POLITICS President Trump: 100+ Mornings After (Term 1 Complete)

If he knew about the meeting (before or after), and what was discussed there was the emails, and then "Russia, if you're listening..." bit occurred, then yes it happened.

 

Him crafting Jr.'s response, a completely false response, is a critical element here, too.

 

Then Mueller will report it and Trump Jr. will be prosecuted.

Otherwise; you guys are making up shit. Time will tell.

 

Which part did I make up?

 

Should be pretty self explanatory.

 

So you got nothing.

 

You made up this implication:

Someone setup a meeting with Trump Jr. telling him the person had dirt on Hillary. Later in a campaign rally Trump says Russia if you are listening I hope you find Hillary's missing emails.

What do you know about the Trump Tower meeting today that you didn't already know?

 

The narrative from Trump has changed. I think that is important and is the actual news. Not the events themselves.

 

I found this yesterday while browsing for something, and I thought "My god, how appropriate". After a little research, I cannot find who wrote it or when, but the earliest record I could find was in June of 2016, so I imagine it was written for our President who was the GOP nominee at the time. Take it for what it is, but I find it fits him wonderfully:

 

IP seemed to be implying that the events of yesterday was proof of collusion with Russia.

 

You are saying it isn't a crime to conspire to steal intellectual property?

What's changed is there used to be plausible denial. Now he admits the meeting was about clinton dirt and not adoptions as he originally lied.

 

Well, one happened and one didn’t, so who has nothing?

 

They're irrefutable evidence that he gave false statements about the meeting, and he now is admitting the reports as to the topic was indeed dirt on clinton. Coupled with what he has publicly said before, it is absolutely damning. I would say I guess you need him to stand beside putin and blame America for Russian actions before you'll get it, but even that wasn't enough apparently.

 

1) You mean he lied. Shit, stop the Presses; that is news.

2) Is "damning" the same as "criminal" as you have been implying?

 

Reporters get leads and meet with sources all the time.

 

Re: 2-

Do you disagree that intellectual property theft is a crime? I'll assume you don't disagree.

Do you disagree that conspiracy to commit a crime is illegal, or that what occurred could constitute a conspiracy?

 

Well, no shit? Is that how it works? And all this time I thought the president was right when he said they just make up fake news.

But of course, that’s not what you’re saying. You’re trying to compare something that hasn’t happened (a NYT reporter meeting with a foreign entity for the purpose of gaining information to use against an “opponent”) with something that has actually happened.

But let’s say, just for arguments sake, your “example” did happen. Do two wrongs make a right?

 

From what I understand the danger regarding illegalities of the meeting are:

1) campaign finance violation - did he solicit something of value in the meeting.

2) a conspiracy to defraud the United States.

I have heard no legal pundits say Trumps Tweet yesterday is proof of either.

 

Neither is wrong. Reporters dig for leads and talk to sources all the time. Politicians dig for dirt on their opponents all the time.

 

And if a reporter did plan with a 3rd party to steal specific intellectual property by identifying what would e most useful to them and requesting it, and the theft did occur and it was made available, did that reporter commit a crime?