I’m pretty confident that this does not matter one little bit to the Trump core supporters.
In fact, I fully expect a conversation like this in the future:
Me: “Well, we now have proof that the Trump campaign worked directly with the Russian government to spam social media with directed phoney websites and articles attacking Hillary. All so they could get Trump elected.”
Trump supporter: “No! It’s all fake! Made up!”
Me: “But this came directly from Trump himself. He admitted it yesterday. In writing. And included documents that proved it”
TS: "It wasn’t the Russian government! It was “lobbyists”
Me: “Lobbyists who work for the Russian government”
TS: “Who cares? Nobody cares! It wasn’t illegal!”
Me: “So you see nothing wrong with the Russian government being given Republican Party voter information, so they could specifically target voter groups with false information, in order to put Trump in the whitehouse?”
Again, I must point out that no Trumpist will actually say what the line would be that, if crossed, would cause them to rethink their position - because deep down, they know the line probably has been crossed.
No he’s not the ultimate legal authority. However none of the law professors I’ve seen quoted that say this meeting was a violation address the reasonable First Amendment implications Bricker brought up nor point to a legal precedent where the law was applied to a similar case. So far, I’m leaning heavily towards Bricker’s interpretation despite not being a Trump fan.
Now that I’ve stipulated that, please go back and respond to the essence of the post, not the aside note. Namely, we’ve got a dude telling Trump Jr. that a Russian lawyer has incriminating information. Trump Jr. denied any such meeting for a long time, then claimed it was about adoption. Now he’s saying the meeting didn’t contain the information it was reputed to contain.
Do you have any evidence besides Jr.'s claim that that’s true?
Don’t worry. I am sure the Russian contingent taped the meeting so someone just has to send FOIA request Putin’s way and we’ll get the answers by and by.
Isn’t she that Russian Crown Prosecutor? Why would a Russian Crown Prosecutor be acting as a defense attorney for a real estate company in a DOJ case? Most strange.
I haven’t read all the posts in the last few days, so someone may have already cited this, but I thought this was timely, especially coming from Rep. Trey Gowdey (R-SC):
No. I can’t tell if you are seriously confused, or you are trying to be funny. Let me know if you actually want to know, or if I should give you a golf clap.
You’re both assuming that the meeting can be attributed solely to ‘political speech.’ The constantly-changing details, lies and stories about the meeting aside, I’m not even close to buying that line of argument.
I am shocked that a Russian with Kremlin ties might misrepresent themselves in dealing with pop music producers seeking to arrange meetings to meddle in American politics! I’m so shocked that my monocle just fell out!
ETA: your post really could use a footnote that “Russian Crown Prosecutor” isn’t a real position.