world

Grand jury subpoenas issued in relation to Trump Jr's meeting with Russian lawyer

69 Comments
By Karen Freifeld and John Walcott

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© (c) Copyright Thomson Reuters 2017.

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.

69 Comments
Login to comment

Godspeed, Robert Mueller.

15 ( +15 / -0 )

First say there was no meeting, then there was one that was forgotten, finally subpoenas...

The Republican president has defended his son's behavior, saying many people would have taken that meeting.

This is probably the saddest part. Trying to get dirt on an opponent from a foreign country.

I wouldn't blame DT only here.

Elections are 10% policies and 90% character assasinations...

7 ( +7 / -0 )

I am glad to see Mueller is doing something. The faster the better and get this over with. I dislike Trump and see him as unfit, however regardless of that it is best to get this done and then move forward (whether Trump needs to go or not). Just not good for the U.S. to let this linger, and linger.....

15 ( +15 / -0 )

The night is still very green. What will happen? If Mueller continues to work on President Trump's financial records, there would be a political storm.

7 ( +7 / -0 )

Seems routine.

I am glad to see Mueller is doing something. The faster the better and get this over with. 

I agree.

I dislike Trump and see him as unfit, however regardless of that it is best to get this done and then move forward (whether Trump needs to go or not). Just not good for the U.S. to let this linger, and linger.....

While I respect your opinion, I think this has been a witch hunt from the start, that brings Mueller's team to what is it now 11 lawyers? Since they couldn't find any collusion on the Russian scam hunt, they decided to go with the charge of obstructionism which is a little easier to prove because you can define ANY wrongdoing as a possible obstruction act and going as far back as 30 years and having 7 of these lawyers being tied to heavy Democratic voting? Yeah, we all know what this is, but being what it is, you have to let it run its course.

-18 ( +1 / -19 )

President Pence.

Do you swear to uphold the constitution of the United States of America?

Not something to look forward to.

9 ( +9 / -0 )

While this is not totally unusual, it DOES mean that traction has been gained, evidence is mounting, and that he now can summon and subpoena whatever/whomever he wants. If this is accurate , this grand jury is SEPARATE from Flynn's and Manafort's.... BAD news trumstpers.

11 ( +12 / -1 )

While this is not totally unusual, it DOES mean that traction has been gained, evidence is mounting, and that he now can summon and subpoena whatever/whomever he wants. If this is accurate , this grand jury is SEPARATE from Flynn's and Manafort's.... BAD news trumstpers.

Hmmmm....let's say hypothetically, we are with the worst case scenario where Trump would have to step down, If Pence becomes president, that would be an even more frightening nightmare for the left because unlike Trump, Pence is a deep, deep hardcore conservative who would carry on most of Trump's agendas, so the left should be extremely careful what they wish for, because it really wouldn't change anything agenda wise. So the left shouldn't start snacking on their tofu burgers just yet.

-10 ( +2 / -12 )

Time to fire Mueller, he's lost the confidence of the President.

-17 ( +2 / -19 )

Oh this is going to be fun. Get a microscope into Trump's shady books. :)

11 ( +11 / -0 )

Bass4Funk: Since they couldn't find any collusion on the Russian scam hunt

I have no problem with them uncovering anything they find that might be illegal, do you?

having 7 of these lawyers being tied to heavy Democratic voting?

I actually get a kick out of this one. Lawyers are by and large Democrats by a wide margin. As you are from the bubble, you had no idea about this. That's why they created this talking point and handed it to you to repeat.

I think this has been a witch hunt from the start

Remember, you felt so certain that Hillary was going to be indicted. When she wasn't you went into shock and started making crazy statements about Obama ordering the FBI to let her go. You went from praising the FBI to full on conspiracy theorist in about 3 seconds. Let's avoid a repeat of that.

because unlike Trump, Pence is a deep, deep hardcore conservative who would carry on most of Trump's agendas

Pence is establishment. With an establishment GOP and Trump out of the picture, what incentive would he have for carrying on anything Trump wanted? Remember, you guys hate the establishment. Or so you say. I suspect that if they ever do get full control you'll be lining up to kiss their rears in no time. Just how you went from calling Trump fringe to worshiping the guy. If they are in power, you will fall in line.

10 ( +11 / -1 )

@Bass - Thanks for the reply above. I do understand we differ in our opinion of the President but your point is well taken in one respect. There has been massive speculation (which both political "sides" do) without hard evidence.

My feeling is that Mueller should go full speed ahead without delay. It is easy to speculate what he may find from an emotional point of view but the engineering mind in me wants to see facts and then action based on the facts.

Either way I hope this ends soon and if "bad stuff" is found then Trump may have to go. If not then move on and deal with other pressing issues.

What is bothersome to me, however, is that President Trump brought in family members. This seems contradictory to the way he ran his campaign ("drain the swamp"). In my mind this type of nepotism and cronyism (in the case of Pres. Trump; bringing in family) is part of what the "swamp" is.

6 ( +6 / -0 )

I have no problem with them uncovering anything they find that might be illegal, do you?

As long as it's within the confides and jurisdiction of the original intent of this so called investigation of Trump collusion, fine.

I actually get a kick out of this one. Lawyers are by and large Democrats by a wide margin. As you are from the bubble, you had no idea about this. That's why they created this talking point and handed it to you to repeat.

Sorry, not a chance homie. 6 of these lawyers contributed heavily to the Democratic party, you can believe that crap, I see what's going on. Where it the other way around, the left would lose their mind and rightfully so.

Remember, you felt so certain that Hillary was going to be indicted.

Remember when you thought Trump wasn't going to win?

When she wasn't you went into shock and started making crazy statements about Obama ordering the FBI to let her go. You went from praising the FBI to full on conspiracy theorist in about 3 seconds. Let's avoid a repeat of that.

