I wasn’t thinking of you as being prone to making Pit-like statements when I wrote that post. Instead, I was taking the post of yours to which I was replying as being a bit of a tease and/or snark about some of my more formally-worded remarks:
[QUOTE=CarnalK]
Now that will have been a not unlikely solid basis for a discussion.
[/QUOTE]
You may be relieved to know that I was, in fact, snarking on your phrasing.
As I said, that’s what I assumed. How you get from there to an accusation about me supposedly claiming that you do Pit-style posting here, is obscure.
At any rate, I’d suggest that any further such accusations you feel inspired to make belong in the Pit itself.
Here’s an alternative suggestion: why don’t you worry about what you’re doing and I’ll worry about what I’m doing.
When has Don Jr. previously made any statements under oath about Russia, the election, etc? He’s never been a government official, so he’s not had to fill out a disclosure statement like his brother-in-law, Kushner.
Yes, I’m interested in that as well. If he’s been interviewed by the FBI, then “under oath” isn’t at play, but I’m also wondering if he is even yet vulnerable to being prosecuted for anything he has said to anyone to date.
Why do you think he hired a lawyer (very likely paid for by Trump’s re-election campaign, btw)? They prove intent for possible FEC statute violations at the very least. (Note: I include his emails as ‘statements.’)
No, they don’t, for the reasons I discussed earlier in the thread.
Trump’s lawyer is blaming the Secret Service for not stopping Donald Jr. from colluding with Russians. One problem. DJR was not under Secret Service protection at the time. So, either:
Because he’s not a complete moron. Anyone in his situation would be an idiot NOT to hire a lawyer, because of what he faces going forward. He will be in situations very soon where he will be speaking under oath, even if he wasn’t in the past.
Anyway, the question still stands: Has Trump Jr been under oath at any time concerning “the Russia thing” to date? For me, it’s an honest question. I honestly don’t know, and am not playing “gotcha”.
I’ve never worried about what you are doing. Therefore I’m not in a position to stop worrying about what you are doing.
This seems like a stupid thing to “leak” as a tactic; there’s no advantage for Trump in creating speculation about Trump’s presence at that meeting. Therefore it may be a genuine nugget of actual information:
The likeliest explanation for Sekulow making these remarks is that Sekulow is not particularly bright, and sincerely believed that he had come up with a devastating rebuttal to the 'Don Jr.‘s & Kushner’s improper conduct’ storyline currently attached to the June 2016 Trump Tower meeting.
Your cite is not letting me see it unless I turn off ad-block, which I don’t want to do. Can you quote the section you are talking about?
Here. ya go.
OK, thanks. But that’s not “blaming the SS”. Clearly, the lawyer thinks those folks were not nefarious, so there would be no reason for the SS not to let them in. He would only have blamed them if he was accepting the idea that the Russians were nefarious.
Still a weak and pathetic argument, but he’s not “blaming the Secret Service”, and yeah, we don’t even know if the SS was involved in the meeting in the first place.
“An object at rest cannot be stopped!” - The Evil Midnight Bomber What Bombs at Midnight
Surely that’s the point: IF the SS was involved, then the lawyer just revealed that Trump (Senior) attended the meeting. (No one else in attendance was at that time a protectee of the SS.)
Indubitably.
The USSS denies having vetted Mini-Don for the meeting. The actual wording of their denial is interesting, though.
““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,” the statement said.”
They didn’t actually say they didn’t screen, full-stop. Just that they didn’t screen on behalf of Mini-Don. The article also makes it clear they screen only for physical safety, not for any other purpose.
I’m sure it’s nothing.
Who would have attended the meeting requiring USSS protection? Odd comment for Trump’s lawyer to make.
Believe me, I think this is the most likely scenario too. Just funny that the excuse is so poor that the implication of the excuse, that Trump was at the meeting, is worse than the original issue.
Also, no one believes Trump didn’t know about this meeting, right?
Trump had a reputation as a micro-manager long before this meeting became news. His adult children knew better than to do anything without his input and approval:
Trump's Obsessive Micromanagement Could Be a Major Liability As President - Business Insider
That story came out in 2016; similar stories aren’t hard to find.