world

Trump's son says he met Russian lawyer for damaging information on Clinton

72 Comments
By Patricia Zengerle and Karen Freifeld

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

© (c) Copyright Thomson Reuters 2017.

©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.

72 Comments
Login to comment

So he lied.

Why?

12 ( +15 / -3 )

So he lied.

Why?

Because he's a Trump. He was raised in an amoral, opportunistic environment. For little Don, as for his father, lies are as cheap and easily dismissible as human beings.

(Cue retorts mentioning Hillary, Obama, Dems, and libs.)

9 ( +14 / -5 )

Yeah... like we didn't know that already. Next he'll be changing his story yet again, saying "Papa didn't know about it", and "It doesn't matter WHY I did it, because it didn't get done," and the usual song and dance, and the same people still demanding Hillary be prosecuted for emailing at work, and insisting Obama is not American-born, will ask everyone to move on.

9 ( +12 / -3 )

"Trump also said the meeting with Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya and others in Trump Tower in New York provided no meaningful information."

That's why he lied for a year that no meetings took place and then lied even more about the meeting after getting caught about lying about it in the first place.

Edit: Oh and then he gets caught lying some more about there not being any phone calls. Why does Don Jr. constantly continue to lie about such an innocent meeting?

10 ( +11 / -1 )

For little Don, as for his father, lies are as cheap and easily dismissible as human beings

According to the Trump supporters here, Trump senior doesn't lie but occasionally lapses into 'hyperbole' or 'exaggeration'.

I wonder if Trump junior has the same traits. Perhaps we'll find out shortly, or be asked about Clinton's lies or asked where the Dems are these days.

7 ( +7 / -0 )

Anyone else think it's a bit rich that he was trying to learn about Clinton's "fitness to be president?"

Both candidates were/are unfit For the office of dogcatcher of small village.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

Anyone else think it's a bit rich that he was trying to learn about Clinton's "fitness to be president?"

Rich, but I highly doubt he was telling the truth. Junior has a history of being dishonest.

6 ( +6 / -0 )

I'm sorry, so what is Mueller fishing for again? Thin air?

-15 ( +1 / -16 )

I'm sorry, so what is Mueller fishing for again? 

I'm sorry, so what does the senate investigation interviewing Donny's son about meeting with Russians and then lying about it have to do with Mueller? Right, it doesn't.

11 ( +11 / -0 )

Mueller is investigating ties between the Trump campaign team and Russia. He will probably ask Jr. why he lied. I think we all want to know that, even if you're a Trump fan.

9 ( +10 / -1 )

I'm sorry, so what does the senate investigation interviewing Donny's son about meeting with Russians and then lying about it have to do with Mueller? Right, it doesn't.

You know they are desperately trying in vain to connect Trump in all of this so called collusion made up lie. So what do you guys want to see happen? Lol

-13 ( +1 / -14 )

I think a lot of us are asking why Trump's team lied so much about Russia.

10 ( +10 / -0 )

it was important to learn about Clinton's "fitness" to be president.

How many swings do these people get at the truth? As many as it takes?

Mueller is also going to question WH staff about papa Trump's swing at an explanation, which was denied as having happened several times until the truth came out that he actually dictated the initial lies about Jr's meeting with Russians.

8 ( +9 / -1 )

This again? I find it interesting every time that someone on the Trump side of this issue testifies, it is immediately put all out in the open even from a private hearing. But whenever Susan Rice, Brennan, Rhodes, dossier group people, testify we never hear a word about what they said.

-12 ( +1 / -13 )

You know they are desperately trying in vain to connect Trump in all of this so called collusion made up lie.

No, it's actually Trump who's desperately trying in vain to disrupt the investigation. If it was a made up lie, he'd have nothing to worry about, but the inside word is he's consumed with not letting it run its course.

10 ( +11 / -1 )

Clearly, this is the beginning of the end for Trump!!

11 ( +11 / -0 )

Blacklabel: This again? 

Yeah, I know. Trump's team lies about Russia so often it's not really worth reporting on anymore. At this point maybe it's more like of an assumption.

13 ( +13 / -0 )

Speaking of distractions, what do you think about Trump Jr lying again?

10 ( +10 / -0 )

Well if you thought he was lying the first time and he repeats the same thing 3 more times, you would think he has now lied 'again'. At some point you just move on to another 'liar' (Comey), as Trump Jr has answered everything you could possibly ask him.