Not shock, but knowing how Comey was, he was a darling for the right when he went after Hillary and her destroying her emails and smashing her hard drives and then when he did a turn around and didn't, he was then hated by the right, but then Comey went after Trump and the left loved him, but then he won and the left hated him and then the bombshell and then the left hated Comey again. The man is all over the place, played both sides and had Hillary won, she would have fired Comey as well. Comey was always the cancer for both parties.

Pence is establishment. With an establishment GOP and Trump out of the picture, what incentive would he have for carrying on anything Trump wanted?

Because he said so for over a year. and they both have a very close bond and as a true conservative, he wouldn't want to alienate the base. So yes, that's his strongest incentive, his voters.

Remember, you guys hate the establishment. Or so you say. I suspect that if they ever do get full control you'll be lining up to kiss their rears in no time. Just how you went from calling Trump fringe to worshiping the guy. If they are in power, you will fall in line.

I hate the establishment, but if that means in a hypothetical that Pence would ever become president, it's better than nothing. So I'd be ok with it. It ain't like the Dems would take over. ROFL

-11 ( +1 / -12 )

As long as it's within the confides and jurisdiction of the original intent of this so called investigation of Trump collusion, fine.

Like Bill Clinton being impeached for lying about oral sex in a real estate investigation? Or Hillary Clinton's unsecured sever was abut 4 people dying in Benghazi?

If that's what you mean by original intent, then I'm all for it.

I hate the establishment

If the time comes when they get into power, you will bend over and grab your ankles. That's what makes you a good Republican. In their eyes.

11 ( +12 / -1 )

Like Bill Clinton being impeached for lying about oral sex in a real estate investigation?

So you think the POTUS being a sexual predator and using the oval office as his bedroom is a small thing? Personally, I didn't care, the problem for me was, he perjured himself.

Or Hillary Clinton's unsecured sever was abut 4 people dying in Benghazi?

Why are we talking about her, she's not president and never will be. Move on....

If that's what you mean by original intent, then I'm all for it.

No, I mean original intent by the people that hate Trump so much, they would rather defy the political system and insert their own political authority to undermine a legally elected president, Mueller and the left need to proceed with extreme caution, this could have very bad ramifications down the road for the left as well.

If the time comes when they get into power, you will bend over and grab your ankles. That's what makes you a good Republican. In their eyes.

Hmmm, I'm not a Republican so I doubt it, but as a conservative, it's better to have the establishment run the country than having the Dems in again and from the looks of it, won't be anytime soon. So I'm good.

-12 ( +1 / -13 )

 It is easy to speculate what he may find from an emotional point of view but the engineering mind in me wants to see facts and then action based on the facts.

Very true, Tokyo, but from a legal point of view, that's putting the cart before the horse. The facts are slowly accumulated but withheld from the public - if a target turns out to be innocent, releasing innuendo would be unfair; if guilty, releasing evidence before indictment would be foolish.

The fact that Mueller has called a grand jury indicates that there is possibility of sufficient evidence to indict someone. Who, we will likely not know until the jury reaches a conclusion.

Also, no, Mueller is under no obligation to restrict his investigation to Russian interference in the election. He works for the FBI, and is thus essentially a cop, and when cops find evidence of incidental wrongdoing in the course of an investigation, they rightly follow up on it.

My guess is that they're following the money.

9 ( +9 / -0 )

So they are going after Jr. to be the obligatory perjury trap victim over something totally unrelated to what the investigation was about. Probably get him on some obscure real estate transaction in New York back in 2004. Gotta love it. I would ask for the Hillary deal - testify but not under oath.

Popcorn anyone?

-11 ( +0 / -11 )

bass4funkToday  08:00 am JST

Seems routine.

I mean, aside from the fact that the only other time in history it's ever happened to a sitting American President was with Clinton, yeah, totally routine. Two times is a routine now, because words don't have meaning when they are used with the intention of not communicating.

8 ( +9 / -1 )

@bass

7 of these lawyers being tied to heavy Democratic voting

Both Mueller and Comey are Republicans. Strange, never seen you mention that fact.

So you think the POTUS being a sexual predator and using the oval office as his bedroom is a small thing?

This, from someone who supports Trump is just a tad bit too ironic. I am gonna need to go puke a bit.

The red capes are coming! The red capes are coming!

7 ( +9 / -2 )

"Most people know there were no Russians in our campaign. ... We didn't win because of Russia. We won because of you."

There it is again. Trump just doesn't get it. He cares more about not letting anyone ruin his ego trip than justice, rule of law, or the integrity of America's democratic institutions. What a despicable fool.

Why anyone would admire this man, no less attend one of his rallies, is truly bizarre.

10 ( +11 / -1 )

I mean, aside from the fact that the only other time in history it's ever happened to a sitting American President was with Clinton, yeah, totally routine. Two times is a routine now, because words don't have meaning when they are used with the intention of not communicating.

I see, so you think it's tit for tat and it's perfectly ok? For me it was more a principle of ethicsRemember, what the left is doing would come to haunt them in the future, for all the education they barg to have, they're not the smartest people on the planet. The vitriol and hatred that both sides have for each other will in no time ultimately destroy the country.

-10 ( +2 / -12 )

bass4funkToday  01:05 pm JST

I see, so you think it's tit for tat and it's perfectly ok?

That has literally zero bearing on my post. I said nothing about anything related to tit-for-tat-ness. I said nothing about if anything was or was not "perfectly ok". Your comment would have been just as relevant to what I posted if you had instead chosen a random page from the phone book and read it to me as if it were a Bible.

But I suppose we live now in a world where words have no meaning, people talk for reasons other than to communicate. So go ahead, give me a sermon from the Book of Phone.

8 ( +10 / -2 )

The vitriol and hatred that both sides have for each other will in no time ultimately destroy the country

And yet you celebrate Trump's attempts to divide, rail incessantly against libs and dems, defend the divisiveness of the Punch and Judy media ( correction: defend the side of the Punch and Judy media you agree with ), divide the US into the liberal unicornverses and 'the people'.....I could go on.

If this will destroy the country, why do you so enjoy being part of the problem?

5 ( +7 / -2 )

That has literally zero bearing on my post.

