Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Donald Trump is the President Mark IV (Read Mod Warning in OP)

Options
1…78101213…323

Comments

  • Options
    #272
    Captain Obvious
    Registered Users Posts: 4,165 ✭✭✭Captain Obvious


    notobtuse wrote: »
    It's not illegal to meet with someone to find out what they have to offer. And nothing came out of the meeting that was utilized by the campaign.


    A failed conspiracy is still a conspiracy.


  • Options
    #273
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    Captain Obvious wrote: »
    notobtuse wrote: »
    It's not illegal to meet with someone to find out what they have to offer.  And nothing came out of the meeting that was utilized by the campaign.


    A failed conspiracy is still a conspiracy.
    I'm curious, what do you consider Hillary Clinton and the DNC paying for a salacious dossier, with information seemingly coming from Russian operatives, and fed to Obama’s FBI, unverified and used to get a FISA warrant to spy on the Trump campaign?

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • Options
    #274
    mcmoustache
    Registered Users Posts: 7,237 ✭✭✭mcmoustache


    notobtuse wrote: »
    https://www.cnn.com/2017/07/11/opinions/trump-jr-russia-meeting-not-illegal-callan/index.html

    Oh, Christ on a stick. Paul Callan doesn't even work for CNN so for you to characterise this as what CNN thinks is incredibly dishonest. He's also a journalist without any obvious legal expertise. You may notice from the URL that this is from the Opinion section. That's where CNN let people write whatever crap that they want.

    EDIT: Wrong Paul Callan.
    Callan reached prominence as editor of the Londoner's Diary in the Evening Standard in the 1960s, and then with a Daily Mail diary column. He achieved a succession of scoops, and was responsible for training up a generation of young journalists, notably the gossip columnist, Nigel Dempster.

    Callan later moved to the mass circulation the Daily Mirror where he wrote the "Inside World of Paul Callan" column which broke a number of major stories embarrassing to their subjects.


  • Options
    #275
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    mcmoustache wrote: »
    notobtuse wrote: »
    It really doesn’t matter what I think.  Here is what CNN thinks, and they believe the meeting was not illegal.  And remember... CNN is absolutely no friend of Trump.

    https://www.cnn.com/2017/07/11/opinions/trump-jr-russia-meeting-not-illegal-callan/index.html

    Oh, Christ on a stick. Paul Callan doesn't even work for CNN so for you to characterise this as what CNN thinks is incredibly dishonest. He's also a journalist without any obvious legal expertise. You may notice from the URL that this is from the Opinion section. That's where CNN let people write whatever crap that they want.

    Callan reached prominence as editor of the Londoner's Diary in the Evening Standard in the 1960s, and then with a Daily Mail diary column. He achieved a succession of scoops, and was responsible for training up a generation of young journalists, notably the gossip columnist, Nigel Dempster.

    Callan later moved to the mass circulation the Daily Mirror where he wrote the "Inside World of Paul Callan" column which broke a number of major stories embarrassing to their subjects.
    If you read the top of the article… The writer is a CNN legal analyst, a former New York homicide prosecutor and currently is of counsel at the New York law firm of Edelman & Edelman PC, focusing on wrongful conviction and civil rights cases. I’d say far more qualified than me, or most here, to give an opinion on the matter.

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • Options
    #276
    jooksavage
    Registered Users Posts: 1,531 ✭✭✭jooksavage


    Stallingrad wrote: »
    I'm beginning to wonder are witnessing the beginning of the end of American democracy. To everyone who says he has achieved nothing and is an idiot and bluffer you've been watching the ball not the player. He has pitted the country against itself, torn the Rupublican party apart and made it a party of 1, neutered the EPA, defunded Planned Parenthood, discredited the media, attacked the judiciary, re-aligned the supreme court, given the wealthy tax breaks, eroded all the markers for what we deem to be acceptable (caged kids?), exposed the myth of a robust democracy, now he's trying to take down the investigation into collusion, I don't need to go on, you all know the score.