-12 ( +0 / -12 )

True. So he lied about his contacts with Russia. Time to move on,

10 ( +10 / -0 )

I will use a Hillary quote, at this point what difference does it make?

So what do you expect to come of this even if Trump Jr is proven to have lied about this meeting? You cant impeach Trump based on an unrelated lie of his son, and Trump Jr wasnt even part of the campaign anyway. So maybe you can call him a 'liar' someday if and when it is proven. But that hasnt seemed to have any impact at all on any of the other liars, right?

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

So he lied about his contacts with Russia.

If you consider the people who he talked to as ' Russian contacts' (nefarious) and not simply 'people from Russia' then maybe you can think that way, yeah. Its all whatever context you want to put to something.

-12 ( +0 / -12 )

Another good point. Even if Trump Jr lied, who cares?

9 ( +9 / -0 )

I thought this horse was dead already? Best pound it into dust to make sure!

If "they" are going to burn Chump, why not bring up his Jewish connections?

-8 ( +0 / -8 )

I think a lot of us are asking why Trump's team lied so much about Russia.

They should be asking Clinton that same question.

No, it's actually Trump who's desperately trying in vain to disrupt the investigation.

It really doesn't matter, if Mueller team tries to indict any of Trump's cabinet former or present, he can always pardon them.

If it was a made up lie, he'd have nothing to worry about, but the inside word is he's consumed with not letting it run its course.

I would be as well when you have a mostly large Democratic legal team that have given thousands in donations to liberal candidates or having one of the lawyers involved with Watergate, another that was one of Hillary's former lawyer on the Whitewater case. This entire thing stinks, everyone knows it. I would be more relieved if the left and Mueller would just be honest and admit they just want to get Trump, I'd have a lot more respect for them. But let them continue to spin their wheels, almost a year and still nothing. Too funny.

-10 ( +0 / -10 )

They should be asking Clinton that same question.

See? Right on cue.

you have a mostly large Democratic legal team that have given thousands in donations to liberal candidates 

Even if that were entirely true or noteworthy, what do Hillary and Dems and libs have to do with Don Jr. repeatedly lying about his meetings with Russians? Like the mob family in the WH you so adore, you seem to deflect a lot from pretty simple questions.

10 ( +10 / -0 )

Look, we all know Trump and hand his team lied. And we also know he looked to Russia for dirt.

But...at the end of the day....it helped elect a President who wants to get brown people out of the country. Can one really say that's a bad thing?

Can we talk about Clinton now?

10 ( +10 / -0 )

 as Trump Jr has answered everything you could possibly ask him.

Answering questions is not the same as answering the questions truthfully.

Trump and his cabal have answered a lot of questions, often multiple and conflicting answers to single questions. The problems with the "answers" are that the "answers" have consistently been flat out lies.

It really doesn't matter, if Mueller team tries to indict any of Trump's cabinet former or present, he can always pardon them.

Not if there are state violations. Mueller has been coordinating with the NY prosecutors office to avoid another pardon fiasco. I say fiasco, because Trump pardoned a man who violated the Bill of Rights.

9 ( +9 / -0 )

..it helped elect a President 

Which is still unproven, thats the fallacy in the argument. How did Trump and his team supposedly 'lying' help him get elected? The brown thing is just nonsense, call it what it is 'illegal aliens'.

If it were simply a lying contest, Hillary and her team would be in the White House. Read Hillary's book she gives you almost 500 pages of reasons she lost. Trump's son supposedly 'lying' wasnt one of them.

-9 ( +0 / -9 )

I think a lot of us are asking why Trump's team lied so much about Russia.

They should be asking Clinton that same question.

Old faithful.

8 ( +8 / -0 )

having one of the lawyers involved with Watergate

So what if he was involved with the Watergate case? I don't see how being a prosecutor exposing one of the biggest cases of government corruption can be anything other than a good thing. You realize the Watergate investigation was a good thing, right? Unlike...

another that was one of Hillary's former lawyer on the Whitewater case... I would be more relieved if the left and Mueller would just be honest and admit they just want to get Trump, I'd have a lot more respect for them.

The Whitewater case... the one where the right (without honestly admitting it) really just wanted to get the Clintons but failed...

But let them continue to spin their wheels, almost a year and still nothing. Too funny.

They seem do have a better case going in less than a year than the six years of Whitewater investigations and four years of Benghazi. Remember that one? That one was also led by Republicans and turned up nothing. I'm sure you were honest and complained about those wastes of time and tax payer money too.

