Quote (ThatAlex @ Aug 5 2018 11:42am)

Also, follow up for the brave Trump supporters:

"Fake News reporting, a complete fabrication, that I am concerned about the meeting my wonderful son, Donald, had in Trump Tower. This was a meeting to get information on an opponent, totally legal and done all the time in politics - and it went nowhere. I did not know about it!" -DJT

If the Trump Tower meeting was "totally legal and done all the time in politics," then why does it matter if Trump knew about it or not?

Quote

Federal Chief Judge Beryl Howell just issued a long 92 page ruling spelling out Mueller’s legal authority in detail which essentially means that nobody else is going to be able to challenge that authority. She’s a Chief Judge, so this sets a strong legal precedent that will be followed in subsequent cases.

The specific case in question concerned the grand jury testimony of Roger Stone associate Andrew Miller, and whether he could be forced to testify.

Over the course of her 92 page analysis Howell strongly rejected an attempt by Miller to quash a subpoena to testify before the grand jury. This may hurt Stone and Trump, but more importantly it sets forth the detailed legal explanation for why the “scope of the Special Counsel’s power falls well within the boundaries the Constitution permits.”

In other words: Mueller’s power is valid under the U.S. Constitution, so don’t try to challenge it.

Quote

On Sunday morning, amid his latest tweetstorm about the ongoing special counsel investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election, President Donald Trump turned his focus to the now-infamous June 2016 meeting between his top advisers and several Russians.

Here's what he said:
"Fake News reporting, a complete fabrication, that I am concerned about the meeting my wonderful son, Donald, had in Trump Tower. This was a meeting to get information on an opponent, totally legal and done all the time in politics - and it went nowhere. I did not know about it!"
And Trump's lawyers grimace.

Here's why. The timeline of this June 2016 meeting at Trump Tower -- that we know about -- goes like this:

1. The New York Times reports about the meeting -- between, among others, Donald Trump Jr. and Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya on July 8. Trump Jr. gives the Times a statement about the meeting that reads: "It was a short introductory meeting. I asked Jared (Kushner) and Paul (Manafort) to stop by. We primarily discussed a program about the adoption of Russian children that was active and popular with American families years ago and was since ended by the Russian government, but it was not a campaign issue at the time and there was no follow up."

2. On July 9 -- the next day! -- the Times reports that Trump Jr. was promised dirt on Hillary Clinton prior to the meeting. In subsequent days, Trump Jr. releases his email exchanges with music publicist Rob Goldstone -- a liaison for a wealthy Russian named Aras Agalarov and his pop star son Emin -- in which Goldstone makes very clear that the Russians have dirt on Clinton and want Trump's campaign to have it.

3. Donald Trump denies knowledge of the situation in the moment, including the initial statement given to the Times that never mentioned the promise of dirt on Clinton. But last month, we learned that way back in January his lawyers acknowledged to special counsel Robert Mueller that not only did Trump know about Don Jr.'s initial statement but he dictated that statement himself.

"You have received all of the notes, communications and testimony indicating that the President dictated a short but accurate response to the New York Times article on behalf of his son, Donald Trump, Jr.," the letter to Mueller reads. "His son then followed up by making a full public disclosure regarding the meeting, including his public testimony that there was nothing to the meeting and certainly no evidence of collusion."
Which bring us to the Sunday morning tweet and this line in particular: "This was a meeting to get information on an opponent."

So. We know that Trump dictated the initial Don Jr. statement. And we know that statement said that "we primarily discussed a program about the adoption of Russian children that was active and popular with American families years ago." And we know that statement didn't say that the initial impetus for the meeting was the promise from the Russians of dirt on Clinton.

But now Trump is saying that the meeting was designed "to get information on an opponent." Which is it? Was it the initial statement he dictated to the Times on behalf of Don Jr. that made clear the meeting was about adoptions? Or is it what he is saying now -- that the meeting was aimed at gathering negative information about Clinton?