I wouldn't expect anything less.

I said nothing about anything related to tit-for-tat-ness. I said nothing about if anything was or was not "perfectly ok". Your comment would have been just as relevant to what I posted if you had instead chosen a random page from the phone book and read it to me as if it were a Bible.

Yeah, sure.

But I suppose we live now in a world where words have no meaning, people talk for reasons other than to communicate. So go ahead, give me a sermon from the Book of Phone.

You are right and if the left would just heed your words, I think they might be able to win a few elections and maybe get back to doing what they used to do a very long time ago and that's working for the people.

And yet you celebrate Trump's attempts to divide,

Are you serious??? It's the left that's on a political jihad. Oh, dear lord......lol!

rail incessantly against libs and dems, defend the divisiveness of the Punch and Judy media ( correction: defend the side of the Punch and Judy media you agree with ), divide the US into the liberal unicornverses and 'the people'.....I could go on. 

If this will destroy the country, why do you so enjoy being part of the problem?

You got that flipped, homie. The lefts the problem, has been for the last 25 years.

-10 ( +1 / -11 )

Are you serious??? It's the left that's on a political jihad. Oh, dear lord......lol!

Okay, let's grant you that.

Now why do you you celebrate Trump's attempts to divide, rail incessantly against libs and dems, defend the divisiveness of the Punch and Judy media ( correction: defend the side of the Punch and Judy media you agree with ), and divide the US into the liberal unicornverses and 'the people'.

Let's also grant you the left have been seeking to divide.

Now are you going to tell us why you really enjoy being part of the problem?

7 ( +7 / -0 )

Time to fire Mueller, he's lost the confidence of the President.

Yes, please! Ah, if only Trump were that foolish.

6 ( +6 / -0 )

Now why do you you celebrate Trump's attempts to divide,

You should be asking, why are liberals so out of touch with the people, how is it that the Democrats are eager to tear up the constitution and obstruct the political process and undermine the president, they could try and win elections and put ideas and initiatives forward, but they can't and they haven't, so the only thing the left can do is whine, moan and cry and hope that Mueller can find something, anything on the president.

And you ask ME Trump is the divider? Sorry, tell that to the party that lost its way and still wandering with the deers and squirrels in the forest.

Let's also grant you the left have been seeking to divide. 

Now are you going to tell us why you really enjoy being part of the problem?

Excuse me, but I never voted for the critters in the forest, so that question would not apply to me.

-8 ( +0 / -8 )

One of the sources said major Russian efforts to interfere in the election on Trump’s behalf began shortly after the June meeting, making it a focus of Mueller’s investigation.

Since the Russian lawyer Jr. met with turned out to have been an advocate for changes in Russian adoptions and nothing more, with no information on Hillary Clinton whatsoever, what exactly are they going to dredge up from Jr.'s meeting?

-6 ( +0 / -6 )

why are liberals so out of touch with the people

By the people, do you mean the minority of voters who voted for Trump or the clansmen and neonazis who backed Trump?

, how is it that the Democrats are eager to tear up the constitution

Democrats are eager to tear up the constitution? Hrrr? Example please.

and obstruct the political process and undermine the president

Ah, like not giving Garland an up or down vote? Like stating, 'our goal is to make Obama a one term president?' Is that what you mean by undermining the president, cuz I sure as hell don't see how they can obstruct the political process considering Repubs control both houses and the whitehouse. Cry me a river.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Since the Russian lawyer Jr. met with turned out to have been an advocate for changes in Russian adoptions and nothing more, with no information on Hillary Clinton whatsoever, what exactly are they going to dredge up from Jr.'s meeting?

Not according to Fox News:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/07/12/magnitsky-act-explained-trump-jr-says-law-was-at-center-meeting-with-russian-lawyer.html

3 ( +3 / -0 )

By the people, do you mean the minority of voters who voted for Trump or the clansmen and neonazis who backed Trump?

Yes and the left had and worshipped a former Klansman that became a Democratic senator that served for years in congress, what's your point? Anyway, if what you say is true, the Dems should have cleaned house because as you say, they are the minority, therefore, the majority should have overturned this easily, they didn't, in fact, they keep losing, lost the last 5 elections and now the WV governor ran as fast as he could from the Democratic Party and became a Republican, that's now.....what is it 34 GOP governors throughout the country. Lost 1000 legislative seats and you call that win a minority? Dunno....Seems to me the majority are doing very bad.

Democrats are eager to tear up the constitution? Hrrr? Example please.

Mueller exceeding his basic authority of what he was initially hired to do and that is to investigate if there was any collusion going on between Trump or his staff with the Russians and not span out into his financial and business dealings and having eight of these investigators being former Democratic voters, we all know what's going on. I don't care what or how you call it, it's a witch hunt pure and simple.

Ah, like not giving Garland an up or down vote?

Yes, why would the GOP appoint someone on the bench that has a history of ruling left. They wanted a Scalia, NOT another Roberts. Their right, their calland the Dems would do the exact same thing were they in power and both Biden and Shumer in the past refused to hold hearings on Bush appointees as well, so I have no idea what the complaint is.

Like stating, 'our goal is to make Obama a one term president?'

Both parties do it, but you don't see the right smashing cars or rioting, they just buy their time, wait and plan, they have protests, but they don't get outrageously violent.

Is that what you mean by undermining the president, cuz I sure as hell don't see how they can obstruct the political process considering Repubs control both houses and the whitehouse. Cry me a river.

Let's see, they have the MSM, Mueller, Obama hold overs in The WH, loose canon Democrats, that is MORE than enough, now if they could only channel that anger into a winnable election with a real message they might reach popularity they once had a long time ago.

-6 ( +0 / -6 )

what's your point?

My point, Bassy, is that Trump is NOT the people's choice The EC got Donny elected, not the people. So, Donny's devotees don't get to claim they are the voice of America. They are not.

Yes, why would the GOP appoint someone on the bench that has a history of ruling left. They wanted a Scalia, NOT another Roberts. 

