1. Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?
    Dismiss Notice

Donald Trump Says Son’s Trump Tower Meeting Was To Get Clinton Dirt But ‘Totally Legal’

Discussion in 'Latest Political News and Current Events' started by sensible don, Aug 5, 2018.

  1. sensible don

    sensible don Mayor

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2016
    Messages:
    1,637
    Likes Received:
    240
    Do who is the " genius IQ " person.................thanks DAD!

    The president and his legal team have issued a number of contradicting statements about Donald Trump Jr.’s June 2016 meeting with a Russian lawyer.
    [​IMG]
    By Nina Golgowski
    [​IMG]
    LEAH MILLIS / REUTERS
    President Donald Trump is seen before boarding Air Force One to Ohio at the Morristown Airport in Morristown, NJ, on Saturday.




    President Donald Trump on Sunday denied that he is concerned that his eldest son is a target of special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation, insisting that his son’s actions during his presidential campaign were “totally legal.”

    “This was a meeting to get information on an opponent, totally legal and done all the time in politics - and it went nowhere,” Trump said of Donald Trump Jr.’s meeting in Trump Tower with a Kremlin-linked attorney in June 2016.

    Trump’s tweet follows recent reports that he is worried about possible legal trouble for his eldest son.

    [​IMG]

    Donald J. Trump

    ✔@realDonaldTrump



    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!

    8:35 AM - Aug 5, 2018
    Twitter Ads info and privacy


    The president, his legal team and his son have issued a number of contradicting statements for meeting in the year since the New York Times first reported on it.


    In July 2017, Trump Jr. initially claimed the meeting with Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya was about a Russian adoption issue and “not a campaign issue at the time.” A day later, he admitted that he’d agreed to sit down with Veselnitskaya after being offered dirt on his father’s political opponent, Hillary Clinton.

    The Times reported last July that Trump signed off on his son’s first response about the meeting. His lawyer, Jay Sekulow, repeatedly insisted that the president was not involved in the drafting of the statement. Later that month, White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders said he was involved but denied a Washington Post report that claimed he personally dictated it.

    But in a January memo, Trump’s attorneys admitted that he did dictate the statement. Rudy Giuliani said in June confirmed that it’s the legal team’s “final position” that the president dictated it.

    Trump’s attorney Jay Sekulow, speaking on ABC “This Week” on Sunday, attempted to downplay and delegitimize Mueller’s investigation.

    “The question is what law, statue or rule or regulation has been violated? And nobody has pointed to one,” he said, later adding that “there are irregularities in this investigation, the likes of which we have not seen.”

    Asked whether Trump would testify as part of Mueller’s investigation if asked, Sekulow said that they would not advise him to give an interview at this time.

    RELATED...
     

    Attached Files:

    • Funny Funny x 1
  2. sensible don

    sensible don Mayor

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2016
    Messages:
    1,637
    Likes Received:
    240
    upload_2018-8-5_10-6-58.
    [​IMG]

    ABA Legal Fact Check debuted in August and is the first fact check website focusing exclusively on legal matters. This article has been republished with permission.

    In mid-December, National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster was quoted as saying that U.S. officials were “increasingly concerned” that Russia was using “sophisticated campaigns of subversion and disinformation and propaganda … to polarize democratic societies.” This would be consistent with allegations of Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. But do such actions break U.S. law?


    ADVERTISING
    inRead invented by Teads
    Congress has wrestled with questions of foreign interference with the U.S. electoral process for many years, including following the 1996 elections when the majority-Republican Senate organized hearings on Chinese influence in Bill Clinton’s reelection. The First Amendment allows some protection for foreign nationals to influence public opinion, but federal election law clearly prohibits political contributions to candidates by foreign nationals as well as candidates’ acceptance of anything of value from foreign nationals.

    Federal election law, administered by the Federal Election Commission, prohibits contributions, donations and other expenditures by “foreign nationals” in any federal, state or local election as well an exchange of any “thing of value.” Most recently, Section 303 of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, also known as the McCain-Feingold Act, strengthened the ban on foreign money in U.S. electioneering.

    Six years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a decision by a U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., that Congress can ban individuals who lawfully reside in the U.S. and are neither U.S. citizens nor “permanent residents” from making donations or gifts related to any election. In that case, Bluman v. Federal Election Commission, a three-judge panel said the limitation was a legitimate tool for government to prevent “foreign influence over U.S. elections.” The decision specifically banned contributions to candidates and political parties as well as “express-advocacy” expenditures — those ads that clearly support or oppose a specific electoral outcome. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision without comment.
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  3. Constitutional Sheepdog

    Constitutional Sheepdog ][][][%er!!!!!!!

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2012
    Messages:
    36,671
    Likes Received:
    5,956
    guess it's different when clinton did it and that dossier
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  4. sensible don

    sensible don Mayor

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2016
    Messages:
    1,637
    Likes Received:
    240
    I am on record for convicting her, said it here many times.

    Donald threw his son and the 4-5 other people right under that Mueller Bus, problem is he also threw himself but what did Rudy say - Trump says he can convince Mueller what he is doing is all a witch hunt if given the chance - you agree with Trump?
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  5. Raoul_Luke

    Raoul_Luke Mayor

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2017
    Messages:
    4,918
    Likes Received:
    824
    That's not a crime. Unless they were offering something in return (an ease of sanctions, perhaps), there is nothing illegal whatsoever in listening to Russians talk dirt about your political opponent. If it is, the Fusion GPS efforts were a crime, wouldn't you agree?
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  6. sensible don

    sensible don Mayor

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2016
    Messages:
    1,637
    Likes Received:
    240
    I am sure easing of sanctions were discussed, getting assistance is a form of expenditure. Heck did you miss all the Russians at the inauguration, excuse me greatest, biggest inauguration ceremony ever. But I see already the defense has began, next will be Rudy telling us to add more words, etc to tweet, groundhog day.

    Federal election law, administered by the Federal Election Commission, prohibits contributions, donations and other expenditures by “foreign nationals” in any federal, state or local election as well an exchange of any “thing of value.” Most recently, Section 303 of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, also known as the McCain-Feingold Act, strengthened the ban on foreign money in U.S. electioneering.
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  7. Constitutional Sheepdog

    Constitutional Sheepdog ][][][%er!!!!!!!

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2012
    Messages:
    36,671
    Likes Received:
    5,956
    So you're sure about that but have no facts to support your opinion? Got it.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  8. sensible don

    sensible don Mayor

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2016
    Messages:
    1,637
    Likes Received:
    240
    No more facts than you do that it is wrong, got it!
     
    • Disagree x 1
  9. Constitutional Sheepdog

    Constitutional Sheepdog ][][][%er!!!!!!!

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2012
    Messages:
    36,671
    Likes Received:
    5,956
    thing is when I say it I've yet to be proven wrong
    PROVE ME WRONG
     
  10. John Doe

    John Doe #WALKAWAY

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2018
    Messages:
    1,944
    Likes Received:
    655
    They should investigate why she was let into the country by Obamas DOJ.
    Exclusive: DOJ let Russian lawyer into US before she …
    thehill.com/...exclusive-doj-let-russian-lawyer-into-us-before...trump
    Justice Department and State Department officials could not immediately explain how the Russian lawyer was still in the country in June for the meeting with Trump Jr. and the events in Washington.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  11. Dawg

    Dawg President Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2011
    Messages:
    113,019
    Likes Received:
    19,968
    was it Rice or Holder that allowed the Russian gain a visa?

    [​IMG]or was it Sow?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  12. Boca

    Boca Governor

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2011
    Messages:
    10,595
    Likes Received:
    3,089
    The Justice Department issued Veselnitskaya a special immigration waiver so that she could defend her client, a Russian firm, in an asset forfeiture case in New York.
    Trouble with that is Veselnitskaya is not, nor ever has been licensed to practice law in this country.

    The U.S. attorney’s office in New York told The Hill that it let Veselnitskaya into the country on a grant of immigration parole from October 2015 to early January 2016 after her initial request for a visa had been denied.
    She was actually let in three times. The last time she arrived on the day of the meeting with Trump Jr on June 9th 2016

    A spokesperson for Lynch said the former attorney general “does not have any personal knowledge of Ms. Veselnitskaya's travel.”

    Yet a special immigration patrol wiaver is a discretionary act that the statute allows [only] Attorney General to do in extraordinary circumstances.

    In other words Lynch sent her spokesman out to lie. Just like Obama sent out Susan Rice out to lie on 5 Sunday morning shows about a video being the cause of the Benghazi attack.

    It was an orchestrated setup, and President Trump is right.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
    Last edited: Aug 6, 2018
  13. Boca

    Boca Governor

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2011
    Messages:
    10,595
    Likes Received:
    3,089


    [​IMG]

    I said it time and time again on this forum she would never be indicted
    for that very reason.

    However, I thought not indicting her was to protect Obama. Never occurred to me she had the goods on the entire government. But now that I think about she must have spent decades compiling dossiers on anyone who might get in her way.

    The woman is obsessed, evil, and perhaps insane
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
    Last edited: Aug 5, 2018
  14. Spamature

    Spamature President

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2011
    Messages:
    52,680
    Likes Received:
    3,569
    And that's when you get the striking arming the Ukraine in the GOP platform, right before the Russians release the DNC emails the Trumpies had been seeking since that Spring. There is your first publicly known quid pro quo.
     
    • Dislike Dislike x 1
    Last edited: Aug 5, 2018
  15. Raoul_Luke

    Raoul_Luke Mayor

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2017
    Messages:
    4,918
    Likes Received:
    824
    LOL! Arming Russia wasn't part of the OBAMA policy wrt Ukraine. That was a proposal by the neocons and it was not accepted. Characterizing it as "striking arming" of the Ukraine is, well, fake news...
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  16. Spamature

    Spamature President

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2011
    Messages:
    52,680
    Likes Received:
    3,569
    It's doesn't matter what hoops the GOP did to cover that up after the fact. It happened just like I posted. That's all that matters.
     
    • Disagree x 2
  17. Raoul_Luke

    Raoul_Luke Mayor

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2017
    Messages:
    4,918
    Likes Received:
    824
    Because, of course, the only thing that "matters" to you is hyping your propaganda. If arming Ukraine was such a great idea, why didn't Obama do it?
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  18. Spamature

    Spamature President

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2011
    Messages:
    52,680
    Likes Received:
    3,569
    It's not whether or not it was a big deal, or a great idea. What matters is it appears to be a quid quo pro with the Russians for that "dirt" they were seeking on Hillary. It is conspiracy in plain sight. Along with his public call to have the Russians hack Hillary and the Russians releasing the Podesta emails an hour after the Trump tape, his efforts to remove sanctions and prevent new sanction from being imposed, and his efforts to cover up their activities together, by calling it all a hoax at every single opportunity despite knowing what our intel people had informed him they found.
     
    • Disagree x 1
    Last edited: Aug 5, 2018
  19. Drumcollie

    Drumcollie Ending Racism with or without Hillary

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2012
    Messages:
    31,691
    Likes Received:
    6,180
    Your attached file asks: Who is the dumba**?

    The answer to that question is the person who had a ten point margin and lost.
     
  20. Drumcollie

    Drumcollie Ending Racism with or without Hillary

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2012
    Messages:
    31,691
    Likes Received:
    6,180
    Nothing has ever happened like you posted.
     

Share This Page