And this bit, "totally legal and done all the time in politics" is something else. A meeting he denies knowing about in advance, and initially crafted a misleading statement about, was perfectly legal anyway!
Did Trump know then what the genesis of the meeting was? (Michael Cohen, Trump's personal lawyer and fixer, is suggesting his boss actually knew about the meeting in advance, which Trump and Trump Jr. deny.) If Trump did know why the meeting was happening -- either before it happened or after the Times found out and he asked Don Jr. about it -- then why would he dictate a statement that never mentioned that the entire reason the meeting happened was his side's expectation that they would get dirt on Clinton? If Trump truly thought the meeting was about Russian adoptions, then why did he put out a tweet today saying it was about getting information on an opponent?
The point is that there are no good answers for Trump here. His tweet on Sunday casts doubt on the stories he and Don Jr. initially told -- and the ones they are telling now. And the bigger issue here is that this isn't a one-off: Trump, his son and the entire Trump operation have struggled to tell the full truth -- or even close -- a bunch of times now in relation to the Russia investigation. Why? Maybe Mueller knows.

Quote (ThatAlex @ Aug 5 2018 11:42am)

Also, follow up for the brave Trump supporters:

"Fake News reporting, a complete fabrication, that I am concerned about the meeting my wonderful son, Donald, had in Trump Tower. This was a meeting to get information on an opponent, totally legal and done all the time in politics - and it went nowhere. I did not know about it!" -DJT

If the Trump Tower meeting was "totally legal and done all the time in politics," then why does it matter if Trump knew about it or not?

Quote (Ghot @ 5 Aug 2018 16:09)

It matters because the demotards and the media these days, can make anything LOOK like anything.
It seems that the left pretty much controls the media, which may be why Trump is a twitter maniac.

I miss the days when the media have to have proof of what they reported on.
Not the type of "proof" they use these days... 837 sources who couldn't be named, said so and so. But proof like back in the day. One anonymous source and every other source named in the articles.

These days it's pretty much the opposite. Which means, since their names areb't included, these sources can say or even make up w/e they want without worries of repercussions.

Quote (ThatAlex @ Aug 5 2018 05:10pm)

Do you think it matters if Trump knew about the meeting or not? Do you think his knowledge or lack of knowledge of the meeting has any implications in the Special Counsel investigation?

Quote (Ghot @ 5 Aug 2018 16:20)

Not really. Because all politicians in a race, will try to dig up bad juju on their opponents. That's normal.
The problem in the 2016 race was that the bad juju didn't concern things done concerning just the US.

The both sides know this. Trump had to risk getting the information concerning Hillary, outside the US because the atrocities Hillary committed involved Russia.
This was bad and good for the left. If Trump cam up with damaging info (bad for the left), the left could always claim collusion or some such, use use the older US citizens fear of Russia to destroy Trump (good for the left).


I've said many times previously that the left has been in cahoots with Russia for about 1-2 decades. The left felt safe in this because of the fact that if caught, they could use the method of getting caught against the right.
Kind of a win - win situation for the left.



Anyways, here's the latest...


Trump says his son sought information on Clinton from Russians in 2016

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia/trump-says-his-son-sought-information-on-clinton-from-russians-in-2016-idUSKBN1KQ0HO

Quote (ThatAlex @ Aug 5 2018 05:35pm)

Are you aware of the pretext and content of the Trump Tower meeting?

Natalia Veselnitskaya, who was in regular contact with the Russian Prosecutor General's office, was interested in information regarding the Magnitsky Act. Don Jr. said the pretext of the meeting was about adoption but said the discussion quickly turned to the Magnitsky Act.

The Magnitsky Act targeted Russian oligarchs, froze any assets they held in U.S. banks, and banned their future use of U.S. banking systems. Russia wants the Magnitsky Act overturned.

Veselnitskaya claimed to have opposition research that could hurt Clinton's campaign. That was the pretext of the meeting and why Don Jr. decided to take the meeting.

Regardless of whether Don Jr. and the Trump team got the dirt that they wanted on Clinton or not, those are the two items the meeting revolved around. Dirt on Clinton and the Magnitsky act.

It's not clear whether any deal was made or not, but regardless, the meeting was conspiratory in nature. Even if the meeting was a complete waste of time, as Don Jr. puts it, taking the meeting under that pretext and/or not reporting the meeting to federal authorities afterward was potentially criminal.

Keep in mind that the Gore campaign overturned some dirty info they got on W. Bush back in 2000, so there is some precedent for how these things should be properly handled.