It doesn't matter what crybaby Repubs wanted. Constitutionally, it wasn't their right to pick. Stolen bench seat. Now what were you,saying about dem obstruction?

Both parties do it,

What is it? Refuse to give a scotus nominee a vote?

loose canon Democrats,

Hilarious coming for a Donny fanboy. Lol

Mueller exceeding his basic authority of what he was initially hired to do and that is to investigate if there was any collusion going on between Trump or his staff with the Russians and not span out into his financial and business dealings

Prove it. Mueller has authority to look into any and all crimes that may relate to the 2016 elections. Mueller wouldn't be investigating if Donny didn't fire Comey. Trump is such a crybaby.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

"Not according to Fox News"

What did I say?

"Since the Russian lawyer Jr. met with turned out to have been an advocate for changes in Russian adoptions and nothing more, with no information on Hillary Clinton whatsoever, what exactly are they going to dredge up from Jr.'s meting?"

What does your article say?

"The president's oldest son has denied that the lawyer, Natalia Veselnitskaya, divulged any information about Clinton during their 2016 meeting. She did, however, want to discuss the Russian adoption ban and the Magnitsky Act – enacted by the Obama administration in 2012.

While Veselnitskaya was supposed to have information on Clinton, she actually wanted to discuss the Magnitsky Act and the Russian adoption ban, Trump Jr. said. He added that he told her the conversation should wait until “if and when [his father] held public office.”

So I'll ask again.....since the topic of discussion was adoptions, what do you expect to be found regarding the election?

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

Mueller should investigate Trump's claims of molesting women, too.

6 ( +6 / -0 )

@Bass

I have no idea what you are trying to say. You point out how and divisive vitriol is coming from both sides to the detriment of the country, and when I point out that you do it, you go on a rant about the libs, left and dems.

If you are not going to address this, just copy and paste what I posted and write 'Hmmm....ROFL' underneath.

I'll understand.

7 ( +7 / -0 )

Since the Russian lawyer Jr. met with turned out to have been an advocate for changes in Russian adoptions and nothing more,  . . . What did I say?

I suggest that you read the article again. The first paragraph clearly states: "Instead, she just wanted to talk about the Magnitsky Act, Trump Jr. said."

Now, that is not what you claimed, is it? You claimed that she just wanted to talk about the adoption issue, which was not true but you somehow believe it despite it being right in the first paragraph of the article.

So I'll ask again.....since the topic of discussion was adoptions, what do you expect to be found regarding the election?

The topic was not "just adoptions," but rather the possible lifting of sanctions that were put on Russia by the Magnitsky Act in exchange for possible campaign information on Clinton. If this is actually proven, then Don Jr. could be spending some quality time in the "Gray Bar Hotel."

I am not expecting anything, but I am sick and tired of you Trump supporters claiming that there is "nothing to be found," "is a witch hunt," and other attempts at discrediting the many investigations tied into this matter before the investigations have run their courses and the results are made public.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

President Pence. Do you swear to uphold the constitution of the United States of America? while its not much of an improvement , its still an improvement.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

You should be asking, why are liberals so out of touch with the people, but theyre not out of touch with the people, more of the American people support the Democrats than Trump. In the words of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro just this week, "In the United States it's possible to become president with 3 million votes less than your opponent. What a tremendous democracy!" lol brutal.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Time to fire Mueller, he's lost the confidence of the President.

@Burning Bush, It's not the confidence of the president he's supposed to maintain.  You obviously don't understand how making sure the US government maintains balance of power so that NO specific legislative branch of our government controls TOO MUCH POWER.   The president is responsible to uphold the confidence of the PEOPLE, and Mueller was put in charge of making sure that we can feel confident in our POTUS and government. 

Sorry BB, but we're still not a banana republic yet with a crackpot dictator, because your statement obviously points out that it's what you're used in your country.

Just going to have to wait and see what the results of the investigation will be.  "Innocent until PROVEN guilty", but the way Trump has been doing things him and his family/cronies keep making themselves look guilty as f***.

6 ( +6 / -0 )

My point, Bassy, is that Trump is NOT the people's choice The EC got Donny elected

Yes and that's our system and that's all that matters, so if the Dems try harder, maybe in the future they can win a few elections, good luck.

It doesn't matter what crybaby Repubs wanted.

Yes, it does, they have the absolute right, just as the Dems had the right not to hold hearings on any GOP nominee and Biden and Schumer did, so the GOP can do the same-period.

Constitutionally, it wasn't their right to pick. Stolen bench seat. Now what were you,saying about dem obstruction?

There is nothing in the constitution that says they don't have the right, come on now...lol

Prove it. Mueller has authority to look into any and all crimes that may relate to the 2016 elections. Mueller wouldn't be investigating if Donny didn't fire Comey. Trump is such a crybaby.

Mueller does not have the authority to go snooping around without probable clarification for that search. I could care less what the left thinks or try to whisper in the ears of the naive, this is a witch hunt and Mueller and his Democratic donor cronies are trying to bring this president down, just save the BS talk that the left care about possible collusion which that theory has been blown out of the water so many times.

I have no idea what you are trying to say. You point out how and divisive vitriol is coming from both sides to the detriment of the country, and when I point out that you do it, you go on a rant about the libs, left and dems. 

Yes and I don't expect the left to understand, that's why they can't win anything, they don't understand. Sad.

If you are not going to address this, just copy and paste what I posted and write 'Hmmm....ROFL' underneath. 

Naw, I'll let the left do that, I ain't that good at it.

-6 ( +0 / -6 )

garymalmgrenToday 08:06 am JSTPresident Pence.

Do you swear to uphold the constitution of the United States of America?

Not something to look forward to.

Far far better than what we're stuck with now.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

I am not expecting anything, but I am sick and tired of you Trump supporters claiming that there is "nothing to be found," "is a witch hunt,"

8 of these lawyers have deep ties to the Democrat party and are heavy Democratic voters. I'm sick and tired of the left thinking that millions of Americans are a bunch of fools, there is no way this is not a witch hunt.

and other attempts at discrediting the many investigations tied into this matter before the investigations have run their courses and the results are made public

I vehemently discredit it, but we shall see, but I know if the roles were reversed and the majority of lawyers investigating were GOP lawyers investigating a Democratic president, the left would be beyond unhinged.

