So Trump’s lawyers apparently knew aboutthe Russia emails to Trump Jr. some three weeks ago. Yet Trump himself has said that he did not know - he only found out a few days ago, after the NYT story broke.
I understand that lawyers have a professional and ethical duty to inform their client about highly relevant details, so the client can make informed decisions about how to instruct them.
It would appear then, that there are a couple of possibilities?
The lawyers knew - and they never told Trump. This is a serious violation on the part of Trump’s lawyers.
The lawyers knew - and they did tell Trump. Trump is lying about not knowing about the Russian emails to Trump Jr… He knew at least three weeks ago.
Given that “criminal misdeeds” is a distraction, since that wasn’t anyone’s claim, least of all Jr.s’, cite for the underlined bit?
If that was a mistake on your part–if you meant to say that “he was hoping it would provide incriminating information” which is what he is documented to have hoped–cite that he saw that no such information was forthcoming?
“Incriminating information” = “information pointing to a crime”. Which is what Don Jr. hoped to see.
During the meeting, the Russian lawyer (and I quote from Mr. Goldstone, who is quoted in NYT article) instead produced "just a vague, generic statement about the campaign’s funding and how people, including Russian people, living all over the world donate when they shouldn’t donate… It was the most inane nonsense I’ve ever heard, and I was actually feeling agitated by it. Had I, you know, actually taken up what is a huge amount of their busy time with this nonsense?”
After which the lawyer started talking about Magnitsky affair, Kushner walked out and the meeting ended.
I don’t know if djt the sequel thought she was a govt employee or not, but in either case, he would have thought that she was officially representing the russian govt. If he was meeting with an oligarch’s secretary who was acting in the capacity of representing the russian difference, that would not have made a difference.
It is not her job title that is an issue, it is who she was being claimed to represent.
Once again, you seem to think that this is some kind of movie, where the hero must find the information from the bad guys all by himself, rather than going to the authorities.
This is not a movie. It is real life. People do not (or at least should not) do that.
"In a statement Sunday, Trump Jr. said the attorney had said she had information that people tied to Russia were funding the Democratic National Committee and supporting Clinton, a description that Akhmetshin backed up in his interview with the AP.
…
Veselnitskaya presented the contents of the documents to the Trump associates and suggested that making the information public could help the campaign, he said.
“This could be a good issue to expose how the DNC is accepting bad money,” Akhmetshin recalled her saying.
Trump Jr. asked the attorney if she had sufficient evidence to back up her claims, including whether she could demonstrate the flow of the money. But Veselnitskaya said the Trump campaign would need to research it more. After that, Trump Jr. lost interest, according to Akhmetshin.
“They couldn’t wait for the meeting to end,” he said."
So - compared to three eyewitness accounts, what opposing evidence do you have?
I’m not making any conclusions. You are. I don’t know what happened, but the accounts of two proven liars plus a stranger who works in a field that encourages dishonesty are a tiny step away from worthless.
You might be right that this is much ado about nothing, but how ironic that all the subsequent lies and coverups may end up what brings them down. If they had just documented it originally like they should have, this would all be nothing. Sure there might have been a few squeaks about the meeting, but they could have easily handled those questions months ago and it would be forgotten by now. But now it’s raging like an out-of-control forest fire. It’s hard to believe anything they (or their supporters) say because it’s been lie after lie, coverup after coverup. They never admit the truth until it’s been exposed, and then they come up with another lie to cover up the previous lie. No doubt we’ll have more details come out later which directly contradict things Trump’s team is saying about the meeting right at this moment.
He was there? If he was, advise the NY Times quick! If not, why is he cited?
This is a nice bit of spin, and should be noted. Presumably, whenever the meeting was over, Kushner walked out. But the clever bit of phrasing, trying to pull a slow one, implies that he “walked out” because the unacceptable topic arose and he would have nothing to do with it! Balderdash and tommyrot, of course, but a game try!
(You in law school? Educated by Jesuits? You remind me of somebody…)
Evidence of what? What claim do you think I’m making?
Lemme be explicit with my claim: I say Trump Jr. is a goddamned liar, and the other people we’ve heard from about that meeting are entirely untrustworthy. I say that if we’re trying to figure out what happened in that meeting based only on their oral reports about what happened in that meeting, we’re being entirely too credulous of these goddamned liars. I say that your previous post, in which you parroted their claims about the meeting as if their claims were trustworthy, was nonsense.
It really chaps my hide that most of the Republicans (mostly in Congress but also elsewhere) are either making excuses or trying to avoid talking about this whole thing. And it seems some of Trump’s regular folk supporters just don’t care. On the other hand, I think it took a while for Republicans to come around against Nixon during Watergate. Being born in 1963, I guess I was too young to retain my memories of that time or more importantly, how I was feeling, but reading the history suggests it took quite awhile for the tide to turn with the GOP. Also, it seems Nixon’s poll numbers never crashed below 20 or 30% (can’t recall the floor) even when he resigned so we may not be able to depend on Trump’s support zeroing out before this is over