world

Secret Service rejects suggestion it vetted Trump son's meeting

53 Comments

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

© (c) Copyright Thomson Reuters 2017.

©2017 GPlusMedia Inc.

53 Comments
Login to comment

The Secret Service is there 1) to protect the candidate, not necessarily his minions. 2) One assumes this protection includes screening of visitors, verification that they have appointments, etc., but not full background checks, when they aren't meeting with the candidate. Were they meeting with the candidate? 

Once again, Sekulow is ignoring the big question: What was Donnie Jr.'s intent when the meeting was arranged and did that intent violate any laws?

10 ( +10 / -0 )

Why did Trump Jr. lie about the meeting?

12 ( +13 / -1 )

“Did I meet with people that were Russian? I’m sure, I’m sure I did. But none that were set up. None that I can think of at the moment. And certainly none that I was representing the campaign in any way, shape or form.”

--Don Jr., 18 May

He lied. Don Jr. was eager to accept Russian government help to win the election. That is pretty shameful. Americans should accept no excuses, which have ranged from "I forgot" to "we got no real information anyway" to "everybody does it".

The Trump presidency's defining characteristic is dishonesty. Fakeness.

12 ( +12 / -0 )

Trump himself has said he was unaware of the meeting between his son and the Russian lawyer until a few days ago.

Sure he was.

10 ( +10 / -0 )

He lied. Don Jr. was eager to accept Russian government help to win the election. That is pretty shameful. Americans should accept no excuses, which have ranged from "I forgot" to "we got no real information anyway" to "everybody does it".

And you know this as fact because....

I really love how libs know facts before they are proven to be facts. Lol

-18 ( +1 / -19 )

This, too:

It was a short introductory meeting. I asked Jared and Paul to stop by. We primarily discussed a program about the adoption of Russian children that was active and popular with American families years ago and was since ended by the Russian government, but it was not a campaign issue at the time and there was no follow up.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

And you know this as fact because....

Because Don Jr. said so. See my post from 9:16.

I really love how libs know facts before they are proven to be facts. Lol

I really love how Trump defenders won't accept facts that show up their idol to be a fraud. Lol

16 ( +17 / -1 )

If you want, I can show you clear proof of every one of Don Jr.'s excuses paraphrased above. If its beyond your journalistic ken to do so on your own.

10 ( +11 / -1 )

I'm still waiting to hear what the significance of all this is. This is a meeting that happened even before Trump was chosen as the GOP candidate! The course of events was:

a/ old business associate contacts DT jr and says he has dirt on Hillary

b/ Jr. takes the meeting

c/ he meets the contact, who brings a lawyer who also has ties to the Russian govt.

d/ he spends about 20 minutes listening to whatever she says (via an interpreter)

e/ meeting over. No follow up, no discernible action

Seems like the kind of thing that happens all the time in business and politics. You get a lead to something that may have potential, it turns up dry, you move on with your day. Something we seem to forget is that people in campaigns like this are CONSTANTLY meeting people and being asked for meetings. It's ridiculous to expect them to remember the details of every single contact they have with every person they meet in the course of a year long political marathon.

-14 ( +0 / -14 )

Trump himself has said he was unaware of the meeting between his son and the Russian lawyer until a few days ago.

This isn't the first time Trump has claimed to be unaware of very questionable goings-on involving people in his campaign and team.

At best you say he has very questionable people close to him and he couldn't organize the proverbial piss-up in a brewery.

10 ( +10 / -0 )

Attilathehungry: Seems like the kind of thing that happens all the time in business and politics

So what's his motivation for lying?

16 ( +16 / -0 )

Reading comprehension. You know, it's taught in Journalism 101.

So what's the libs excuse? Oh, so they get a pass?!

Because Don Jr. said so. See my post from 9:16

Ok, so what is the crime? What you or any libs think, I could care less, but what is the alleged crime?

I really love how Trump defenders won't accept facts that show up their idol to be a fraud. Lol

We can accept facts, but allegations, kinda need to proceed with caution before casting the net. Sunday, liberal rabbit chase time. On your mark, get set....

-16 ( +0 / -16 )

We can accept facts, but allegations, kinda need to proceed with caution before casting the net. 

It's not an allegation that Don Jr. knowingly and eagerly met with someone whom he believed would be offering him dirt from the highest levels of the Russian government ("I love it!" he wrote). That is a fact.

Other facts:

Don Jr. lied about the above, changing his tune only when exposed.

Don Jr. told Hannity, among others, that the meeting was a disappointment, i.e. that he had wanted to get this dirt (again, while aware of its alleged source). He simultaneously claimed on the same show that he had forgotten about it because he thought it was so inconsequential.

Sunday, liberal rabbit chase time. On your mark, get set....

Is that a fact . . .

7 ( +7 / -0 )

So what's the libs excuse? Oh, so they get a pass?!

The constant use of "libs" in your answer show that for you it is not about whether the Trump campaign colluded with Russia.

To you it is about keeping "libs" out of power, who you consider to be the root of all evil and malaise in America.

I suspect that even if Putin himself said we helped Trump and we have compromising material on him and his team, you would still not a have a problem with the President of the United States and his team held hostage to blackmail by a foreign adversary.

And thus I believe that no matter what happens, you will never try to hold Trump and his team accountable.

Nor will you ever even hold them to same standards of scrutiny as you did Obama and Hillary.

Because "libs" are the problem here, not what team Trump did, isn't it?

7 ( +7 / -0 )

At any rate, Junior should appreciate his Secret Service guard now. Those who cross Putin frequently share a commonality in being found dead under unusual circumstances.

10 ( +10 / -0 )

@blacklab team leader Speaking of people being found dead who are linked to Putin, how many people helping in the investigating of Hillary have suicided this month already? 3?

More fake news? Curious that you get so defensive when Putin and Russia are mentioned. I would think most Americans would be concerned about allegations of possible Russian involvement in US elections and politics, not try to defend the Russians and Americans alleged to have done so. But at least thanks for not mentioning CNN, NYTimes and Wash Post, and not vilifying the work of US intelligence services. For me their daily bashing by rightists (of all nationalities) makes me glad we have a not for profit free (moderately free) press, and that we have intelligence services that want to protect the US Constitution and not just serve the whims of the president.

6 ( +7 / -1 )

Everyone should admire the principled stance they took and apply it to all. Even after thirty hearings they would not bend, would not lose heart and would not rest.

Exactly. Now those same role models want nothing more than investigations into their man to go away. Anyone else smell that? It's the pungent smell of hypocrisy.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

I'm not really interested in refighting the 2016 election. Not a real fan of Trump, I would have preferred many other candidates for the GOP, but I would have preferred anyone over Clinton.

As for the great controversy over the meeting, what exactly is supposed to have transpired at this meeting? What is alleged to have happened in that 20 minutes that had any impact on anything?

All parties concerned must really get back to the business of running the country and stop this petty nonsense. There are far more serious issues that need attention.

-6 ( +0 / -6 )

As for the great controversy over the meeting, what exactly is supposed to have transpired at this meeting? What is alleged to have happened in that 20 minutes that had any impact on anything?

That Junior received nothing beneficial in the meeting is if no import. What matters is the he went to a meeting with an agent of Russia in an attempt to get dirt on Clinton. This shows that if Trump's campaign wasn't activiley colluding with Russia, it sure was open to the idea. Additionally, it evidences a further lie regarding Trump's campaign having contacts with Russia.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

"An agent of Russia" is a far cry from "an agent of the Kremlin". There is nothing wrong with trying to get dirt on Clinton, from whatever source. Politics is a contact sport. I can guarantee that, if a Russian lawyer had gone to Clinton's staff with dirt on Trump, they would have taken the meeting too. Particularly if the lawyer had been introduced by a previous business acquaintance.

Again, Swift, what information during that meeting could possibly have been illegal? Particularly since there was no follow up and no evidence of any further contact.

-6 ( +0 / -6 )

Again, Swift, what information during that meeting could possibly have been illegal?

If it evidences collusion, which it sure looks like attempted collusion or inchoate collusion, the meeting itself was illegal.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

Again, collusion to do WHAT? To damage the other candidate? Nothing illegal about that. Mountains out of molehills. Collusion to do something that is legal (such as getting dirt on a political rival) is not a crime. It may be distasteful, but not criminal.

-7 ( +0 / -7 )

DTJ is so far innocent because if he did do a crime and they want these people so badly, we all would have known about it by now.