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

8 of these lawyers have deep ties to the Democrat party and are heavy Democratic voters.

Have a look at this article then.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2017/07/24/if-donations-to-democrats-mean-youre-anti-trump-the-white-house-is-in-very-deep-trouble/?utm_term=.5ba8ab124e5a

I'm sick and tired of the left thinking that millions of Americans are a bunch of fools, there is no way this is not a witch hunt.

Says you and the talking points from the right. Why don't we just wait and see how much of a "witch hunt" this really is, especially now that Mueller has just convened a Grand Jury.

I know if the roles were reversed and the majority of lawyers investigating were GOP lawyers investigating a Democratic president, the left would be beyond unhinged.

Nope, the left put up with it for the past 8 years. They're quite used to it by now.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Donations? The Dems get donations for years and Hillary had more money, more backing from the biggest and wealthiest liberal donors from across the US and it still didn't help her and with all the donations, doesn't translate to winning elections, the last 5 Dems poured millions and still lost. Being belligerent, hostile and not having any message won't get the Democrats out of the wilderness and into the WH, no way.

Says you and the talking points from the right. Why don't we just wait and see how much of a "witch hunt" this really is, especially now that Mueller has just convened a Grand Jury.

ROFL! Yeah, let's wait and see what Mueller and his Democratic posse donors will do. It should be interesting.

Nope, the left put up with it for the past 8 years. They're quite used to it by now.

Yes, they would, without a doubt. If they get mad that FNC reports something negative about the previous president, they would definitely come unglued if the roles were reversed and we had a Democratic president.

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

Donations? The Dems get donations for years and Hillary had more money, more backing from the biggest and wealthiest liberal donors from across the US and it still didn't help her and with all the donations, doesn't translate to winning elections, the last 5 Dems poured millions and still lost. Being belligerent, hostile and not having any message won't get the Democrats out of the wilderness and into the WH, no way.

Non-sequitor. You claim that the lawyers on Mueller's team are biased and should be disqualified because they made donations to the Democrats, yet I showed you an article from The Washington Post about how that isn't really a reason since many of the members of the Trump team (including Trump himself) have made donations, yet you have no problem with them being on his staff. Worse, you go off on an off-topic rant about winning elections, Democrats being out in the wilderness, ad nauseam without addressing any of the points in the article or how your argument is better.

ROFL!

If mocking my post is how you are going to respond instead of simply disagreeing, then please do not bother replying to anything else that I post here. You need to respect the opinions of others without using juvenile retorts. I shouldn't have to tell an experienced journalist this simple rule of decorum.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Non-sequitor. You claim that the lawyers on Mueller's team are biased and should be disqualified because they made donations to the Democrats,

Yes.

yet I showed you an article from The Washington Post about how that isn't really a reason since many of the members of the Trump team (including Trump himself) have made donations,

8 of them heavy Democratic voters, one of them was involved in the Enron case and another represented Hillary and another in the Watergate case, so I could care less what the libs try to force feed the sheep, I know this business and I'm not fooled for a moment. Again, were it the other way around, the Dems would have a meltdown.

yet you have no problem with them being on his staff. Worse, you go off on an off-topic rant about winning elections,

Tell the other libs the same thing please.

Democrats being out in the wilderness, ad nauseam without addressing any of the points in the article or how your argument is better

Its true and I did and right back at you.

Also, you guys put forth only one pov, so excuse me for not wanting to hear the left side of pure condemnation, doom and gloom. There are two sides to every story.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

8 of them heavy Democratic voters, one of them was involved in the Enron case and another represented Hillary and another in the Watergate case, so I could care less what the libs try to force feed the sheep, I know this business and I'm not fooled for a moment. Again, were it the other way around, the Dems would have a meltdown.

This still does not address the points made in the Washington Post article about many of Trump's staff members also being donors, being involved with Democrats, not to mention one of Trump's own lawyers now also was involved with the Watergate case, so once again, do you care to address those points or are they only convenient to talk about when they concern Democrats?

Tell the other libs the same thing please.

Nobody on this board talks about "winning elections" in an attempt at making a counter-argument except for you. I challenge you to name one poster here who does this in respect to Republicans.

Its true and I did and right back at you . . .

No, it's not, and no, you did not make any comment related to what I was talking about. Going off on an off-topic rant is not addressing points previously made in relation to the Washington Post article or the current Mueller investigation.

There are two sides to every story.

You only seem to be interested in one and do everything you can to disclaim the other.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

The noose is being placed around the neck. Doncha just LOVE IT!

3 ( +4 / -1 )

This still does not address the points made in the Washington Post article about many of Trump's staff members also being donors,

But this is different, these lawyers hate Trump, have an axe to grind, so I'm not buying it. But they want to continue this witch hunt, let Mueller and his Democratic cronies go ahead. Lol

Nobody on this board talks about "winning elections"

No, they talk about Hillary and the popular vote, (which is winning) which doesn't matter in our system,

.No, it's not, and no, you did not make any comment related to what I was talking about.

Yes, there are always two sides to every story, now if you live in a fascist regime, then one side is only important.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

But this is different, these lawyers hate Trump, have an axe to grind . . .

Really? You know these lawyers? Have you heard anything that they have said or have done that would support this accusation that you just made? If so, how about some links to credible sources so that I can verify these very serious charges, because if you are right, then these things must be relayed to the proper authorities and news outlets so that the truth gets out and everyone knows.

