Donald Trump Jr. on Wednesday declined to tell the House Intelligence Committee details about his conversation with President Trump regarding his meeting with a Russian lawyer, citing client privilege, according to the committee's top Democrat. Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) is challenging Trump Jr.'s reasoning, saying Trump Jr. cannot apply attorney-client privilege and "shield" lawmakers from his conversation between father and son just because an attorney was present in the room at the time. "He acknowledged having discussed the June 9 meeting and the emails that went into establishing that meeting after those emails became public," Schiff said Wednesday following a closed-door meeting with Trump Jr. "He acknowledged discussing that matter with his father, but refused to answer questions about that discussion along the basis of a attorney-client privilege. In my view there is no attorney-client privilege that protects a discussion between father and son," Schiff continued.
Madagascan wrote: » And so has any one who has read the Koran.
JenovaProject wrote: » All Trumps support is an end time death cult? Yeh half of America,not hyperbole at all.
Today, Trump just gave it away — for free. Such a deal! Why in the world would you just give this away for free and not even use it as a lever to advance the prospect of an Israeli-Palestinian deal? Trump could have said two things to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. First, he could have said: “Bibi, you keep asking me to declare Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. O.K., I will do that. But I want a deal. Here’s what I want from you in return: You will declare an end to all Israeli settlement building in the West Bank, outside of the existing settlement block that everyone expects to be part of Israel in any two-state solution.”
Leroy42 wrote: » Good piece in the NYT today. Bascially setting out that the US has given away one of the big hold outs it had over Israel for nothing. And it ties back into the question I asked yesterday. What is the positive in this for the US? I don't see it. I can see how Trumps base is happy, how Israel is happy and that some other countries might not be bothered either way. But what is positive about this to the US? What has Trump, the great deal maker, actually got in return for what is, in reality, a very big gift from the US to Israel?https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/06/opinion/trump-foreign-policy-giveaway.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=opinion-c-col-left-region®ion=opinion-c-col-left-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-left-region
Professor Moriarty wrote: » It's a continuance of what got him elected - polarisation. Demonise sections of society/humanity and portray yourself as the saviour. In this case, he's a crusader (literally) for the Bible Belt. Crude but effective. Just confirms how stupid and gullible some people are.
Leroy42 wrote: » Yes, I understand why HE did it, but surely POTUS is supposed to serve the interests of the US. Nobody, here, in the papers, on Fox news, has been able to explain, to me anyway, what is the positives for the US from this. "Its simply reality" seems to be the line. And? Why now? And why did the US not get something in return? This a a major win for Israel, this is priceless going forward and yet it seems Trump has just given it away for nothing. Not only that but it will come at a cost to the US both in terms of the money (irrelevant in the scheme of things) but also in terms of standing.
Madagascan wrote: » It is and has been the Jewish capital for 3, 000 years.
Water John wrote: » The question always is, not what is good for America but what is good for Trump? That will tell you why, he is doing something.
circadian wrote: » Pretty shocking stuff relating to Flynn if true https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/whistleblower-flynn-told-ex-partner-russia-sanctions-would-be-ripped-n827031
PopePalpatine wrote: » I wouldn't be surprised if he's planning on opening a new hotel in Israel.
Tony EH wrote: » Maybe he's looking for a country to emigrate to when he leaves office (or is impeached) and the possible proverbial hits the fan.
Water John wrote: » I think, ANY communication with Mueller,would be a NO No in the American Justice system. There wouldn't be any back channels. Remember when Comey was appointed O'Bama said to him, 'you won't be talking to me again' or words to that effect. Maybe I'm niave, but that's my reading, of it.
demfad wrote: » His method is to implement/reinforce policies at a time that distracts from a damaging story. An outrageous remark usually distracts from a small story. He reignighted the NFL stuff to successfully distract from Niger. The Jerusalem card was in reserve for when a really big distraction was needed. That was the story that Mike Flynn was found guilty and now cooperating with Mueller. People think that Trump is thick and that therefore he cant be fooling everyone. He has being lying/deceiving all his life. He is good at it now. You don't have to be smarter than someone to manipulate them (the media in this case) You just have to get them to misjudge/underestimate you. Then they might as well be stupider.
Tell me how wrote: » I wonder what efforts are going on to speak with Mueller outside of all this. He is a Republican himself. I can't imagine that there aren't people trying to influence his behaviour if not outright asking him to stop completely. Is he that honorable that he is going to pursue this to the nth degree? I would not be surprised if the republican party itself want to see this go so far as ensuring Trump cannot run again in 4 years but after that they will want to shut it down pretty sharpish.
seamus wrote: » I think at one stage many of us would have thought like that. The U.S. has played an excellent propaganda game for decades about the supremacy of its institutions. But after what's come out since Snowden broke ranks and exposed the corruption and institutional paranoia in the U.S., and the subsequent nonsense in the years that have followed, I think it's to be assumed that there are backchannels, everywhere, between everyone, unless there is solid evidence to the contrary.
TommyKnocker wrote: » Absolutely impossible as the "Jewish State" is only 69 years old.
One of the oldest cities in the world, Jerusalem was named as "Urusalima" on ancient Mesopotamian cuneiform tablets, probably meaning "City of Shalem" after a Canaanite deity, during the early Canaanite period (approximately 2400 BCE). During the Israelite period, significant construction activity in Jerusalem began in the 9th century BCE (Iron Age II), and in the 8th century the city developed into the religious and administrative center of the Kingdom of Judah.[7] During its long history, Jerusalem has been destroyed at least twice, besieged 23 times, attacked 52 times, and captured and recaptured 44 times.
recedite wrote: » https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerusalem