Donald Jr. in Big Trouble

[makattak]

I do have to say one thing. This is certainly the strongest evidence for collusion they've been able to uncover.

That says a lot more about the other "evidence" than this episode, though.

[HankB]

Hmmm . . .

If Donald Jr. testifies, he can say - on the record - that he thought maybe the Russian lawyer had evidence of a quid-pro-quo with the Clintons, with huge speaking fees for Bill and big donations to the Clinton foundation constituting bribes for the Clinton State Department's approval of the uranium deal . . . after all, with James Comey's FBI and the Holder/Lynch AG's office thoroughly subverted by the Obama/Clinton cabal, it's obvious NOTHING was going to happen through regular channels . . . 

[Perd Hapley]

No reasonable prosecutor would indict, of course. No intent, amirite?

[230RN]

Hmmm . . .

If Donald Jr. testifies, he can say - on the record - that he thought maybe the Russian lawyer had evidence of a quid-pro-quo with the Clintons, with huge speaking fees for Bill and big donations to the Clinton foundation constituting bribes for the Clinton State Department's approval of the uranium deal . . . after all, with James Comey's FBI and the Holder/Lynch AG's office thoroughly subverted by the Obama/Clinton cabal, it's obvious NOTHING was going to happen through regular channels . . . 

:D Like.

[Hawkmoon]

And it is now coming out that the woman was initially denied a visa, but was admitted to the U.S. by special permission granted by Loretta Lynch, for the specific purpose of assisting a Russian citizen who was being tried for something. Apparently she shouldn't even have been in the country at the time she met with The Donald II.

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/341788-exclusive-doj-let-russian-lawyer-into-us-before-she-met-with-trump

So, just another example of the Obama administration doing an end run around the laws at every opportunity. In other words, business as usual for the Obama team.

[230RN]

It may be happening sooner than I thought:

http://nypost.com/2017/07/11/death-panels-to-break-pink-slip-news-to-dozens-of-ny-times-copy-editors/

That article sounds like it was more financially-motivated than motivated by any truth-based principles.  We all know that circulation of the printed media is declining precipitously.

One little amusey, from the viewpoint of this old proofreader, was the sign carried by one of the protesters bearing proofmarks.

TErry

[Pb]

Ok- so is it illegal to try and get dirt on a political opponent from an employee of a foreign government?    

I can't see why it would be.  First Amendment and all that.

[TechMan]

Ok- so is it illegal to try and get dirt on a political opponent from an employee of a foreign government?    

I can't see why it would be.  First Amendment and all that.

[HankB]

Ok- so is it illegal to try and get dirt on a political opponent from an employee of a foreign government?    

I can't see why it would be.  First Amendment and all that.

One of the talking heads on Fox last night said that there is NO "collusion" crime on the books for politics, only for insider trading.

[AJ Dual]

The Left and the MSM still doesn't get it.

That 51% of the American voting public, give or take, HATES THEM. And regardless of whether or not they like Trump, he's going to be the easy default choice to give all of them the finger again in 2020. And like what happened in Wisconsin in 2010 with the huge backlash over busting the state .gov and teachers unions, the protests, the hippy drum-circles in the Capitol rotunda where they'd sneak off and crap in the corners... Walker won his recall election with more votes than his actual election, and won it by a larger margin. The WI Democrats and unionistas completely misread the situation and wound up cutting their own throats in the process and flipped the state red.

All the "Resistance" is accomplishing is the same thing nationally.

They could/should just go after Trump and the GOP on policy and economics 24/7, it would at minimum work better, actually slow/oppose Trump's policy role causing more moderates/RINO's in Congress to defect and go wishy-washy on various bills... however, they're kind of stuck on that basis too.

What exactly is the Left/MSM/DNC going to champion in this theoretical new policy attack?

- Raising taxes and killing economic recovery/jobs?
- Bitching about income inequality, which would mean raising taxes and killing economic recovery and jobs?
- Fighting for keeping Obama-era environmental regs, raising taxes and killing economic recovery and jobs?
- Fighting to keep Obamacare which raises taxes, has killed economic recovery for 6 years and threatens jobs?
- Fighting for a $15 minimum wage and threatening jobs?
- Fighting for transsexuals and cross-dressers to use the girl's bathroom and locker room?

So the handful of thoughtful Democrats, like the CA Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom who apparently has more than two neurons firing up there and is harping on how "Russiagate is a loser issue" for them, and that they should focus on policy debates... they still have a problem, because well... they are so screwed.

 

[Scout26]

One of the talking heads on Fox last night said that there is NO "collusion" crime on the books for politics, only for insider trading.

It is in two other places in the US Code:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/953

Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply, himself or his agent, to any foreign government or the agents thereof for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects.

 

I don't think they met to discuss the election(s) in Russia...

And,

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/201 

(a) For the purpose of this section—
(1) the term “public official” means Member of Congress, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner, either before or after such official has qualified, or an officer or employee or person acting for or on behalf of the United States, or any department, agency or branch of Government thereof, including the District of Columbia, in any official function, under or by authority of any such department, agency, or branch of Government, or a juror;
(2) the term “person who has been selected to be a public official” means any person who has been nominated or appointed to be a public official, or has been officially informed that such person will be so nominated or appointed; and
(3) the term “official act” means any decision or action on any question, matter, cause, suit, proceeding or controversy, which may at any time be pending, or which may by law be brought before any public official, in such official’s official capacity, or in such official’s place of trust or profit.
(b) Whoever—
(1) directly or indirectly, corruptly gives, offers or promises anything of value to any public official or person who has been selected to be a public official, or offers or promises any public official or any person who has been selected to be a public official to give anything of value to any other person or entity, with intent—
(A) to influence any official act; or
(B) to influence such public official or person who has been selected to be a public official to commit or aid in committing, or collude in, or allow, any fraud, or make opportunity for the commission of any fraud, on the United States; or
(C) to induce such public official or such person who has been selected to be a public official to do or omit to do any act in violation of the lawful duty of such official or person;
(2) being a public official or person selected to be a public official, directly or indirectly, corruptly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally or for any other person or entity, in return for:
(A) being influenced in the performance of any official act;
(B) being influenced to commit or aid in committing, or to collude in, or allow, any fraud, or make opportunity for the commission of any fraud, on the United States; or
(C) being induced to do or omit to do any act in violation of the official duty of such official or person

IANALNDIPOOTV but,

DJTJ was not a public official at the time of the meeting.  Nor, is it, last time I checked, was it illegal to meet with anyone from a foreign country.

[DittoHead]

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/341857-senate-panel-asking-trump-jr-to-testify-report

Jr. better get his story straight if he's going to testify under oath, otherwise he could be in actual legal trouble. Having already been caught in a couple lies, it might be best to stick the truth moving forward.

[Scout26]

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/341857-senate-panel-asking-trump-jr-to-testify-report

Jr. better get his story straight if he's going to testify under oath, otherwise he could be in actual legal trouble. Having already been caught in a couple lies, it might be best to stick the truth moving forward.

Yes, otherwise he'll be in contempt of Congress, just like Eric Holder...

[just Warren]

This guy makes the claim that meeting proves there was no collusion.

[DittoHead]

Yes, otherwise he'll be in contempt of Congress, just like Eric Holder...

If they subpoena him and he doesn't show up that would contempt of congress, right? I'm thinking perjury if he keeps changing his story.

This guy makes the claim that meeting proves there was no collusion.

Maybe he's just glossing over the Magnitsky Act stuff to focus on the (non) collusion or maybe there's sarcasm that isn't coming through, but if not this is a pretty poor understanding of the motivations of that Russian lawyer:

Veselnitskaya who seems to have a genuine concern for Russian orphans.

[Scout26]

If they subpoena him and he doesn't show up that would contempt of congress, right? I'm thinking perjury if he keeps changing his story.

He can just do a Hillary Clinton, and say "I don't recall"  or invoke the 5th like Loretta Lynch.  (Think about that the AG of the US invoking the 5th).

Maybe he's just glossing over the Magnitsky Act stuff to focus on the (non) collusion or maybe there's sarcasm that isn't coming through, but if not this is a pretty poor understanding of the motivations of that Russian lawyer:

Were the Clinton's smuggling or selling Russian Orphans into sex slavery or was she just lobbying to change the law ??

[RocketMan]

Yes, otherwise he'll be in contempt of Congress, just like Eric Holder...

I suspect Congress would put the screws to a Republican found in contempt, unlike what was done to Holder.  They do like to eat their own.
Plus, there are a lot of them that despise Trump and his family.

[Hawkmoon]

But meanwhile, the Vietnam-era anti-hero McCain was out chasing dirt on Trump from Russia during the primary season. Why isn't HE being investigated for "collusion"?

[DittoHead]

say "I don't recall"  or invoke the 5th 

Absolutely, that would be the smart option. So far he hasn't shown himself to be one to choose that.

Were the Clinton's smuggling or selling Russian Orphans into sex slavery or was she just lobbying to change the law ??

huh? I don't get the Clinton connection here, or what your talking about at all really. 

[Scout26]

huh? I don't get the Clinton connection here, or what your talking about at all really. 

Russian Lawyer claimed to have dirt on Clinton, goes into meeting and talks about the Magnitsky Act (which Russia responded to by banning the adoption of Russian Children by Americans), so would the "dirt" she would have would be that Russian orphans were being smuggled into the sex trade by the Clintons.  There are already lots of rumours swirling about Bill and Pedo island.

I guess I overreached.

[Perd Hapley]

Russian Lawyer claimed to have dirt on Clinton, goes into meeting and talks about the Magnitsky Act (which Russia responded to by banning the adoption of Russian Children by Americans), so would the "dirt" she would have would be that Russian orphans were being smuggled into the sex trade by the Clintons.  There are already lots of rumours swirling about Bill and Pedo island.

I guess I overreached.

I thought it was Podesta and Pizza Comet.

[just Warren]

The way I understood the article that I posted was that the Russian thought the meeting was about orphans and Jr. thought it was about Hillary. Both parties having been lied to by Goldstone.

[Hawkmoon]

Oh, and they had a talking head who said that if the Russians had approached her, when she was working for the Clinton campaign, that she'd have totally gone to the FBI over it.

Right. And Santa Claus, the Great Pumpkin, and the Easter Bunny are real.

[Hawkmoon]

The way I understood the article that I posted was that the Russian thought the meeting was about orphans and Jr. thought it was about Hillary. Both parties having been lied to by Goldstone.

That's pretty much the way I read it, too.

[DittoHead]

The way I understood the article that I posted was that the Russian thought the meeting was about orphans and Jr. thought it was about Hillary. Both parties having been lied to by Goldstone.

Goldstone certainly seems like a slimeball and I have no doubt he would lie but I just don't see his motivation for conning both parties into a meeting they're going to walk out of unhappy. I could definitely see Veselnitskaya lying about her connections and having info though. Her concern for Russian orphans is pretty laughable - it goes only as far as using them as leverage to get the Magnitsky Act repealed. If she really cared about them she wouldn't be lobbying our politicians she would be working in Russia.