No, they talk about Hillary and the popular vote, (which is winning) which doesn't matter in our system,

Not quite the same thing as what you do. Most people point out (and rightly so), that Trump did not win the popular vote (a fact supported by actual numbers and real evidence), and therefore, cannot say that he was the people's choice or that he got some kind of mandate from the masses as some kind of validation for him becoming the President whenever Trump supporters bring up the point that they "won." Nfijapan's quotation hit the nail right on the head: "In the United States it's possible to become president with 3 million votes less than your opponent. What a tremendous democracy!"  Believe me, if the shoe were on the other foot, and Hillary had won the Electoral College but not the popular vote, you and the rest of the Republicans would have been screaming for the Electoral College to be eliminated.

Yes, there are always two sides to every story, now if you live in a fascist regime, then one side is only important.

So, by doing everything that you can to discredit and disavow the other side of the story, are you not then doing the very thing that you warn against? If you wish to have "both sides of the story" heard, then let the investigations continue without any obstructions, wait for the results to be made public, and then let the public (not you, me, or anyone else) decide which side of the story they believe. Trump and his people will get a chance to tell their side of the story (whether that is in a court of law, in front of a congressional committee, or some other venue), but trying to end this investigation (through obstruction of justice or other means) before it has a chance to be completed (unimpeded) will only make matters worse.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Sounds like Trump and his fans are worried Trump will be removed, so they are creating fake news about Mueller's team to create bias against them. That should allow them to discredit any of Mueller's findings if Trump goes down.

From there it will be a bunch of white people claiming whites are victimized in America, and Trump will have some new hats made and will make a killing.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

From there it will be a bunch of white people claiming whites are victimized in America, and Trump will have some new hats made and will make a killing.

He's already doing it by making moves on legal (that's right, legal) immigration:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/08/02/its-a-grave-mistake-for-trump-to-cut-legal-immigration-in-half/?utm_term=.e51760215dc3

He needs a distraction from the Mueller investigation, so throwing his base the old "immigrants are the source of our problems" bone might just do the trick.

One other thing: his recent moves on affirmative action and the transgender bans in the military also signify attempts to distract from his problems and placate the base should things continue to go south for him as Mueller's investigation turns up the heat.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Most people here seem to be confusing the difference between a criminal grand jury and a special prosecutor appointed grand jury, and there are several key differences people need to understand.

1) To convene a criminal grand jury, a prosecutor needs to have evidence of criminal activity already gathered to present to the jurors. A special investigation doesn't need any evidence in its possession to convene a grand jury.

2) Under a criminal investigation a judge must issue the search warrants after being presented with the where and what specifically is being searched for. A special prosecutor can ask a grand jury to issue very broad warrants without specific evidence they hope to find, and the warrant has very few limits other than naming the target without having to deal with the restraints of a judge issued warrant.

3) Under a criminal grand jury, a prosecutor cannot compel a defendant or witness to testify without that person having an attorney present if they wish. A special prosecutor can compel someone to testify without the presence of an attorney.

4) In both situations, a person cannot be convicted by a grand jury. The grand jury in the end can only recommend that a case can move forward to trial. If a prosecutor doesn't agree/like the recommendation they can choose to ignore it.

There have been roughly 35 special prosecutors since the first one appointed in 1875. I usually don't like the idea of a special prosecutor. Unless the scope of the investigation is limited narrowly in scope, there is too much room for abuse of powers available and potential for violations of Fourth and Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights. Even if someone is found guilty of something, there exists a possibility the evidence will be considered tainted and either tossed out at trial or decision reversed on appeal. Special prosecutor investigations usually appear politically motivated compared to a true law enforcement investigation.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Heh, and the Secret Service now live in a trailor beneath Trump tower because they're baulking at paying his crazy rent....

Talk about pooping in yer boots. Won't be long now before screaming orange grandpa checks out .

What are the odds on president Pence controversially pardoning Trump today again ?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Most people here seem to be confusing the difference between a criminal grand jury and a special prosecutor appointed grand jury, and there are several key differences people need to understand.

Thank you for your excellent post.

But I think a quick peruse of the posts in this thread should make it pretty obvious that the majority of posters here really don't demonstrate a clear "need to understand" anything that fails to support their personal narrative.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Really? You know these lawyers? 

I don't need to know the lawyers, I'm from California the "I'll sue you over everything"State. Mueller and his gang of Democratic donors are working feverishly to find something on Trump.

No, they talk about Hillary and the popular vote, (which is winning) which doesn't matter in our system,

But our system is the EC system,Trump won it and that's it. 

So, by doing everything that you can to discredit and disavow the other side of the story, are you not then doing the very thing that you warn against? 

Mueller already discredited himself when he decided and knew he can't find any collusion between Trump and the Russians, so he has to expand his investigation by going off the rails and tap into Trump's financial business matters.

Sounds like Trump and his fans are worried Trump will be removed, so they are creating fake news about Mueller's team to create bias against them.

Yup! You can believe it. I and millions of Americans see that this witch hunt is nothing but a farce.

That should allow them to discredit any of Mueller's findings if Trump goes down.

From there it will be a bunch of white people claiming whites are victimized in America, and Trump will have some new hats made and will make a killing.

I was waiting to see when we're going to throw in the trusty race card argument into this debate. But I hope the Dems keep at it, they don't deserve to get elected to anything except the gates of a junk yard.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

 I don't need to know the lawyers, I'm from California the "I'll sue you over everything"State. 

1) These lawyers hate Trump.

2) I have never actually heard their opinion, but I know what they think anyway because I'm from California.

3) California has a lot of litigation.

In the absence of any logical connection between the parts, your entire argument is the old favourite, "I'm from California", your Swiss Army knife of debating tools. As used above, it is an example of an "argument from authority" fallacy.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

I don't need to know the lawyers, I'm from California the "I'll sue you over everything"State. Mueller and his gang of Democratic donors are working feverishly to find something on Trump.

So, once again, you make an accusation but then fail to prove it once challenged. Where you are from hardly qualifies as proof for your claim that the lawyers are "out to get Trump, have an axe to grind, etc." So, let's try this again, what actual evidence do you have?

Mueller already discredited himself when he decided and knew he can't find any collusion between Trump and the Russians, so he has to expand his investigation by going off the rails and tap into Trump's financial business matters.