    He's done little or nothing for the US, but done an astonishing amount in 2 years to achieve what he wants for himself.

    I was listening to the Slow Burn podcast about Watergate and people were making similar predictions about American democracy in the early 70's. It does feel like it depends a lot on how things ultimately pan out for Trump. The consequences were so dire for Nixon that even those high ranking Rs who backed him 'til the bitter end didn't attempt to follow his lead.


    If the mid-terms fall apart for the Dems, the Mueller investigation will be in serious trouble and if the investigation is killed without open rebellion, the US itself has had it.


    Even if the Dems take congress, Mueller's report destroys Trump, Senate R's rebel against their President and drum him out of the WH... it still feels like the genie is out of the bottle here. The US system is a lot flimsier than anyone would have thought 10 years ago and there's no guarantee the country we know now will outlive any of us.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #277
    mcmoustache
    Registered Users Posts: 7,237 ✭✭✭mcmoustache


    notobtuse wrote: »
    If you read the top of the article… The writer is a CNN legal analyst, a former New York homicide prosecutor and currently is of counsel at the New York law firm of Edelman & Edelman PC, focusing on wrongful conviction and civil rights cases. I’d say far more qualified than me, or most here, to give an opinion on the matter.

    Ah. Wrong Paul Callan. As an honest person, I shall correct the misleading post after being presented with this information.


  • Options
    #278
    Taytoland
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,067 ✭✭✭Taytoland


    notobtuse wrote: »
    mcmoustache wrote: »
    everlast75 wrote: »
    Well it is interesting to note that the narrative being put forward by Rudy is now that "there was no collusion" to "collusion is not a crime".

    He's been crazier than usual today. I wonder if he was made aware of something coming out soon, other than the Manafort trial, that would indicate actual collusion?

    I mean, "Collusion isn't a crime anyway" is the talking point that one would use AFTER the "there was no collusion" talking point gets debunked. I don't see why he would push this line just yet unless he knows something we don't.

    Oh, I almost forgot something. Giulliani also said that Trump wasn't physically at the meeting. Not physically at the meeting. That's a bit of a weird phrase to use, in my opinion. It opens up all sorts of possibilities.
    It's not illegal to meet with someone to find out what they have to offer.  And nothing came out of the meeting that was utilized by the campaign.
    But he's a bloody idiot for agreeing to the meeting in the first place. The dogs on the street know Hillary Clinton is as corrupt as they come, he didn't need to meet anyone to know any of this, it's already well documented.


  • Options
    #279
    Leroy42
    Registered Users Posts: 15,484 ✭✭✭✭Leroy42


    notobtuse wrote: »
    If you read the top of the article… The writer is a CNN legal analyst, a former New York homicide prosecutor and currently is of counsel at the New York law firm of Edelman & Edelman PC, focusing on wrongful conviction and civil rights cases. I’d say far more qualified than me, or most here, to give an opinion on the matter.

    Its an opinion though, not a legal fact.

    But even without that. Are you saying that you see nothing wrong with a potential candidate for POTUS having secret meetings with Kremlin backed operatives to try and solicit illegally gained information on another US citizen.

    And that even he was told explicitly by the FBI that the Kremlin had been undertaking efforts to interfere in the campaign that he decided to claim the whole thing was a witch hunt rather than pass on this important information?

    And that you see nothing wrong with the now POTUS doing nothing to deal with this obvious attempt by the Kremlin. He didn't need any further meetings with the FBI, he had first hand knowledge?

    What is your opinion on it?


  • Options
    #280
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    mcmoustache wrote: »
    notobtuse wrote: »
    If you read the top of the article… The writer is a CNN legal analyst, a former New York homicide prosecutor and currently is of counsel at the New York law firm of Edelman & Edelman PC, focusing on wrongful conviction and civil rights cases. I’d say far more qualified than me, or most here, to give an opinion on the matter.

    Ah. Wrong Paul Callan. As an honest person, I shall correct the misleading post after being presented with this information.
    No problem.  We all make mistakes on occasion.

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • Options
    #281
    Leroy42
    Registered Users Posts: 15,484 ✭✭✭✭Leroy42


    Taytoland wrote: »
    But he's a bloody idiot for agreeing to the meeting in the first place. The dogs on the street know Hillary Clinton is as corrupt as they come, he didn't need to meet anyone to know any of this, it's already well documented.

    Great, can you give us a link to these documents? I am sure they will be court documents of course, since even subpenas and warrants and the filing of charges don't mean anything until a conviction.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #282
    BabyCheeses
    Closed Accounts Posts: 778 ✭✭✭BabyCheeses


    notobtuse wrote: »
    It's not illegal to meet with someone to find out what they have to offer.  And nothing came out of the meeting that was utilized by the campaign.

    Then why lie about it if nothing wrong was done?

    They felt the need to hide something, what was it?


  • Options
    #283
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    Taytoland wrote: »
    notobtuse wrote: »
    mcmoustache wrote: »
    everlast75 wrote: »
    Well it is interesting to note that the narrative being put forward by Rudy is now that "there was no collusion" to "collusion is not a crime".

    He's been crazier than usual today. I wonder if he was made aware of something coming out soon, other than the Manafort trial, that would indicate actual collusion?

    I mean, "Collusion isn't a crime anyway" is the talking point that one would use AFTER the "there was no collusion" talking point gets debunked. I don't see why he would push this line just yet unless he knows something we don't.

    Oh, I almost forgot something. Giulliani also said that Trump wasn't physically at the meeting. Not physically at the meeting. That's a bit of a weird phrase to use, in my opinion. It opens up all sorts of possibilities.
    It's not illegal to meet with someone to find out what they have to offer.  And nothing came out of the meeting that was utilized by the campaign.
    But he's a bloody idiot for agreeing to the meeting in the first place. The dogs on the street know Hillary Clinton is as corrupt as they come, he didn't need to meet anyone to know any of this, it's already well documented.
    I agree it was an idiotic thing to do, but that doesn't make it collusion or illegal.

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • Options
    #284
    jooksavage
    Registered Users Posts: 1,531 ✭✭✭jooksavage


    notobtuse wrote: »
    If you read the top of the article… The writer is a CNN legal analyst, a former New York homicide prosecutor and currently is of counsel at the New York law firm of Edelman & Edelman PC, focusing on wrongful conviction and civil rights cases. I’d say far more qualified than me, or most here, to give an opinion on the matter.


    And here he is here with a somewhat dimmer view of what the meeting amounts to


    https://twitter.com/NewDay/status/1023193132077330437


  • Options
    #285
    Leroy42
    Registered Users Posts: 15,484 ✭✭✭✭Leroy42


    notobtuse wrote: »
    I agree it was an idiotic thing to do, but that doesn't make it collusion or illegal.

    Withholding evidence from a federal investigation is a crime. He knew of this and didn't inform the FBI about it. He lied an official WH statement from POTUS to lie about it.

    He knew his son lied under oath to congress and said nothing.


  • Options
    #286
    Taytoland
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,067 ✭✭✭Taytoland


    notobtuse wrote: »
    Taytoland wrote: »
    notobtuse wrote: »
    mcmoustache wrote: »
    everlast75 wrote: »
    Well it is interesting to note that the narrative being put forward by Rudy is now that "there was no collusion" to "collusion is not a crime".

    He's been crazier than usual today. I wonder if he was made aware of something coming out soon, other than the Manafort trial, that would indicate actual collusion?

    I mean, "Collusion isn't a crime anyway" is the talking point that one would use AFTER the "there was no collusion" talking point gets debunked. I don't see why he would push this line just yet unless he knows something we don't.

    Oh, I almost forgot something. Giulliani also said that Trump wasn't physically at the meeting. Not physically at the meeting. That's a bit of a weird phrase to use, in my opinion. It opens up all sorts of possibilities.
    It's not illegal to meet with someone to find out what they have to offer.  And nothing came out of the meeting that was utilized by the campaign.
    But he's a bloody idiot for agreeing to the meeting in the first place. The dogs on the street know Hillary Clinton is as corrupt as they come, he didn't need to meet anyone to know any of this, it's already well documented.
    I agree it was an idiotic thing to do, but that doesn't make it collusion or illegal.
    I think the collusion allegation with the Kremlin is nonsense myself but I accept Russia tried to influence the election. I don't think it ultimately matters as far as the result is concerned, Trump would have beat her anyway.


  • Options
    #287
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    Leroy42 wrote: »
    notobtuse wrote: »
    If you read the top of the article… The writer is a CNN legal analyst, a former New York homicide prosecutor and currently is of counsel at the New York law firm of Edelman & Edelman PC, focusing on wrongful conviction and civil rights cases. I’d say far more qualified than me, or most here, to give an opinion on the matter.

    Its an opinion though, not a legal fact.

    But even without that.  Are you saying that you see nothing wrong with a potential candidate for POTUS having secret meetings with Kremlin backed operatives to try and solicit illegally gained information on another US citizen.

    And that even he was told explicitly by the FBI that the Kremlin had been undertaking efforts to interfere in the campaign that he decided to claim the whole thing was a witch hunt rather than pass on this important information?

    And that you see nothing wrong with the now POTUS doing nothing to deal with this obvious attempt by the Kremlin.  He didn't need any further meetings with the FBI, he had first hand knowledge?

    What is your opinion on it?
    Can you provide me information that Trump Jr knew beforehand that the meeting was with "Kremlin backed operatives?"

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • Options
    #288
    everlast75
    Registered Users Posts: 19,013 ✭✭✭✭everlast75


    These are 2 tweets (sorry Mods - i can't copy and paste the text) but this in essence demostrates what Trump is like. He lives in an alternative reality

    What Trump thought happened at the meeting

    https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1023546197129224192?s=19


    What actually happened at the meeting


    https://twitter.com/PhilipRucker/status/1023582239110651904?s=19


  • Options
    #289
    Leroy42
    Registered Users Posts: 15,484 ✭✭✭✭Leroy42


    Taytoland wrote: »
    I think the collusion allegation with the Kremlin is nonsense myself but I accept Russia tried to influence the election. I don't think it ultimately matters as far as the result is concerned, Trump would have beat her anyway.

    If you accept that Russia tried, then this meeting must surely be part of that attempt?

    We have no way of ever knowing that if effected the result or not, only that Trump was adamant a few days before the election that it was rigged yet still somehow managed to win.


  • Options
    #290
    Quin_Dub
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 15,028 Mod ✭✭✭✭Quin_Dub


    notobtuse wrote: »
    It really doesn’t matter what I think.  Here is what CNN thinks, and they believe the meeting was not illegal.  And remember... CNN is absolutely no friend of Trump.

    https://www.cnn.com/2017/07/11/opinions/trump-jr-russia-meeting-not-illegal-callan/index.html

    From your own linked article -
    Meeting with allegedly supportive Russians does not a criminal case make, as Yoda might say. On the other hand, just ask frequent CNN contributor (and Nixon-era White House counsel) John Dean about the notion that "it's not the crime but the cover-up" that you have to worry about.

    The President and his supporters get very hot and bothered about the so-called "Russia Investigation" and the Don Jr. email chain adds to the growing body of evidence that a lot of people connected to the Trump campaign have been lying about connections to and meetings with supportive Russians.

    If they lie to federal investigators, the Mueller grand jury or congressional committees about this, charges of perjury, lying to federal investigators and obstruction of justice will follow. Just ask John Dean. When the smoke clears and the Trump Jr. email coverage is over, remember the covering-up, because if there is criminality in the Trump administration, that is where it will be found.

    If it is true that Trump was aware of the meeting , then Don Jr lied to a congressional committee and therefore is in Deep trouble. Others may also be caught up in the same lies.


  • Options
    #291
    jooksavage
    Registered Users Posts: 1,531 ✭✭✭jooksavage


    notobtuse wrote: »
    Can you provide me information that Trump Jr knew beforehand that the meeting was with "Kremlin backed operatives?"


    A 30 second search would produce this pre-meeting email from Rob Goldstone to Don Jr.


    "This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump - helped along by Aras and Emin."


    To which Don Jr replies:


    "Seems we have some time and if it's what you say I love it especially later in the summer."


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #292
    Leroy42
    Registered Users Posts: 15,484 ✭✭✭✭Leroy42


    notobtuse wrote: »
    Can you provide me information that Trump Jr knew beforehand that the meeting was with "Kremlin backed operatives?"

    Trump Jr admitted to, and released the e-mails showing, that he was trying to get intel.

    His line since has been that nothing came out of it.

    It has been very extensively covered, do you really need me to actually provide you with a link?

    If I prove that Trump Jr knew, what difference will that make to your position?


  • Options
    #293
    mcmoustache
    Registered Users Posts: 7,237 ✭✭✭mcmoustache


    notobtuse wrote: »
    Can you provide me information that Trump Jr knew beforehand that the meeting was with "Kremlin backed operatives?"

    According to his own emails that he released all by himself on his twitter, he was lead to believe that he was meeting with Kremlin backed operatives.
    In his June 3 email to Trump Jr., Goldstone wrote:

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

    The Crown prosecutor of Russia[a] 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 and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father.

    This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump – helped along by Aras and Emin.[17]

    Trump Jr. responded:

    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?[17]


  • Options
    #294
    Captain Obvious
    Registered Users Posts: 4,165 ✭✭✭Captain Obvious


    notobtuse wrote: »
    I'm curious, what do you consider Hillary Clinton and the DNC paying for a salacious dossier, with information seemingly coming from Russian operatives, and fed to Obama’s FBI, unverified and used to get a FISA warrant to spy on the Trump campaign?


    If she had colluded with Putin you'd have a point but she didn't. This is the point you are ignoring. Trump didn't just look for information from foreigners, he conspired with a hostile foreign government to influence the election.


  • Options
    #295
    Taytoland
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,067 ✭✭✭Taytoland


    Leroy42 wrote: »
    Taytoland wrote: »
    I think the collusion allegation with the Kremlin is nonsense myself but I accept Russia tried to influence the election. I don't think it ultimately matters as far as the result is concerned, Trump would have beat her anyway.

    If you accept that Russia tried, then this meeting must surely be part of that attempt?

    We have no way of ever knowing that if effected the result or not, only that Trump was adamant a few days before the election that it was rigged yet still somehow managed to win.

    Was this person part of the Russian government? Did Trump order for the meeting to be held if that person was part of the Russian government? We need to see something showing this.


  • Options
    #296
    jooksavage
    Registered Users Posts: 1,531 ✭✭✭jooksavage


    While we're actually back raking over this bloody meeting again, Rudy Giuliani was on CNN this morning, rambling on incoherently and dropped in something new. Members of the Trump team, including Don Jr. and Jared had a meeting two days before the Russian encounter to discuss how to approach that meeting. This suggests that they were taking it a lot more seriously than they've previously claimed. The interesting part of it though is that meeting included Rick Gates... The same Rick Gates who is now cooperating with Mueller. That's not good for Trump.


  • Options
    #297
    mcmoustache
    Registered Users Posts: 7,237 ✭✭✭mcmoustache


    Now that we're firmly in "Collusion is not a crime" territory, it's worth remembering that soundbytes such as that one are a bit meaningless.

    If I collude with my neighbour to mow a lawn, that isn't illegal. On the other hand, if I collude with my neighbour to rob some guy's house, that would be very illegal and I would be charged if caught. It depends on what the collusion was for. Now, here's the important part - I still wouldn't be charged with collusion. That's because the charge is "conspiracy to commit X". The Collusion stuff is little more than some misdirection.


  • Options
    #298
    jooksavage
    Registered Users Posts: 1,531 ✭✭✭jooksavage


    Taytoland wrote: »
    Was this person part of the Russian government?


    Why do some of you guys keep asking questions that a quick Google search would answer. The laywer, Veselnitskaya works for the Russian government, as thousands of articles like the one below attest:


    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/11/world/europe/natalia-veselnitskaya-donald-trump-jr-russian-lawyer.html


  • Options
    #299
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    Quin_Dub wrote: »
    notobtuse wrote: »
    It really doesn’t matter what I think.  Here is what CNN thinks, and they believe the meeting was not illegal.  And remember... CNN is absolutely no friend of Trump.

    https://www.cnn.com/2017/07/11/opinions/trump-jr-russia-meeting-not-illegal-callan/index.html

    From your own linked article -
    Meeting with allegedly supportive Russians does not a criminal case make, as Yoda might say. On the other hand, just ask frequent CNN contributor (and Nixon-era White House counsel) John Dean about the notion that "it's not the crime but the cover-up" that you have to worry about.

    The President and his supporters get very hot and bothered about the so-called "Russia Investigation" and the Don Jr. email chain adds to the growing body of evidence that a lot of people connected to the Trump campaign have been lying about connections to and meetings with supportive Russians.

    If they lie to federal investigators, the Mueller grand jury or congressional committees about this, charges of perjury, lying to federal investigators and obstruction of justice will follow. Just ask John Dean. When the smoke clears and the Trump Jr. email coverage is over, remember the covering-up, because if there is criminality in the Trump administration, that is where it will be found.

    If it is true that Trump was aware of the meeting , then Don Jr lied to a congressional committee and therefore is in Deep trouble. Others may also be caught up in the same lies.
    IF it is proven Trump Jr lied to a congressional committee then he probably is in trouble.  Perhaps he should have been more politically savvy and followed Hillary Clinton and her operative’s play-book and either refuse to answer questions or state he ‘didn’t recall'… and turn over only things he wanted to and destroy the rest.

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • Options
    #300
    Leroy42
    Registered Users Posts: 15,484 ✭✭✭✭Leroy42


    jooksavage wrote: »
    Why do some of you guys keep asking questions that a quick Google search would answer. The laywer, Veselnitskaya works for the Russian government, as thousands of articles like the one below attest:


    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/11/world/europe/natalia-veselnitskaya-donald-trump-jr-russian-lawyer.html

    And Trump JR, as per the e-mails, was told that the meeting was part of the Russia attempt to help Trump.

    The main issue is that Trump lied about knowing about this.
    He, who swore to withhold the constituation, withheld this information from a federal investigation.
    It is not up to Trump to decide if anybody was or wasn't working with the Kremlin. The clear signs was that they were, Trump was told officially about Russia trying to influence, and has spent the last 18 months claiming it is all a witch hunt rather than telling the investigators something they could actually work with.

    To argue about collusion is a legal technicality which few will have the full story on here. But to have clear evidence, with further movement from Guiliani today, that Trump not only knew, but perhaps participated in, an attempt by a foreign government to use illegal intel to influence a US election, and not only not do anything about it but actively tried to cover it up should be the problem for ever single person that believes in democracy.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #301
    Quin_Dub
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 15,028 Mod ✭✭✭✭Quin_Dub


    notobtuse wrote: »
    IF it is proven Trump Jr lied to a congressional committee then he probably is in trouble.  Perhaps he should have been more politically savvy and followed Hillary Clinton and her operative’s play-book and either refuse to answer questions or state he ‘didn’t recall'… and turn over only things he wanted to and destroy the rest.

    Quin_Dub wrote: »
    If it is true that Trump was aware of the meeting , then Don Jr lied to a congressional committee and therefore is in Deep trouble. Others may also be caught up in the same lies.

    Yes , Exactly what I said..

    If Don Snr is proven to have known about the meeting contemporaneously , then Don Jnr lied to a congressional committee and would be open to charges of Perjury at the least.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement