So, Donald, Jr. set up a meeting

[Circlejoe]

with a Russian attorney linked to Putin because she told him she had incriminating evidence about Hillary that would damage her campaign. Jr. took Manafort and Kushner with him to the meeting.

Hmm...I wonder if this is a nothingburger?

My biggest question is why did Donald, Jr. release a statement confirming the meeting AND the reason why the meeting was set? Obviously, someone had evidence about the meeting. No way would Jr. acknowledge this without knowing the information was already known.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/09/...n-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

 

[UncleMark]

My biggest question is why did Donald, Jr. release a statement confirming the meeting AND the reason why the meeting was set?

Jared listed it in his new, revised, latest report of foreign contacts.

It does seem like Jr. is no better about thinking before shooting off his mouth than Daddy is.

 

[Bill4411]

Oh well. Just another nothing burger...

 

[UncleMark]

Oh well. Just another nothing burger...

Truthfully, it's just another bad look by Team Trump. The Russian lawyer got her foot in the door by floating the prospect of having some juicy dirt on HRC, but in reality wanted to talk about the Magnitsky Act. The adoption concerns were window dressing. The real issue was the blackballing of certain Russian business people, and there's been no reporting to suggest that Jr. or anyone else were willing/able to address that.

 

[zeke4ahs]

Oh well. Just another nothing burger...

Truthfully, it's just another bad look by Team Trump. The Russian lawyer got her foot in the door by floating the prospect of having some juicy dirt on HRC, but in reality wanted to talk about the Magnitsky Act. The adoption concerns were window dressing. The real issue was the blackballing of certain Russian business people, and there's been no reporting to suggest that Jr. or anyone else were willing/able to address that.

How do we know this? Isn't it fairly impossible to trust what anyone is saying about this meeting at this point? I certainly don't trust Junior nor the Russian attorney.

 

[UncleMark]

How do we know this? Isn't it fairly impossible to trust what anyone is saying about this meeting at this point? I certainly don't trust Junior nor the Russian attorney.

Know what? That they didn't address the Magnitsky Act? We don't. But as I said, there's been no reporting that they did. Assuming they did at this point would be nothing more than wild-eyed speculation.

 

[MyTeamIsOnTheFloor]

Why buy from Putin what an 8th grader could hack from Hillary for the price of a new video game?

 

[Optimist13]

He wanted to grope her

 

[Rockfish1]

Like the other secret lied-about meetings with Russian operatives, this meeting was entirely innocent:

 

[sglowrider]

Well, its understandable -- you need to touch base with your long time investors, every now and then.

Its common courtesy besides that you need to manage the expectations of the plans of your financiers. You dont want some unfortunate 'accidents' to happen later. Tough people or man really.

 

[zeke4ahs]

Know what? That they didn't address the Magnitsky Act? We don't. But as I said, there's been no reporting that they did. Assuming they did at this point would be nothing more than wild-eyed speculation.

If all the Russia stuff is no big deal, and I know you didn't say that, why do they all keep lying about it? Trump said he had no knowledge that any of his staff met with Russians and his son and campaign manager met with them at Trump Tower while he was in the building? That doesn't sound logical. Junior last summer said the Democrats were crazy for making up stories about the Russians. Junior has changed his story in 24 hours about why they met? They aren't really acting innocent.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

So, it's not illegal for them to meet with the lawyer. It's not illegal for someone to promise damaging information about an opponent, although it's certainly a bad look politically. It's not illegal for the Russians to use the meeting as a pretext for bringing up other issues.

But...

You really have to ask yourself, if all these meetings are so damn innocent, why do Trump's advisers only remember they happened after they get reported in the Times or the Post?

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

If all the Russia stuff is no big deal, and I know you didn't say that, why do they all keep lying about it? Trump said he had no knowledge that any of his staff met with Russians and his son and campaign manager met with them at Trump Tower while he was in the building? That doesn't sound logical. Junior last summer said the Democrats were crazy for making up stories about the Russians. Junior has changed his story in 24 hours about why they met? They aren't really acting innocent.

Jinx.

 

[Rockfish1]

So, it's not illegal for them to meet with the lawyer. It's not illegal for someone to promise damaging information about an opponent, although it's certainly a bad look politically. It's not illegal for the Russians to use the meeting as a pretext for bringing up other issues.

But...

You really have to ask yourself, if all these meetings are so damn innocent, why do Trump's advisers only remember they happened after they get reported in the Times or the Post?

George Orwell's crimestop:

Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction. Crimestop, in short, means protective stupidity.​

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

George Orwell's crimestop:

Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction. Crimestop, in short, means protective stupidity.​

In 1984, making this kind of stupidity work required changing the language so that it became impossible to even form the thoughts necessary that would lead to more critical examination of things. Today's goodthinkers are figuring out how to do it with plain ol' English. Orwell would not have considered what we are seeing now to even be feasible.

 

[Rockfish1]

In 1984, making this kind of stupidity work required changing the language so that it became impossible to even form the thoughts necessary that would lead to more critical examination of things. Today's goodthinkers are figuring out how to do it with plain ol' English. Orwell would not have considered what we are seeing now to even be feasible.

We have always been at war with Eastasia.

 

[Rockport Zebra]

In 1984, making this kind of stupidity work required changing the language so that it became impossible to even form the thoughts necessary that would lead to more critical examination of things. Today's goodthinkers are figuring out how to do it with plain ol' English. Orwell would not have considered what we are seeing now to even be feasible.

Please don't pretend to limit Orwell and his ability to perceive.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Please don't pretend to limit Orwell and his ability to perceive.

As a fiction writer, Orwell would have had a good nose for when something is too absurd to be believable.

 

[Rockport Zebra]

As a fiction writer, Orwell would have had a good nose for when something is too absurd to be believable.

We are defiantly in the theater of the absurd.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

We are defiantly in the theater of the absurd.

I think that's probably a typo on your part, but it actually works better. If that's not a typo, kudos.

 

[Rockport Zebra]

I think that's probably a typo on your part, but it actually works better. If that's not a typo, kudos.

Webster called, he wants his book returned.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Webster called, he wants his book returned.

How's the bourbon?

 

[cosmickid]

So the Chicago Tribune,that well known bastion of liberal journalism,has published their own analysis of the NYT article,as well as comments Donny Jr has made in response.It's a little confusing because while the byline is Callum Borchers (WAPO) the story is copyrighted by the Tribune.

However what is far less ambiguous is the title which characterizes Donnie Jr's statement to the NYT as "stunningly incriminating".Here's a sample...

"'It became clear to me that this was the true agenda all along and that the claims of potentially helpful information were a pretext for the meeting,'" Mr. Trump said.

Read that last part again: "the claims of potentially helpful information were a pretext for the meeting."

Trump Jr. confirmed that he went into the meeting expecting to receive information from the Russian lawyer that could hurt Clinton. That is a breathtaking admission.

The rest of Trump Jr.'s statement is an attempt to minimize the value of what the lawyer actually told him. The outcome of the meeting and its effect on the presidential race is important, of course, yet it is kind of beside the point.

Trump Jr.'s attempt to obtain information from a Russian lawyer that could harm Clinton seems likely to alarm investigators, regardless of whether the effort proved successful."

Borcher's analysis-statement makes story MUCH worse...

 

[Rockport Zebra]

How's the bourbon?

Cards win. Bourbon is measured.

 

[Rockport Zebra]

So the Chicago Tribune,that well known bastion of liberal journalism,has published their own analysis of the NYT article,as well as comments Donny Jr has made in response.It's a little confusing because while the byline is Callum Borchers (WAPO) the story is copyrighted by the Tribune.

However what is far less ambiguous is the title which characterizes Donnie Jr's statement to the NYT as "stunningly incriminating".Here's a sample...

"'It became clear to me that this was the true agenda all along and that the claims of potentially helpful information were a pretext for the meeting,'" Mr. Trump said.

Read that last part again: "the claims of potentially helpful information were a pretext for the meeting."

Trump Jr. confirmed that he went into the meeting expecting to receive information from the Russian lawyer that could hurt Clinton. That is a breathtaking admission.

The rest of Trump Jr.'s statement is an attempt to minimize the value of what the lawyer actually told him. The outcome of the meeting and its effect on the presidential race is important, of course, yet it is kind of beside the point.

Trump Jr.'s attempt to obtain information from a Russian lawyer that could harm Clinton seems likely to alarm investigators, regardless of whether the effort proved successful."

Borcher's analysis-statement makes story MUCH worse...

Is it against the Law?

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Cards win. Bourbon is measured.

No, but seriously, if you missed it, you used "defiantly" when you probably meant "definitely." I think "defiantly" is actually better.

 

[Rockport Zebra]

No, but seriously, if you missed it, you used "defiantly" when you probably meant "definitely." I think "defiantly" is actually better.

Forgive me for being slow on the up take. Lead, Mercury and Radiation.

 

[Rockfish1]

We are defiantly in the theater of the absurd.

Yep.

 

[cosmickid]

Is it against the Law?

I'd say Borcher believes so...

Trump Jr.'s attempt to obtain information from a Russian lawyer that could harm Clinton seems likely to alarm investigators, regardless of whether the effort proved successful."

My guess is that he believes it ties into the issue of obstruction.Not so much that the collusion itself was unlawful,but that Trump wanted to prevent the extent of his (him and family) involvement from being revealed,and that is why he attempted to shut down the investigation.Mueller is investigating whether or not those attempts constitute obstruction,so I guess the answer remains to be seen...

 

[sglowrider]

Spoiler: Absolutely no contacts with russians

 

[sglowrider]

Like father, like son... those old tweets:



Comedy Gold of a family!!

 

[zeke4ahs]

All this that is leaking, I'd imagine are just tiny morsels of what Mueller is uncovering. Is any of it illegal or impeachable? Probably not impeachable unless the GOP grows some cajones.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

All this that is leaking, I'd imagine are just tiny morsels of what Mueller is uncovering. Is any of it illegal or impeachable? Probably not impeachable unless the GOP grows some cajones.

Nothing that we know for sure yet is illegal. But anything is impeachable. And there's a helluva lot of smoke to not believe there's an illegal fire down there somewhere.

 

[sglowrider]

Nothing that we know for sure yet is illegal. But anything is impeachable. And there's a helluva lot of smoke to not believe there's an illegal fire down there somewhere.

#WITCHHUNT

 

[MrBing]

with a Russian attorney linked to Putin because she told him she had incriminating evidence about Hillary that would damage her campaign. Jr. took Manafort and Kushner with him to the meeting.

Hmm...I wonder if this is a nothingburger?

My biggest question is why did Donald, Jr. release a statement confirming the meeting AND the reason why the meeting was set? Obviously, someone had evidence about the meeting. No way would Jr. acknowledge this without knowing the information was already known.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/09/...n-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

That has to be a Something Burger. It looks ethics bad but I'm no lawyer so I don't know if it's illegal bad. More smoke for sure.

 

[zeke4ahs]

Predictably, Don is on a twitter rampage this morning, 5 or 6 so far, including one about Chelsea Clinton, with a beautiful comeback from her, our " beautiful" healthcare bill, and so much more. But not a single one in defense of Junior.

 

[Ohio Guy]

I'm not sure what it means exactly, but this information was leaked by 'three White House advisors' who were okay being labeled as such (as opposed to just being labeled anonymous "US Officials").

The Vox article I linked above speculates as to why that may be the case. I have no idea how plausible those guesses are, but it is interesting why three White House advisors didn't have a problem with significantly narrowing down the possibilities of who they might be.

 

[MyTeamIsOnTheFloor]

I'm not sure what it means exactly, but this information was leaked by 'three White House advisors' who were okay being labeled as such (as opposed to just being labeled anonymous "US Officials").

The Vox article I linked above speculates as to why that may be the case. I have no idea how plausible those guesses are, but it is interesting why three White House advisors didn't have a problem with significantly narrowing down the possibilities of who they might be.

Dude - it could be the gardener.

Q - Do you ever tell them what you think the lawn needs?
A - Yeah - if they ask.
Q - CONGRATS! You are a "White House Advisor!"

Again, either show me they hacked into a voting machine and changed votes or I DON'T CARE.

Opposition research is like stealing signs at a baseball game.

If the Russkies hacked Hillary and the DNC and gave info to Trump - I DO NOT CARE.

I care more about a Sheriff giving a drunk a half-pint and a $10 bill for a vote in Possum Trot than I do some hacked Hillary e-mail.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

I'm not sure what it means exactly, but this information was leaked by 'three White House advisors' who were okay being labeled as such (as opposed to just being labeled anonymous "US Officials").

The Vox article I linked above speculates as to why that may be the case. I have no idea how plausible those guesses are, but it is interesting why three White House advisors didn't have a problem with significantly narrowing down the possibilities of who they might be.

I didn't notice that before, but Vox is right to suggest that the sourcing does indicate a coordinated leak. As for the reason behind that, that's obviously speculative. I'll add a fourth possibility to the three listed in the article (although it's very closely related to the first one they list): the original story broke on a Friday, and if they knew more was going to come out, they might have decided better to have it out over the weekend. Call it the "limited news cycle exposure" scenario.

 

[zeke4ahs]

I didn't notice that before, but Vox is right to suggest that the sourcing does indicate a coordinated leak. As for the reason behind that, that's obviously speculative. I'll add a fourth possibility to the three listed in the article (although it's very closely related to the first one they list): the original story broke on a Friday, and if they knew more was going to come out, they might have decided better to have it out over the weekend. Call it the "limited news cycle exposure" scenario.

Some journalist, can't recall who, has been keeping track of all the big news that comes out at, you guessed it, around 5:00 on Friday.