8 ( +8 / -0 )

We keep bringing up the other side for a reason. Because everything you guys are struggling to look for on the Trump side, has already been found on the Clinton side. But its somehow irrelevant simply because she didnt win?

-11 ( +0 / -11 )

bass4funk: "You know they are desperately trying in vain..."

Hahaha... I'd ask if you're joking, but you wouldn't see forest, either, with all those trees in the way. The story's yet MORE proof of lies and collusion, and you guys, and very, very sadly I might add, the ones trying in vain to cover it up.

Blacklabel: "This again?"

Says the guy who would love an 8th Benghazi investigation panel into Clinton's emails.

7 ( +7 / -0 )

Because everything you guys are struggling to look for on the Trump side, has already been found on the Clinton side.

What was found on the Clinton side? Because the right has been trying to take them down for more than a decade and they're still standing. Meanwhile, we're still less than a year into Trump's investigation, and already he's trying to limit it's scope, removing key investigators, and generally behaving like a guilty person.

8 ( +8 / -0 )

Says the guy who would love an 8th Benghazi investigation panel into Clinton's emails.

Sure, maybe this time we can see the 33,000 deleted ones that James Comey refused to accept from the NSA when they wanted to give them to him?

http://nypost.com/2017/09/04/proof-that-investigating-trump-is-starting-to-backfire-for-democrats/

Maybe this time a letter of innocence wont be written months before 18 witnesses are even interviewed?

Maybe this time a list of crimes wont be read aloud and then have it said that no one cares enough to prosecute those because there was no intent to do anything wrong?

Maybe this time someone's husband wont meet privately with the boss of the person supposedly investigating the suspect?

Maybe phones turned over as evidence wont be broken and might actually have a SIM card in them?

We can only hope.

-10 ( +0 / -10 )

who cares? both are bad. just lets just get together to stop WW3. and global warming.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

What was found on the Clinton side?

Lying, obstruction of justice, failure to register as a foreign lobbyist, accepting money from Russian sources, destruction of government property, mishandling of classified information, contact with agents of a foreign government to get dirt on a political opponent.

Oh and more lying.

-10 ( +1 / -11 )

@ Blacklabel

Lying, obstruction of justice, failure to register as a foreign lobbyist, accepting money from Russian sources, destruction of government property, mishandling of classified information, contact with agents of a foreign government to get dirt on a political opponent.

So why couldn't the Republicans get the charges to stick?

Maybe this time... maybe this time...

What the hell were they doing all those other times? Are the Republicans just completely inept and bungling the case, because god knows they really want the Clintons gone. Again, they've been at it for more than a decade, but somehow less than a year of Russia investigations is too much for you.

7 ( +7 / -0 )

Why isnt the time being spent on actually fixing the election system, eliminating fraud and illegal voters and hardening our IT systems. You know, something actually useful and forward thinking?

Dont need voter fraud commission? Well if this is true, several elections in New Hampshire were affected by 5,300 fraudulent voters from out of state:

https://patch.com/new-hampshire/concord-nh/5-300-fraudulent-votes-may-have-been-cast-nh-2016

You know, the same thing Trump was laughed at about when he said in Feb it happened:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/13/us/voter-fraud-new-hampshire-gop.html?mcubz=3

-9 ( +0 / -9 )

So why couldn't the Republicans get the charges to stick?

Because Mueller hasnt chosen to bring these charges yet or there is no associated crime. (its not a crime to lie, or to accept debate questions in advance, have a meeting about 'grandkids' on a tarmac, etc)

The problem is that this doesnt apply to the Trump side. Everything is treated as a crime that needs to be resolved with Trump's impeachment, yet in fact none of these things are really crimes with a criminal penalty.

-9 ( +0 / -9 )

It's a pity Donald Trump was totally unaware of his son's (& Jared's) intentions to seek dirt on Hillary Clinton. Wouldn't have happened under his watch that's for sure! A man of integrity and honor like DT, no way!

Seeking dirt on someone, particularly a political rival, is actually very un-Trump-like.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Seeking dirt on someone, particularly a political rival, is actually very un-Trump-like.

Also, not a crime. And wait for it......Hillary did it too. Exact same thing except Ukraine, not Russia.

-10 ( +0 / -10 )

Hahaha... I'd ask if you're joking, but you wouldn't see forest, either, with all those trees in the way.