Nope, we've been over many of these points before, but you keep repeating the same old worn out reasoning. Mueller is only "discredited" with the pro-Trump crowd who rely on right-wing talking points but no actual substance. Trump's financial records and business matters are relevant since it appears that there is a money trail which connects him to all of this Russia business. However, that won't matter to you since "you haven't seen any proof yet" despite the fact that the investigation is ongoing and the results haven't come in. How many times do we need to go over this with you?

Yup! You can believe it. I and millions of Americans see that this witch hunt is nothing but a farce.

Yup, and millions more Americans would like to see the truth come out by having the investigations run their courses despite all of the howling on the right. If there is nothing to find, then you have nothing to worry about.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

So, once again, you make an accusation but then fail to prove it once challenged.

I didn't fail at anything. I'm just not an idiot to believe that this investigation is just and fair.

Where you are from hardly qualifies as proof for your claim that the lawyers are "out to get Trump, have an axe to grind, etc." So, let's try this again, what actual evidence do you have?

Ok, you can believe that, but I have a different belief and with all the elements in place, I have never seen a witch hunt as twisted and partisan as this one. Even when I was at NBC during the Clinton/Lewinsky mess, it wasn't this bad.

Nope, we've been over many of these points before, but you keep repeating the same old worn out reasoning.

Yes, he did, he fully discredited himself as being fair and impartial. Lol

What a joke!

Mueller is only "discredited" with the pro-Trump crowd who rely on right-wing talking points but no actual substance.

Not only with the pro-Trump people, even sensible libs that don't have an axe to grind and don't so much care for this president think this is a witch hunt. Mueller overstepped his authority, we all can see this. laughable from possible collusion which got debunked even his enemies, so now let's go deeper and look for something to pin on this guy.

Astounding! Fascism in its purest form.

Yup, and millions more Americans would like to see the truth come out by having the investigations run their courses despite all of the howling on the right. If there is nothing to find, then you have nothing to worry about.

Hmmmm.....well, it doesn't matter, it's not like the Dems would be magically propelled back to power, because that would mean elections would have to be won, so it looks like the Democrats should put up those tents. Watch out for them elephants. ROFL

This thought has crossed my mind as well. Engaging in "discourse" with certain members of the press is like shooting fish in a barrel, except that they're zombie fish and keep coming back for more.

Funny, I was thinking the exact same thing! Deja Vu! Yeah, I guess we all feel the same about one another. At least we three can all agree on that point

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

I didn't fail at anything. 

You most certainly did. You accused the lawyers who are working with Mueller on this investigation of being "out to get Trump," and "have an axe to grind." I then asked you for concrete proof, which you could not provide. I'd say that qualifies as having failed to show any evidence supporting your assertion--no links to articles, no quotations, no videos--nothing, zip, nada--just empty rhetoric.

I'm just not an idiot to believe that this investigation is just and fair

And so far, you've given no proof that it isn't.

I have never seen a witch hunt as twisted and partisan as this one.

Oh, yes you have. Especially over the last two years. All of the Benghazi hearings and the Clinton e-mail investigations came up empty and ended up being very expensive Republican witch hunts not to mention a complete waste of time.

Yes, he did, he fully discredited himself as being fair and impartial. Lol

Wrong again, but you can laugh at your screen all you like. It still does not prove your accusation.

Mueller overstepped his authority, we all can see this. laughable from possible collusion which got debunked even his enemies, so now let's go deeper and look for something to pin on this guy.

Another swing and a miss. How can something be debunked if the investigation hasn't even concluded yet?

  . . . because that would mean elections would have to be won, so it looks like the Democrats should put up those tents. Watch out for them elephants. ROFL

Another non sequitur ending with the juvenile retort. You keep doing this when you have absolutely no logical defense to offer.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

You most certainly did.

No, not at all.

You accused the lawyers who are working with Mueller on this investigation of being "out to get Trump," and "have an axe to grind."

Yup, that's correct.

And so far, you've given no proof that it isn't.

Don't need any to form an opinion. I believe it is.

Oh, yes you have. Especially over the last two years. All of the Benghazi hearings and the Clinton e-mail investigations came up empty and ended up being very expensive Republican witch hunts not to mention a complete waste of time.

Was she the sitting president? Apples and Grapefruit arguments.

Has nothing to do with anything, she's irrelevant and has nothing to do with Mueller losing credibility as an honest agent, quite the contrary.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

@Bass:

It's obvious that you have no desire to back up yet another statement that you made and are now deflecting since you painted yourself into a corner. So be it. We can all see that you have nothing.

Don't need any to form an opinion.

Yes, but you do when you make an accusation.

Was she the sitting president? Apples and Grapefruit arguments.

Has nothing to do with anything, she's irrelevant and has nothing to do with Mueller losing credibility as an honest agent, quite the contrary.

Yet you constantly bring her up as well as the past Democratic administrations. You have given no proof that Mueller has lost any credibility except to regurgitate all of the same talking points that can be found at Breitbart, Fox, and other right-wing media sites. Again, you offer nothing but bluster and and empty rhetoric.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

He fully discredited himself as being fair and impartial. Lol

Well he's still there, doing exactly what he was appointed to do. The only real threat to that is Trump himself, who is desperately looking for ways to remove Mueller.

We've been faced with the possibility, fuelled by Trump's own Twitter campaign, that Trump is going to fire Sessions to clear the way for being able to bring in someone who in turn would fire Mueller - so a firing to procure a firing of someone that (in effect) replaced someone who Trump fired. Trump really is like one of those deluded people who uses his credit cards to pay off his credit cards. It can be done, and no doubt you'd cheer such a move, but it does nothing to clean the slate.

As to this being the most "twisted and partisan witch hunt" you've ever seen, there are two bipartisan (look the word up) bills being introduced now to prevent the firing of Mueller. Additionally, to prevent the president from firing Jeff Sessions, which could lead to the removal of Mueller, Senate will be in pro forma session every three days during the recess. This move required the agreement of every senator.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

The topic was not "just adoptions," but rather the possible lifting of sanctions that were put on Russia by the Magnitsky Act in exchange for possible campaign information on Clinton. If this is actually proven, then Don Jr. could be spending some quality time in the "Gray Bar Hotel."

Yes, you're right...it was about the sanctions, as well as adoption. An early article on this issue described her as an adoption advocate, who wants the act overturned so that adoptions can begin again, as Putin put a halt to all adoptions that were in progress in retribution for the sanctions. I should have written in much greater detail. HOWEVER, given that the attorney said right up front that she had NO information on Clinton, again, tell me what revelations about the election you expect from a meeting that didn't discuss it at all.

I am not expecting anything, but I am sick and tired of you Trump supporters claiming that there is "nothing to be found," "is a witch hunt," and other attempts at discrediting the many investigations tied into this matter before the investigations have run their courses and the results are made public.

Not a Trump supporter, I am simply anti-bullshit. I'm slightly right of center and am not a Republican.

Let me get this straight.....you're tired of people discrediting the investigations before they're completed? There are plenty of people sick of libs' declaring everyone guilty of treason 'before the investigations have run their courses and the results are made public', to quote you. According to all you armchair lawywers, the guilty verdicts are already in. You haven a leg to stand on regarding jumping the gun about investigation results, you're just doing it to the opposite conclusion.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

HOWEVER, given that the attorney said right up front that she had NO information on Clinton, again, tell me what revelations about the election you expect from a meeting that didn't discuss it at all.

As I have clearly stated before, I have no expectations. As far as the contents of the meeting are concerned, no one can really say for sure what was discussed since the story keeps changing all of the time. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if it changed some more after the people involved get to testify under oath in front of a Grand Jury or congressional committee. Therefore, I am going to wait until Mueller's investigations conclude before coming to any determinations about what or what did or did not happen during that meeting and the other related matters. I am certainly not going to go online and complain about the investigation or try to discredit it prior to all of the facts coming out.

Let me get this straight.....you're tired of people discrediting the investigations before they're completed?

That's been clearly stated several times. 

You haven a leg to stand on regarding jumping the gun about investigation results, you're just doing it to the opposite conclusion.

No, I have not come to any conclusions, and I challenge you to point out where I have made clear statements about guilt or innocence on this matter. I simply want the investigations to proceed without all of the complaining and distractions by the Trump supporters and other contrarians.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

It's obvious that you have no desire to back up yet another statement that you made and are now deflecting since you painted yourself into a corner. So be it. We can all see that you have nothing.

I don't deflect, no reason to. We just don't agree.

Yes, but you do when you make an accusation.

And the left do it as well and are experts at it, another reason why they keep losing elections, they never take personal responsibility.

Yet you constantly bring her up as well as the past Democratic administrations. You have given no proof that Mueller has lost any credibility

I don't need proofto know when someone is a jerk and I don't need anyone to convince me that Mueller is an honest man, save it. The man lost all credibility when he branched out of his main investigation to find anything to nail this president.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

And the left do it as well and are experts at it, another reason why they keep losing elections, they never take personal responsibility.

I couldn't care less (the proper form of the phrase) about what the mysterious "left" that you are talking about does. I was talking about what you do. However, since I got a verbal slap on the wrist from the mods yesterday about "bickering," I'll stick to talking about points in the article. Maybe you should do the same and stop bringing up non sequiturs like elections and other unrelated matters. Try talking about the article only--that would be a refreshing change and give the mods a break.

I don't need proofto know when someone is a jerk and I don't need anyone to convince me that Mueller is an honest man, save it. The man lost all credibility when he branched out of his main investigation to find anything to nail this president.

No, but you need to give proof when you make accusations about someone or make a claim about someone's character. I try to back up my statements with facts and logic. That kind of helps with the whole credibility thing and allows others to verify what I say or understand where I am coming from. I am really wondering if you honestly believe that Mueller "lost all credibility" or if you are just parroting talking points since they mysteriously show up here as shortly after they get posted on right-wing media sites. As far as convincing you about anything, that's simply not possible. Your mind is made up no matter what.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

I couldn't care less (the proper form of the phrase) about what the mysterious "left" that you are talking about does.

Not mysterious, just saying this whole thing is getting out of hand, doesn't matter if you like the president or not, but when you have the Federal government overstepping their legal authority to go on a witch hunt to target anyone and that includes the POTUS because they don't like him should disturb everyone. DTJ may have been naive, maybe stupid for what he did, but does that constitute a crime, not at all, but Mueller will find something anything to make it a crime.

No, but you need to give proof when you make accusations about someone or make a claim about someone's character. I try to back up my statements with facts and logic. 

People make accusations all the time, there is no proof that Trump did anything and because of this and because of the hatred the left has including the head of this farce investigation gives not only me, but a lot of people angst that the power that we give these people seek out justice and entrust them with the law, use that power to try and political topple a sitting president.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

No, I have not come to any conclusions, and I challenge you to point out where I have made clear statements about guilt or innocence on this matter.

You didn't, my sincere apology. My error. I can't say the same for many, so I will amend my statement to ' so many on the left'. All you have to do is look at FB or Twitter and see hundreds of crowing declarations daily that we're close to proving treason, and impeachment.

i really want the Wasserman-Schulz IT screwup thoroughly investigated...4 million paid over the years to this family in salaries, the money they wired to Pakistan ( money obtained fraudulently by applying for a mortgage for a rental property) , the reasons why the wife wasn't stopped when she left the country despite carrying over the legal limit of cash on her person, because the amount of luggage she had indicated she would not return, while her husband is under investigation......the multiple smashed hard drives recovered, the laptop found in a cubby hole of a Federal building....the family perhaps having high security clearance. People don't hide and smash devices for no reason. They had unfettered access to several Congress members' computers. While I don't think Wasserman-Schulz has done anything wrong, she hired them and she should be cooperating to find out how much damage they may have done . How far has national security been breached?

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites