pony wrote: »

Both are establishment parties, both yearn for donors and special interests, both get involved in wars, both have tried to overthrow other countries governments. The whole system revolves around money usually, although Trump managed to spend less than Hillary.

It's a carve up, why some can't see that is beyond me.

In a debate you are meant to respond to other people's positions. You ignore any point where there is a difference.

As has been pointed out it is a common tactic for the right to claim the left is just as bad without referencing the points I have made.

InTheTrees

A Little Pony wrote: »

You will always get differences, of course but compared to many other parties in Europe or even on this Island, they are attached to the hip on so many huge issues, the main ones I pointed out.

You're continuing to ignore the absolute train wreck of the Republican efforts to repeal healthcare which is an urgent ongoing issue being fought out right now.

Water John

Macron is using the visit to show off France's individuality. Perhaps he should take Donald on a tour of the Health Service in France.

Zubeneschamali

Christy42 wrote: »

Presidential pardons away.

These do not make the issue go away. If you have been pardoned, you can no longer plead the 5th as you are not in legal jeopardy. But you can still be called as a witness and jailed for obstruction or perjury.

InTheTrees

Water John wrote: »

Macron is using the visit to show off France's individuality. Perhaps he should take Donald on a tour of the Health Service in France.

Alas the isolationist republicans would never consider any "foreign" solution. That would require admitting they arent already the Best In The World Ever already.

I dont think in all the years of debate on healthcare have I ever heard a republican mention any other healthcare system unless its in a derogatory way.

spacecoyote

InTheTrees wrote: »

I dont think in all the years of debate on healthcare have I ever heard a republican mention any other healthcare system unless its in a derogatory way.

Apart from The Donald stating that the Australian system is much better than the American one

rossie1977

InTheTrees wrote: »

I dont think in all the years of debate on healthcare have I ever heard a republican mention any other healthcare system unless its in a derogatory way.

Trump did lol. Wonder what Ryan and McConnell thought of their boss praising the socialist/communist healthcare system in Australia?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JqKoSqzWxs8

Ozymandius2011

I have some questions in the light of recent days. Firstly, media says Natalia Veselnitskaya was also working with Fusion GPS, the consultants who employed Christopher Steele, author of the Steele dossier. Republicans like Sen Chuck Grassley are also asking why she was allowed remain in the US, despite her being supposed to leave in January 2016. Did the Obama admin know she was working for Fusion, and if so, did she have any involvement in the Steele dossier job? And if she is really representing pro-Russian interests, why would she be part of the company doing the anti Trump Steele dossier?

Second question. An old politico.com story about Ukrainian govt involvement in trying to hurt Trumps chances in the election by sharing info on Paul Manafort's ties to Russia with a Dem consultant is getting more attention. Under the campaign-finance law introduced after the Democrat-Chinese funding scandal of 1997 related to the 1996 elections, its illegal to receive or solicit "something of value" from a foreign national. So if thats through, are both campaigns in trouble, and are the Dems being hypocritical?

Leroy42

Imagine for a second, that Russia wanted to cover its bases. They thought that HC would win but wanted to put enough dirt out there on her to compromise from the start, mainly from the GOP backlash. The same way that Obama was hobbled.

But just in case, they reached out to Trump. 1st to help push the anti HC narrative, but 2nd in case Trump won they would either already have an ally, or more likely a compromised POTUS given what Russia knew.

So it is very likely that both the GOP and DNC were at the very least approached in one form of another. This is akin to guerilla warfare. Russia know they cannot take on US in a head on fight (either militarily or economically) so the best way is to rot them from the inside out.

IMO they never saw Trump actually winning. It was about hurting HC so that she would be crippled at home and have less power to stand up to them. But Trump winning was a bonus. They are no longer up against an experienced hand like HC, who fully understands the politics etc. But not only did Trump win but he is so compromised by his taking help from Russia that he can't even get his own party behind him never mind stand up to Russia.

The US have turned completely inwards

InTheTrees

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

Second question. An old politico.com story about Ukrainian govt involvement in trying to hurt Trumps chances in the election by sharing info on Paul Manafort's ties to Russia with a Dem consultant is getting more attention. Under the campaign-finance law introduced after the Democrat-Chinese funding scandal of 1997 related to the 1996 elections, its illegal to receive or solicit "something of value" from a foreign national. So if thats through, are both campaigns in trouble, and are the Dems being hypocritical?

Some serious reaching going on with the Fox talking points.

If the Dem consultant went straight to the authorities then there wouldn't be a problem would there?

I mean you cant be penalised for someone else confessing a crime to you can you?

spacecoyote

The way I see it, if the Dems took data from a foreign power, then they should be punished for it.

But, 100% so should the Reps.

They did, so its OK that we did it, is not a legitimate line of defence. One crime doesn't cancel out another

If Don's campaign colluded they should be in hot water it, same goes for Hilary's

InTheTrees

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

Did the Obama admin know she was working for Fusion

The Obama administration were aware of russian meddling in the election campaign.

The article you linked to in the independant says she hired FusionGPS.

aloyisious

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

I have some questions in the light of recent days. Firstly, media says Natalia Veselnitskaya was also working for Fusion GPS, the consultants who employed Christopher Steele, author of the Steele dossier. Republicans like Sen Chuck Grassley are also asking why she was allowed remain in the US, despite her being supposed to leave in January 2016. Did the Obama admin know she was working for Fusion, and if so, did she have any involvement in the Steele dossier job? And if she is really representing pro-Russian interests, why would she be part of the company doing the anti Trump Steele dossier?

Second question. An old politico.com story about Ukrainian govt involvement in trying to hurt Trumps chances in the election by sharing info on Paul Manafort's ties to Russia with a Dem consultant is getting more attention. Under the campaign-finance law introduced after the Democrat-Chinese funding scandal of 1997 related to the 1996 elections, its illegal to receive or solicit "something of value" from a foreign national. So if thats through, are both campaigns in trouble, and are the Dems being hypocritical?

I'll answer your 1st Q only. Re the 2nd, it's probably Sean Hannity being himself as usual, a Trump fan, trying to bring HRC back into the picture via a mention of a Dem consultant. It's a tactic called throwing sand in the eyes of watchers, aka дезинформация dezinformatsiya - in certain Russian state agencies. https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiNsZzozobVAhXSYVAKHUNXCOoQFghBMAI&url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FDisinformation&usg=AFQjCNFYun-2Mt-SYB7Wq5nnbOVbU_G5Pg

Q1. The Independent article referred to the Trump legal team mentioning an unnamed person contacting their client. The only two other people mentioned so far in the story about the Don Jnr Emails are the [Russian?] singer [Emin?] who got to know the Trumps through joint involvement in a Russian female beauty contest in 2012 and the English journalist, Mr Goldstone, who wrote in his emails to Don Jnr that he was acting on behalf of a friend, the singer Emin.

The article separately mentioned the clearly identified Natalia Veselnitskaya as hiring Fusion GPS, not as a member of it's staff. That might answer any questions about her contact with Fusion GPS, seemingly as a client of the Co. The Trump legal team apparently used words set out in a particular way to give the appearance that Natalia might be the unidentified person, then again might not be, deliberate washy-wording. The mention of other characters connected to Fusion GPS is more use of the disinformation tactic to confuse the reader/follower of events.

Edit... Maybe I'm having eyesight problems but I thought I saw Sean Hannity mentioned somewhere in the questions before I wrote and edited my reply. OK found him.

InTheTrees

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

I have some questions in the light of recent days. Firstly, media says Natalia Veselnitskaya was ...

Its also worth noting that the article you linked to in the Independent talks about her alleged association with Fusion, and her being linked to Fusion. It never say's she worked for or was hired by Fusion.

The article then goes on to describe at length her record of defending kremlin linked russian oligarchs in corruption cases.

Then it goes on to describe the details of trump Jr's growing scandals, and its only in the last few paragraphs that it mentions that Veselnitskaya was the one who hired FusionGps.

The story is also from two days ago. An eternity as this scandal unfolds. Its only chuck grassley trying to find a reason to stay part of the story.

MadYaker

The trumpists on Reddit and 4chan seem to have dreamed up what is, as far as I can see, a vague conspiracy theory about how this Russian lawyer was secretly working for Obama / Hillary / the Dems with the aim of tricking Trump Jnr into agreeing to this meeting in an attempt to incriminate him I suppose, or at least make him look bad. There's no real evidence to support this that I can find.

Was what Trump Jnr did illegal? Is anyone likely to resign or get charged over this?

aloyisious

Just turned on TV and went to Sky-news and caught the last part of President Macron's speech and then Don's speech. Don was restrained in his speech, though his bit about the environment will probably excite some. Don, at the press briefing in Paris, directly named and blamed the former US AG Loretta Lynch for the presence of Natalia Veselnitskaya in the US, as he said he had heard her visa had expired. He didn't really answer the 2nd part about whether what the FBI Director-nominee said at his senate confirmation meeting about the hypothetical what would you advise on the "if you meet a lawyer" question was what his son should have done, instead praising the nominee and he had chosen him because he trusted him.

The answer was to a four-set of questions asked by what seemed to be a US journalist put to both presidents, two to Don about the lawyer and his son, and two to President Macron.

Note edits to 2nd part reply by Don above....

Water John

How about his GOP colleague, who gave her the pass, to sit in and read the laptop for herself?
Perhaps he'd direct a query, there. Simply, WTF?

spacecoyote

It's actually a completely insignificant piece of info & pure conway-ish pivoting

Per the mail chain, Don Jr didnt know who she was was prior to agreeing to meet.

All he knew was Russia Gov supporting Dad & russian laywer has intel that could influence election. And he jumped on it.

Who he actually met & what he heard should be entirely secondary facts

aloyisious

Water John wrote: »

How about his GOP colleague, who gave her the pass, to sit in and read the laptop for herself?
Perhaps he'd direct a query, there. Simply, WTF?

Not being smart in this reply, that might involve him appearing at the Senate and cause GOP distress, protocol procedural hiccups, plus putting him in a position of heckling or awkward questions from opponents though the notion is......

Don might throw a strop or a punch.

Ozymandius2011

InTheTrees wrote: »

Its also worth noting that the article you linked to in the Independent talks about her alleged association with Fusion, and her being linked to Fusion. It never say's she worked for or was hired by Fusion.

The article then goes on to describe at length her record of defending kremlin linked russian oligarchs in corruption cases.

Then it goes on to describe the details of trump Jr's growing scandals, and its only in the last few paragraphs that it mentions that Veselnitskaya was the one who hired FusionGps.

The story is also from two days ago. An eternity as this scandal unfolds. Its only chuck grassley trying to find a reason to stay part of the story.

Edited to 'worked with Fusion' (approx).

derb12

MadYaker wrote: »

The trumpists on Reddit and 4chan seem to have dreamed up what is, as far as I can see, a vague conspiracy theory about how this Russian lawyer was secretly working for Obama / Hillary / the Dems with the aim of tricking Trump Jnr into agreeing to this meeting in an attempt to incriminate him I suppose, or at least make him look bad. There's no real evidence to support this that I can find.

Was what Trump Jnr did illegal? Is anyone likely to resign or get charged over this?

Pathetic.
So their theory is that the dems set this elaborate trap which trump jr fell right into ? Assume for a minute that that's true - then why on earth didn't they bother bringing the meeting up when don Jr. was slagging off robbie mook and the DNC about their claims of Russian interference a few weeks later. They could have silenced them quickly and probably won the election!
It does not even remotely make sense.

Water John

About as believable, as that Putin would have preferred Clinton to win.

Billy86

They're scrambling and scrambling. Expect the bullsh** to change almost daily until they think they can find something (no matter how implausible, see Pizza Child Rape Dungeon) that might somehow stick in some way, or in hopes that it just creates enough noise to drown out something they have no excuse for. Trump Jr and not a media outlet like the NYT being the one to release the email chain really, really f***ed them over there.

Zubeneschamali

MadYaker wrote: »

Was what Trump Jnr did illegal? Is anyone likely to resign or get charged over this?

Yes, and yes. I think Trump Jr., Manafort and Kushner will all get charged or roll over and incriminate Trump and/or Pence.

Zubeneschamali

derb12 wrote: »

So their theory is that the dems set this elaborate trap which trump jr fell right into ?

It wouldn't matter - it would still be a crime for Jr. to take the meeting.

And don't forget that he lied about it afterwards, and Kushner lied on his intelligence clearance forms, twice.

InTheTrees

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

It wouldn't matter - it would still be a crime for Jr. to take the meeting.

And don't forget that he lied about it afterwards, and Kushner lied on his intelligence clearance forms, twice.

And remember that stuff about Kushner asking the russian ambassador to set up a "backchannel" way of communicating with the kremlin?

LeinsterDub

InTheTrees wrote: »

And remember that stuff about Kushner asking the russian ambassador to set up a "backchannel" way of communicating with the kremlin?

Vaguely. Sometimes I think their strategy is to keep having new scandals so we can't focus on any of them

Itssoeasy

Apparently Eric bolling of Fox News is saying the fact that the Russian lawyer was in the USA at all and was able to trick poor old Donald trump jr to a meeting is obamas fault. I mean the spin is off the wall.

eire4

A Little Pony wrote: »

People are kidding themselves with this. The Republican Party and the Democratic Party are two cartels with the establishment backing up both parties and creating a carve up. Nothing will change once Trump era is over and both parties will carry on competing to see who can win over the special interests of donors and corporations.

Do not expect to see any revolutionary happenings taking place. America will continue playing war games and the industrial arms complex will carry on making monumental war profits along with the banks.

I agree with you that the American political system is in of itself broken and completely corrupted by money at this point. No argument there. The point I was making was simply that whether there are impeachment proceedings will depend on the outcome of next Novembers mid terms. I would add a caveat that as much as I dislike the current Democratic party especially its corporate owned leadership the idea that they are just as bad as the current Republican party is laughable. There is no Elizabeth Warren nor a Sherrod Brown on the Republican side. Plus as bad as say Obamacare is in that it is fundamentally just another pay out to the private we only care about profit not heath care companies the fact is the Republican proposals are vastly worse and will quite literally kill tens of thousands of Americans and see millions lose coverage and so many more have a standard of care that is below what they have now. Climate change would be another issue where there is a clear difference. The fact that the Democrats are not pushing for medicare for all is an example of how they don't care about the vast majority of Americans either but as bad as Obamacare is it is way better then the Republican alternative.
The reality is money has so corrupted the American system of government that it can be said in my opinion that it is no longer a functioning democracy but is in fact an Oligarchy now and heading down the direction of becoming a more authoritarian one to boot. So I will agree that the 2 corrupt establishment parties are terrible but there are not just as bad as each other. the current Republican party is way worse.

aloyisious

Itssoeasy wrote: »

Apparently Eric bolling of Fox News is saying the fact that the Russian lawyer was in the USA at all and was able to trick poor old Donald trump jr to a meeting is obamas fault. I mean the spin is off the wall.

Sounds like he's trying to out-trump Don in the blame game as Barak appointed Loretta Lynch.

Itssoeasy

aloyisious wrote: »

Itssoeasy wrote: »

Apparently Eric bolling of Fox News is saying the fact that the Russian lawyer was in the USA at all and was able to trick poor old Donald trump jr to a meeting is obamas fault. I mean the spin is off the wall.

Sounds like he's trying to out-trump Don in the blame game as Barak appointed Loretta Lynch.

It's actually amazing how the spin is being used to blame everyone else for something Donald trump Jr did of his own accord.

I don't know if the White House legal dept drink whiskey or alcohol in general, but they might need to start.

Really Interested

eire4 wrote: »

I agree with you that the American political system is in of itself broken and completely corrupted by money at this point. No argument there. The point I was making was simply that whether there are impeachment proceedings will depend on the outcome of next Novembers mid terms. I would add a caveat that as much as I dislike the current Democratic party especially its corporate owned leadership the idea that they are just as bad as the current Republican party is laughable. There is no Elizabeth Warren nor a Sherrod Brown on the Republican side. Plus as bad as say Obamacare is in that it is fundamentally just another pay out to the private we only care about profit not heath care companies the fact is the Republican proposals are vastly worse and will quite literally kill tens of thousands of Americans and see millions lose coverage and so many more have a standard of care that is below what they have now. Climate change would be another issue where there is a clear difference. The fact that the Democrats are not pushing for medicare for all is an example of how they don't care about the vast majority of Americans either but as bad as Obamacare is it is way better then the Republican alternative.
The reality is money has so corrupted the American system of government that it can be said in my opinion that it is no longer a functioning democracy but is in fact an Oligarchy now and heading down the direction of becoming a more authoritarian one to boot. So I will agree that the 2 corrupt establishment parties are terrible but there are not just as bad as each other. the current Republican party is way worse.

A little pony was and emphasise on was a trump surporter they so lost the argument it's the republicans and democrats are wrong. Get over it Trump is a evil ****.

Billy86

So, predictable as the day is long Trump has contradicted his sons statement. Trump Jr initially claimed “my father knew nothing of the meeting or these events" but on the Republican safe space that is Sean Hannity's show he rolled back a bit by not directly answering if his father knew anything about it. Then yesterday, Trump Snr in France (despite also earlier claiming to have only heard of it a few days ago) stated “in fact maybe it was mentioned at some point.†Now we all knew this anyway from Trump's declaring a speech of damaging on the Clinton's only three hours after the meeting time and date were confirmed,

Leroy42

I have been watching some of the clips from the news networks in the US over the last few days.

It must be so frustrating to be an interviewer on those programs. Nobody ever gives a straight answer. not only that, but they don't even try to hide the fact that they are not going to answer the question

They go off talking about Ukraine, or ratings, or Obama or Russia fever or whatever. Then they claim that they know what people want to talk about and and it isn't Russia its about healthcare.

They need a Paxman (when he was good) type interviewer over there to tie these people down. A lot of it is down to poor interviewing and allowing them too much leeway. One bit I saw was he started talking about the meeting again, and then brought up Ukraine and said he would ask about that later. Obv the guest pivoted straight to Ukraine!

And they simply let the guest spout stuff with no backup. "We know nothing came from the meeting" is the narrative. Based on what? How do we know this? They are never challenged over anything they say.

I mean I get it, politicians never want to give a straight answer, but at least try to stick to the topic we are talking about.

B0jangles

Billy86 wrote: »

So, predictable as the day is long Trump has contradicted his sons statement. Trump Jr initially claimed “my father knew nothing of the meeting or these events" but on the Republican safe space that is Sean Hannity's show he rolled back a bit by not directly answering if his father knew anything about it. Then yesterday, Trump Snr in France (despite also earlier claiming to have only heard of it a few days ago) stated “in fact maybe it was mentioned at some point.†Now we all knew this anyway from Trump's declaring a speech of damaging on the Clinton's only three hours after the meeting time and date were confirmed,

Apparently Trump's own lawyers knew about the meeting weeks ago:

Trump repeated that assertion in a talk with reporters on Air Force One on his way to Paris Wednesday night. “I only heard about it two or three days ago,” he said, according to a transcript of his talk, when asked about the meeting with Veselnitskaya at Trump Tower in June 2016 attended by Donald Trump Jr., Paul Manafort, then Trump’s campaign chief, and Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner.
But the sources told Yahoo News that Marc Kasowitz, the president’s chief lawyer in the Russia investigation, and Alan Garten, executive vice president and chief legal officer of the Trump Organization, were both informed about the emails in the third week of June, after they were discovered by lawyers for Kushner, who is now a senior White House official.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/sources-trump-lawyers-knew-russia-emails-back-june-000320831.html

Weird that they wouldn't tell their client about something so important, isn't it?

derb12

B0jangles wrote: »

Apparently Trump's own lawyers knew about the meeting weeks ago:





https://www.yahoo.com/news/sources-trump-lawyers-knew-russia-emails-back-june-000320831.html

Weird that they wouldn't tell their client about something so important, isn't it?

Pretty sure he knew about it in June 2016 too! It just isn't credible that jr would have kept the development to himself. One of trumps biographers mentioned that don jr is the perfect vulnerable person for Russians to approach in order to get in to the trump ring. He had a checkered past as a wild boy in college, didn't talk to his dad for a period and now desperately tries to curry favour.
He gets an email of this nature on June 3rd and never mentions it to dad up to June 9th when the meeting takes place and he then uses the excuse of the "nothing meeting" as a readon not to mention it? Not remotely credible.

B0jangles

Oh personally I have no doubt Trump sr. knew about the whole thing from the beginning - the younger Trumps don't dare sneeze without telling Dad what they're doing, I just like seeing the evidence mounting which shows just how long he and those around him have known, and the ever-changing stories they tell in the face of that evidence .

PropJoe10

The whole thing is really starting to unravel now. It's like a dripping tap. Of course Trump Snr knew about that meeting. Wondering what's going to be the next revelation.

peckerdara

I agree, there is no way they would have that meeting with Kusher and Jnr without them mentioning it to Snr. It would be different if they were not related - but as family there would be a history of doing things a certain way that would continue.

InTheTrees

There's breaking news from NBC this morning.

There was apparently a fifth person in the Don jr, kushner, manafort and Russian Lawyer meeting and NBC is reporting that person is ex russian intelligence.

This is the...fourth time don jr has lied about this meeting.

"NBC News is not naming the lobbyist, who denies any current ties to Russian spy agencies. He accompanied the lawyer, Natalia Veselnitskaya, to the June 2016 meeting at Trump Tower attended by Donald Trump Jr., Jared Kushner and Paul Manafort.

The Russian-born American lobbyist served in the Soviet military and emigrated to the U.S., where he holds dual citizenship. "

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/russian-lawyer-brought-ex-soviet-counter-intelligence-officer-trump-team-n782851

Leroy42

InTheTrees wrote: »

The Russian-born American lobbyist served in the Soviet military and emigrated to the U.S., where he holds dual citizenship.

Right so Obama's fault for letting him into the country then! Next!:D

InTheTrees

Hopefully this new revelation about Don Jr will mean the end of republicans repeating the same talking point "nothingburger" over and over and over.