You keep repeating this despite the fact that numerous posters have pointed out to you that Trump is under multiple investigations, so no (let's try this again), we "would not have known it by now." In fact, nothing will be "known" until the investigations have to come to their conclusion and the results are made public. Until then, making statements about guilt or innocence is nothing but speculation and a waste of time.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

No gold in them there hills

You don't know that. You can't know that. Even Sean Hannity can't know that.

It does seem Trump's approval rating is going even further down the toilet. It seems the many lies surrounding this issue is something people disapprove of. It's nice to see many people don't like lies.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Again, collusion to do WHAT? 

Right now, investigators could look into possible collusion to help lift some of the economic sanctions which were put on Russia after their invasion of the Ukraine in exchange for them offering "dirt" on Clinton (such as getting the Magnitsky Act repealed by the Trump administration after getting elected). If this is proven to be true, then Kirshner and his fellow co-horts could be looking at spending some quality time in the "Gray Bar Hotel."

3 ( +3 / -0 )

You keep repeating this despite the fact that numerous posters have pointed out to you that Trump is under multiple investigations,

What about the posters that listened to what the experts have said, there's nothing really there. So going by these legal professionals all seems to be just another big bag of smoke.

so no (let's try this again), we "would not have known it by now." In fact,

Yes, otherwise indictments would have been handed out.

nothing will be "known" until the investigations have to come to their conclusion and the results are made public. Until then, making statements about guilt or innocence is nothing but speculation and a waste of time

This is true, but the same time so far, over a year of this with multiple lawyers for the left, the Feds probing and nothing. So Trump should rest easy now. Let the investigation take its course.

You don't know that.

Precisely and neither do you, I said from the experts opinion it looks like another Scud.

You can't know that. Even Sean Hannity can't know that. 

Hannity has nothing to do with this.

It does seem Trump's approval rating is going even further down the toilet. It seems the many lies surrounding this issue is something people disapprove of. It's nice to see many people don't like lies.

Given what we know how polls have been, I wouldn't trust a single poll when it comes to this president. They all got it so wrong last time.

-8 ( +0 / -8 )

You don't know that.

Precisely and neither do you, I said from the experts opinion it looks like another Scud.

I didn't say I did. I didn't say there was or wasn't gold in the hills. You said there wasn't.

Who are these experts? Are they non-partisan?

The polls didn't get it so wrong last time. The average of the polls was actually pretty close.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

So going by these legal professionals all seems to be just another big bag of smoke.

Well then, kindly explain how we have the Department of Justice along with the FBI investigations, The Senate and House Intelligence Committee investigations, and the The Senate Judiciary and House Oversight and Government Reform Committees (all with Republicans and Democrats participating) all seemingly "blowing smoke" around, right?

Yes, otherwise indictments would have been handed out.

You're clearly not listening. There will be no indictments, pronouncements of innocence or guilt, or other actions until the investigations have run their courses.

This is true, but the same time so far, over a year of this with multiple lawyers for the left, the Feds probing and nothing. So Trump should rest easy now.

Really? The official investigations only started earlier this year, so I don't know where you are getting your timeline from. As far as Trump being able to "rest easy now," you might want to explain why he and the rest of his cronies have been "lawyering up"--hiring some of the most expensive and big name lawyers available to defend themselves against possible legal charges from all of the investigations.

  • Let the investigation take its course.*

I'm hoping you finally follow your own advice.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

The Trump family lie. It's not surprising that their most ardent supporters will be less than honest in online debate.

Is there much point in engaging with them? At this stage; it's obvious that the same retorts will be made, the same whataboutery will be employed and the same obfuscation.

Isn't it time to get to the bottom of the corruption, endemic in the Trump administration and ignore its wretched and weakened online army?

Moscow has denied any interference and the president and Trump Jr. have denied any collusion.

This unholy alliance is the real nemesis to be revealed and held to account.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

I didn't say I did. I didn't say there was or wasn't gold in the hills. You said there wasn't. 

From the looks of it.

Who are these experts? Are they non-partisan? 

Yes, but knowing how you libs are, as long as the source doesn't have a large "L" before their credentials you guys will just dismiss it as you usually do, so why bother?

The polls didn't get it so wrong last time.

No, they got it all wrong. Everyone got caught flat footed, even the pundits at FNC.

The average of the polls was actually pretty close.

30% chance? Yeah, that's very close. ROFL!

-6 ( +0 / -6 )

@Bass

Who are these experts? Please provide links. This would be very informative for all of us.

The polls in terms of numbers were pretty close. Clinton got more votes as predicted by most, but the state by state numbers were out but a small margin. As for the percentage chance, 30% is a good chance. It's pretty close to throwing a dice and getting a 1 or a 2 first time.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

Again, collusion to do WHAT? To damage the other candidate? Nothing illegal about that. 

I'd read that that was the latest fallback defense from the right - "distasteful, immoral, unpatriotic - but not illegal." The former three are clearly true; we'll see about the latter. Even with the scant info currently available, Junior faces potential legal problems - but there is no reason to think the currently available is the bottom of the bucket. How many times has Junior dissembled or flat out lied? What evidence has he given that he's on the level now other than confessing a minimal amount to beat a NYT article by a few hours (take that, fake newsers!)

Atilla, it's not up to you or I to determine legality, but Junior's lawyering up a few days before that NYT store in itself speaks volumes. He has yet to tell the truth, I suspect, and that's because the truth is very damaging both to him and his father.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

I suspect, and that's because the truth is very damaging both to him and his father.

Ah, sins of the father and all that...

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Who are these experts? Please provide links. This would be very informative for all of us. 

Did you read what I wrote?

The polls in terms of numbers were pretty close.

No, they were way off when it came to the college electorate. They were off in Florida, way off in Michigan, Wisconsin, a State she didn't visit...not once, then there's Pennsylvania. That's something the entire media and pollsters didn't get right.

-7 ( +0 / -7 )

Who are these experts? Please provide links. This would be very informative for all of us. 

Did you read what I wrote?

Yes. I don't trust partisan 'experts' from the left of the right as you don't. Your experts are non-partisan so no problem.

Who are they?

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Yes. I don't trust partisan 'experts' from the left of the right as you don't. Your experts are non-partisan so no problem. 

Who are they?

I know you way too long to believe that. Smh.

-10 ( +0 / -10 )

I know you way too long to believe that. Smh.

Ok. Let's chalk up these non-partisan experts who say there is nothing in the Russia investigation alongside the non-partisan historians who claimed the Bush years were a success.

Bass, do us all a favour. Please post links when you make claims like this otherwise they can't be taken seriously.

8 ( +8 / -0 )

Please post links when you make claims like this otherwise they can't be taken seriously.

That's ok, I expect that from liberals. You guys believe what you want and we will do the same.

-9 ( +0 / -9 )

Yes, otherwise indictments would have been handed out.

No, not until the investigations have been concluded. Any real journalist would know this. It's also funny that you make this claim and then follow it up with this:

*This is true, but the same time so far, over a year of this with multiple lawyers for the left, the Feds probing and nothing. So Trump should rest easy now.* Let the investigation take its course.

(Emphasis added.) By the way, it's multiple investigations that need to take their courses. It's very mealy-mouthed to claim indictments would already be handed out in the same post as saying wait for the multiple investigations to take their courses.

7 ( +7 / -0 )

Why would the SS even know about Trump's meeting with the Ruskies?

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Given what we know how polls have been, I wouldn't trust a single poll when it comes to this president. They all got it so wrong last time.

Us and them. With, without. And who'll deny it's what the fighting's all about?

Let's distill the heart of the Trump phenomenon into the pea-size space it inhabits. We won, and who cares how we did it. You lost, and you're a bunch of whiny lib/dem losers for pissing on our parade. Hooray for our side!

Sorry to say, that has never been the intention of democracy. Quite the opposite. The goal has been (imperfectly) the betterment of the whole, not the victory lap of the winner. For centuries of such (albeit imperfect) progress to be degraded in this manner is unsettling, would you not say? Even conservatives have been voicing, albeit reluctantly, the opinion that there is something inherently wrong with this presidency.

You like Trump. Because he will do something? Or because he gives the middle finger to the establishment? You thought Trump was a nut case and a loose cannon until you realized he would end up the Republican nominee. Or am I wrong?

Hope you can answer without mentioning libs, Dems, 'you guys', Obama, or Clinton.