Copying me doesn't make you guys funnier, really. Originality is better.

The story's yet MORE proof of lies and collusion, and you guys, and very, very sadly I might add, the ones trying in vain to cover it up.

Ok, and still No smoking gun, it's really pathetic when you hire almost 20 lawyers and after 9 months come up with pretty much nothing.

Now that's sad.

So why couldn't the Republicans get the charges to stick?

When you have a corrupt DOJ and FBI how's it possible. Comey was about to exonerate her, getting the papers ready, so he never intended to indict her, but tried to make it look like he was.

That's the biggest reason, too many corrupt agents and an out of control DOJ.

-6 ( +0 / -6 )

The more I read, this voter fraud in New Hampshire seems pretty serious and also matches what Trump and his team said back in Feb. It is things like these that should be the priority, and I say that without knowing who the fraudulent votes were even for. In this case the winning margin of both a candidate for President and a US senator were less than the number of supposedly fraudulent votes.

This is what people need to focus on, not what Trump or Hillary did, those things are over and we need to focus on securing the 2018 election. I only bring the Dems up to show that everything Trump or his people are accused of, so are Hillary or her people. I dont want to hear any more excuses when someone loses about any fraud or outside interference for any election ever again. That is what I hope the positive result from all of this mess is, that we can full confidence that no one illegally or fraudulently voted in our elections again.

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

Really? ok let me break it down:

So Trump Jr. lied about his meeting with the enemy. Who cares?

Unproven speculation. But yes, even if he did you still have to link it to a crime or to it some way to show that it directy led to Trump getting elected President. if you can do that, Mueller has a job for you.

Also Russia wasnt the enemy until Hillary needed a scapegoat for losing. Obama liked them so much he promised to do something for them, but only after he got reelected cause people might not like what he was going to do? What was that he did for them again? Right, we never were told.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

@ Blacklabel

If the voter fraud in New Hampshire is true (which I admit it seems to be), that's a big deal. I also agree we need to fix how elections are handled, including doing something about gerrymandering, voter suppression, and the electoral college.

BUT possible collusion with Russia in influencing the election is a big f***n deal too. How is that not as worthy of investigation as the other stuff you mentioned? At least give it the same amount of time as you did (and apparently still do) Benghazi to see if it's true.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

BUT possible collusion with Russia in influencing the election is a big f***n deal too. How is that not as worthy of investigation as the other stuff you mentioned?

It is! IF there is anything that would indicate it happened. The DNC hacking was somewhat the proof that something was going on, but now that has been pretty much quietly debunked. No evidence of votes being changed (only evidence of fraud and illegals voting, which isnt concerning to many people somehow).

No emails or transcripts or anything showing that anyone asked for anything or received anything that directly changed the election results. Hillary got screwed by Wikileaks releasing her dirt for us to see, but it was all true. She only gets a pass if it wasnt.

You arent going to get anything by interviewing Donald Trump Jr 3 or 4 times. He wasnt part of the campaign, this meeting had nothing to do with votes or voting. Its just wasting time playing politics. The months drag on and on and it gets closer and closer to 2018 elections where whatever you think might have happened can happen again.

Even politico says the Trump Jr thing is a bunch of nothing basically:

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/09/07/russian-meeting-notes-not-damaging-to-trump-family-242464

So move on to something that will help protect the 2018 elections instead of trying to score political points proving the President's son may have lied.

-6 ( +0 / -6 )

Benghazi, people died. Did you actually see how the Ambassador died and what those animals did to him? That was some emotional stuff and hard to let go. A lot of people wanted someone, anyone to pay for that. So the people who lied on TV about what caused it and the people who told them what to say were the obvious targets. No one to date has been made to own it or take responsibility for it so still a lot of raw emotions even this long after.

This Russia stuff, all political. Its about giving Hillary a serviceable reason for why she lost in case she or Chelsea ever want to run for anything later. No one died, so there is no emotional attachment to it. People could easily just let this go and focus on making sure it never happens again. But its too hard for them to let go politically because it fuels the #resistance movement and serves as an excuse for any obstructionism and is also used to weaken the President any time that might be good for politics.

-6 ( +0 / -6 )

Benghazi, people died.

It was tragic, yes. But let's be honest, after about the second investigation it was all political. To be clear, the Republicans tried to use those people's deaths for political reasons. They strung the victims families along and tormented them for years making them think there was something more when they knew they had nothing.

This Russia stuff, all political. Its about giving Hillary a serviceable reason for why she lost in case she or Chelsea ever want to run for anything later.

No, it's about an American presidential candidate conspiring with a foreign power to influence the outcome of an American election, i.e., treason. That's IF it's all true, but that's what investigations are for. There's enough circumstantial evidence for one, so why are you so against even one from running its course? It can't be about wasting valuable time and energy, because again you seem to have no problem with decades of fruitless investigations against the Clintons.

People could easily just let this go and focus on making sure it never happens again.

Please... You know you wouldn't let it slide if it was Hillary and she won.

But its too hard for them to let go politically because it fuels the #resistance movement and serves as an excuse for any obstructionism and is also used to weaken the President any time that might be good for politics.

I'm just curious to see if Trump really did collude with an authoritarian state like Russia. Your lack of curiosity is just bizarre.

6 ( +6 / -0 )

Blacklabel: "Sure, maybe this time we can see the 33,000 deleted ones that James Comey refused to accept from the NSA when they wanted to give them to him?"

Hahaha! Told you! You say, "This again" and then when I even mention Benghazi to point out the absolute hypocrisy you launch into a several post tirade on it. No "this again" on that, SEVEN TIMES closed case, I guess. The one your own party found Clinton innocent on... seven times! And yet, when the actual president, which you like to remind us is not Clinton, is potentially engaged in TREASON and undermining democracy itself, and when trials are far from over, you demand it be forgotten.

Bravo for more than proving my point.

6 ( +6 / -0 )

Your lack of curiosity is just bizarre.

I dont think think it serves any purpose to run around looking for an action to associate to a predetermined crime. If there is evidence of a crime, then you investigate the person most likely responsible. You dont investigate with the intention to find a crime by SOMEone at the end.

Benghazi happened, people died and then we wanted to know if anything criminal happened. People dont like Trump Jrs meeting because well. he is Trump Jr. So for their own reasons, so they wont be satisfied until they can attach one of the crimes out there with no owner to this meeting. its SOMEthing by god, dont know what yet, but its SOMEthing!

Think of all the crimes with no owner yet that have been thrown out there as it relates to 'the Russia investigation'. Treason, violation of the Hatch Act, conspiracy, collusion (not a crime but presented as one), obstruction of justice, classified information mishandling, tax evasion, fraud, racketeering, on and on.

I am amazed that after all the evidence brought forward no one has curiousity about voter fraud as much as they do the Russia narrative. Fraud allows people to cast votes that are treated as valid. Russia collusion does not.

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

 eliminating fraud and illegal voters 

Just another boogy man. Or as it was called in the days of the third Reich, a scapegoat.

Did you actually see how the Ambassador died 

Did you see how he lived? He was courageous for what he was trying to do.

To be blunt, he was a willing tool of the CIA and knowingly accepted the assignment in the backwaters of Libya after the fall of a dictatorial government with an objective no less than to track Al-Queda. That he accepted the risks of getting heat from known terrorists on the war path for American blood gets overlooked when right wingers are trying to pin anything on a democrat.

He was a front man to legitimize a CIA operation, and the CIA botched the job, plain and simple.

I also remember seeing the two Delta Force guys being paraded around Somalia. I remember how they lived.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

To my conservative friends: one does not simply place a single piece of a puzzle on a table and say, "See?! Nothing there!" Nor, after finding all of the pieces, does one simply dump them on the table and say, "See?! Nothing there." One must find all the pieces and see how they match up. Maybe there will still be nothing there - but maybe there will.

Mueller is simply looking for all the pieces so others can piece them together. Can't understand the picture on the puzzle with too many missing pieces.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

This Russia stuff, all political.

This Russia stuff, all about treason.

No one died

The Bill of Rights, the Constitution, Rational Thought.

My relatives and I have bled and some have died for those things. To see it watered on by a two-bit hustler is appalling.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Just another boogy man. Or as it was called in the days of the third Reich, a scapegoat.

So none of the evidence about voter fraud in New Hampshire or Chicago makes you curious enough to find out if the same things happened anywhere else? Keep the Russia investigation going to completion 5 years from now but shut down that pesky Voter Fraud Commission in the first month?

I also remember seeing the two Delta Force guys being paraded around Somalia. I remember how they lived.

And I remember how they died- because they shouldnt be dead. And especially the reason for their death should not have been purposefully lied about all over TV to avoid political blame and blamed on a video instead. That is disrespectful to how they lived.

-6 ( +0 / -6 )

This Russia stuff, all about treason.

So prove your case with publicly available evidence or wait for Mueller. Almost no one is even supporting that collusion happened anymore, much less treason.

To see it watered on by a two-bit hustler is appalling.

Prove Trump did it and I am there right with you to denounce what he has done.

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

Okay, Black, I get your point: Just because some potential crimes are investigated to death but lead to no conviction means that no potential crime should ever be investigated. Good point - the world will become a paradise for criminals and the corrupt.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

It was tragic, yes. But let's be honest, after about the second investigation it was all political.

No one told her to hide her servers in a restaurant and No one told her to lie about her emails and foundation. That's all on her, she made her bed and now she sleeps in it.

To be clear, the Republicans tried to use those people's deaths for political reasons.

Hmmmm.....not even ne single security and special forces officer that was on the ground said anything like that, in fact, it was the opposite. Susan Rice was saying the riot was caused by a filmmaker Coptic Christian which was an absolute lie.

They strung the victims families along and tormented them for years making them think there was something more when they knew they had nothing.

None of the families think that, especially 3 of them, they totally blame her and the former president.

No, it's about an American presidential candidate conspiring with a foreign power to influence the outcome of an American election, i.e., treason.

Almost a year and nothing, time to reel in that line.

That's IF it's all true, but that's what investigations are for. There's enough circumstantial evidence for one, so why are you so against even one from running its course? It can't be about wasting valuable time and energy, because again you seem to have no problem with decades of fruitless investigations against the Clintons.

Yeah, go back and read the Podesta Wikileaks files. Also, if Comey has to hire almost 20 lawyers it pretty much means, they can't find anything, so they need to go with a fine toothed comb and dust the place off for clues and still nothing. With Hillary on the other hand there was physical and tangible evidence.

-6 ( +0 / -6 )

Let me simplify. Lets say littering is a crime. I see or someone sees a person throw garbage out of their car window onto the street. I now investigate the crime of littering because there is evidence it happened. Proof is the garbage in the street and the fact that someone saw it thrown out of a car. To solve it, I would try to get make and model of car, license plate and track down the owner of the car. I can ultimately prove littering if I can match DNA or fingerprints of the driver of the car to the trash in the street.

What this Russia investigation is, its someone wants to prove Trump or his campaign littered. Thats the starting point, not an actual crime being committed first. So they go pick up every piece of trash from the street and try to link it back to Trump in any possible way. They run DNA and fingerprints, but only against Trump and his people, no one else. They dont even know if the trash was thrown out of a car or not, they just assume where it came from as a basis to start investigating if rhere even was a crime.

Which one makes sense and which one doesnt? The Russia investigation is just a predetermined crime (treason! obstruction! collusion!) looking for an owner.

-8 ( +0 / -8 )

The Russia connection is tangled and there are many strands. It's not just the US that Putin's people have meddled in, either. France, the UK were also targets.

The links to Trump's junta are there. It may take many more months, even years to entangle them but the truth will out.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Blacklabel: "What this Russia investigation is, its someone wants to prove Trump or his campaign littered. Thats the starting point, not an actual crime being committed first."

Hahaha... classic. YOU didn't see it yourself, so it therefore did not happen. Imagine if all crimes were only investigated because someone saw it take place, and did not negate any and all testimony (people who DID see it, and even took part, like Junior), because they personally claimed to have not seen it.

Good job destroying your own argument. But hey, I suppose YOU saw Hillary email on her work computer despite you guys finding her innocent seven times, right? That thing you can't let go of and have called her guilty but tell the world to let go of treason?

6 ( +6 / -0 )

I said myself or SOMEONE. Despite my many qualities I'm not omnipresent.

You can't even prove collusion (which isnt even a crime) but keep striving for that treason. Best you will get us something tax related on Manafort and maybe a couple misleading statements that politifact will have to rate as "mostly true".

-7 ( +0 / -7 )

Remember when the American right used to be the patriotic ones? Not willing to sell out their country to a foreign power just so they could stop a woman-American from being President after the black-American one?

5 ( +5 / -0 )

blacklabel: What this Russia investigation is, its someone wants to prove Trump or his campaign littered. Thats the starting point, not an actual crime being committed first.

We've been over this before. So many times that I've actually saved this to paste in when you bring up this false argument. So, here we go again.....for black....

The purpose of the investigation by the FBI, from Comey:

“The F.B.I., as part of our counterintelligence mission, is investigating the Russian government’s efforts to interfere in the 2016 Presidential election. And that includes investigating the nature of any links between individuals associated with the Trump campaign and the Russian government, and whether there was any coordination between the campaign and Russia’s efforts.”

Why did it start? That was asked when Comey testified:

Question: Don't you need some action or some information besides just attending a meeting, having been paid to attend a conference, that a picture was taken, or that you traveled to a country before your open to investigation for counterintelligence by the FBI?

Answer: The standard is, I think there's a couple different at play. A credible allegation of wrongdoing or reasonable basis to believe that an American may be acting as an agent of a foreign power.

What about Clinton?

“If this committee comes to you with information about the Clinton campaign, will you add that to your investigation?” Mr. Nunes asked Mr. Comey. Mr. Comey said he was not prepared to comment on the particulars of contacts between Russians and any campaigns. But “if people bring us info,” he said, “we will evaluate it.”

So....from the top.

The FBI is investigating Russia's meddling in the election. They received information they deemed credible about possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, so they are including that in their investigation. There hasn't been any evidence that Trump himself acted improperly. If someone brings information about Clinton that they also deem to be credible, they will include that in their investigation as well.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Remember when the American right used to be the patriotic ones?

I beg your pardon, were?

Not willing to sell out their country to a foreign power just so they could stop a woman-American from being President after the black-American one?

Man, you guys don't just dig deep, you guys hit rock bottom.

The purpose of the investigation by the FBI, from Comey:

“The F.B.I., as part of our counterintelligence mission, is investigating the Russian government’s efforts to interfere in the 2016 Presidential election.

That's all fine and dandy, so why sooooo many Democratic lawyers involved in this from having worked on Watergate, Enron, Hillary's former personal lawyer, having contributed thousands to Democratic candidates? A fish always rots from the head down.

Why did it start? That was asked when Comey testified:

Answer: The standard is, I think there's a couple different at play. A credible allegation of wrongdoing or reasonable basis to believe that an American may be acting as an agent of a foreign power.

Even Mueller doesn't believe that none sense.

What about Clinton?

“If this committee comes to you with information about the Clinton campaign, will you add that to your investigation?” Mr. Nunes asked Mr. Comey. Mr. Comey said he was not prepared to comment on the particulars of contacts between Russians and any campaigns. But “if people bring us info,” he said, “we will evaluate it.”

Well, now we know that was a huge lie and that he was getting ready to exonerate her. He never intended to indict her. Bottom line, Comey played both sides and was as crooked as they come, firing him was the best thing Trump could've done.

So....from the top.

The FBI is investigating Russia's meddling in the election.

But the REAL REALITY is, this has turned into a political witch hunt.

They received information they deemed credible about possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, so they are including that in their investigation.

Which so far after almost a year with over a dozen agents has shown nothing, at least something that could get Trump in serious hot water.

There hasn't been any evidence that Trump himself acted improperly. If someone brings information about Clinton that they also deem to be credible, they will include that in their investigation as well.

Lol, yeah...sure they will.

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

He looks as guilty as sin in that photo, and no doubt he is.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

The farce and shambles that American elections have become. So much for democracy -- any other ideas?

2 ( +2 / -0 )

There isn't much here to get Junior on. I don't see where he has lied about anything. He hasn't denied that he was looking for dirt on Hillary. That isn't anything different than the Dems use Fusion to dig up dirt on Trump in Ukrain. Or the former British spy when he was used to feed disinformation about Trump and his purported sexual proclivities. The only thing the Left and Mueller have on him is the fact that he didn't tell the full truth on day one. But who in politics ever comes clean when hoping to get by on conceding just enough to get the story over with? Look at Hillary, she is still denying that she knowingly transmitted classified information over her own isolated IT network even though Comey said she did and wouldn't prosecute her for it anyway.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

I will use a Hillary quote, at this point what difference does it make? I will use a Hillary quote, as a Trump supporter I dont really have any other excuse to justify Trumps failings, there fixed it for you

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Comey played both sides and was as crooked as they come, firing him was the best thing Trump could've done. Comey played both sides as he was neutral as the head of the FBI should be. Trump fired his because he was scared. There fixed it for you again

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Did he say everything Daddy Dearest dictated to him?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

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