6 ( +6 / -0 )

Plastic:

You sure are asking a lot. You do realize this, correct? First, you expect all of that text to be read. Then, you expect it to be understood. Finally, you expect a substantive response that stays on point.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

"Donald Trump, Jr. was not a protectee of the USSS in June, 2016. Thus we would not have screened anyone he was meeting with at that time,"

Wow... in one line the Secret Service's spokesperson makes Trump's rich lawyer (well, Trump doesn't want to pay his lawyers, so who knows? Maybe he's intentionally acting like a moron) look like the absolute tool he is. Hahaha... can just imagine him in a court of law!

5 ( +5 / -0 )

That's ok, I expect that from liberals

Expect what? Evidence to back up assertions?

The lunatic fringe may have accepted the new concept of alternative facts, but I'm a traditionalist when it comes to these things.

The opinions of non-partisan legal experts on this case would be very useful.

Blow these whining, desperate libs out of the water with a link to a non-partisan legal expert who knows there's no gold in them there hills.

6 ( +6 / -0 )

I'm an equal opportunity party hater.

Then what do you think about Trump Jr. lying about the meeting?

7 ( +7 / -0 )

What evidence? By the way since DTJ isn't on the payroll, what should happen to him or what do you think in your mind should happen to him?

i.e. It's fake news. And even if it's real, you can't touch him. So it's not wrong. So nah-nah-na-nah-nah! Enjoy that wilderness, you libs! We win!

3 ( +3 / -0 )

I don't know what to think, not good obviously, but again, doesn't matter much as he's not a WH staff, were it Ivanka, I would be more concerned and would definitely want more answers.

Thats what I think.

-7 ( +0 / -7 )

And you guys just post one-sided opinionated points.

So we must be non-partisan as well.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

If that were only true. How about looking at conservative opinion points? A coin has two sides, listen and form your own opinion.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

What are some examples of conservative opinion points? And how does listening to rants about liberals change anything?

6 ( +7 / -1 )

Both sides knew the meeting was wrong in many ways, but they both did it and the meeting turned out to be a 'bust' but that is the surface you are to view! As a 'bust' you can say, look, nothing transpired so it was nothing. If you make a buy of explosives from an undercover government agent who sell you fake explosives, is it a good defense in court to say you did not buy anything dangerous so you are innocent? I think not. But getting back to why the Russians set up a fake meeting, it was not meeting or the turn over of information at the meeting, but the fact that the Trump side did not tell the government (FBI) about it, so the Russians learned that the Trump side wanted their assistance. That is the damaging part of the meeting!

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Then what do you think about Trump Jr. lying about the meeting?

I think the apple doesn't fall far from the tree. This just in:

Trump and Putin Held a Second, Undisclosed, Private Conversation

The hourlong conversation in Hamburg, Germany, took place at a private dinner among world leaders at a concert hall on the banks of the Elbe River during the Group of 20 economic summit meeting, with only a Kremlin interpreter present to listen to the exchange. It followed a formal meeting between the two presidents that lasted more than two hours earlier in the day, and included their foreign ministers for a fraught discussion about Moscow’s attempts to interfere in the 2016 American elections.

First, if Trump were really a decent negotiator, he would have insisted on not even having Putin’s interpreter present. Putin speaks perfectly good English.

Second, what the hockey puck? Trump had to have another meeting with literally no other American in the room? What does he have to say to Putin that he’s afraid of anyone hearing him say?

At this point, it is a rebuttable presumption that Trump is compromised.

Think. About. That.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Trump and Putin Held a Second, Undisclosed, Private Conversation

I think you just got tricked into fake news by the MSM. It was a couples-only social dinner at the G-20.

the meeting took place during the G-20 heads of state dinner, hours after Trump's formal bilateral sit-down with Putin. In that conversation, Trump spoke with the Russian leader for roughly an hour, joined only by Putin's translator.

the WaPo reports that halfway through the official dinner Trump left his seat to occupy an empty chair next to Putin

The word "held" falsely implies that it was planned. Doesn't seemed to have been.

The word "undisclosed" is definitely the biggest lie of the headline. In the middle ofcouples-only social G-20 dinner?

The word "private" is also a lie.

Typical MSM brainwashing attempt to imply that it was a secret meeting.

Let The MSM Good Times Roll!. Don't Stop the MSM Now! The MSM, Will be Your Epitaph.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

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