and as a sound bite to the trumpettes, it works - and any response by the SS is “fake news”.
It would not have surprised me at all if this was something Trump Sr. said. But this guy is a seasoned lawyer and shouldn’t be making bone-head mistakes like this. I’m guessing he had some talking points given to him and then just ran with them. But doing that, too, is a bone-head move when your Client is Trump. If Trump’s team gave me something to read and spout in a TV interview, I’d most likely throw it in the trash.
Only to be berated later for not being forceful enough on camera and for wearing the wrong suit.
What’s going on with legal fees for Jr’s attorneys?
According to this article , the timeline (I think I got this right) is:
June 27 – Payment of $50,000 made to law firm of Alan Futerfas, the lawyer representing Jr.
July 8 – New York Times reveals Jr’s meeting with Russians
July 10 – Futerfas confirms he is representing Jr.
July 12 – Trump Sr. tells reporter on Air Force One that he learned about Jr’s meeting with the Russians “earlier in the week.”
Even assuming that Sr got the dates wrong and had heard about the meeting the week before – let’s even say as early as July 3, five days before the story broke in the NYT – that’s still a full week after payment was made to Futeras’ firm. I get that Trump doesn’t sign off on expenditures made by his campaign committee, but it does seem to me that someone (like, say, Junior) would have mentioned that a law firm was hired to represent Jr.
So, what’s going on? Is there some other issue I’ve forgotten about that means Jr needs legal representation for something that occurred during the campaign and related to the campaign?
While we’re on the subject of legal fees, what was being reimbursed by the $89,000 paid by the campaign committee to the Trump Corporation? I assume it was for legal research related to issues with the campaign, but why use TO lawyers instead of one of the law firms on retainer?
I have another question related to this. Assuming that the payment was made in relation to the Junior meeting, is it legal for funds from one campaign to be used to pay for representation for a previous one?
The rationale has been that it’s legal to use campaign funds for representation for campaign-related issues. Is that supposed to be extended to any campaign?
The Magic Mueller-Ball sez: Reply hazy, ask again later.
And is it even a “campaign related issue” considering Jr. is just a simple independent businessman with no ties to the campaign.
Anyway, what does he need a lawyer for? We’ve been assured that " NOT ILLEGAL!"
And that’s really all that matters, right?
He sure does seem to be accumulating a lot of prosecutors for someone just doing an investigation though.
Spicer is a week behind on the talking points:
Uhhhhh Sean? This was the talking point on July 8. Before Junior released the emails where it was written down in clear words that the meeting was about getting dirt on the Clinton campaign from agents of the Russian government.
The talking point is no longer operative. It has ceased to be. It is no more. It has expired and gone to meet it’s maker. It’s kicked the bucket, it’shuffled off this mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin’ choir invisible!
This is a dead talking point! 
One of my usual asides, but what do Trump and the Administration* think they’re accomplishing by having audio-only press conferences? “Look upon my dominance, ye mighty, and despair!”?
*Sounds like a bad '60’s musical group.
Per CNN, Putin is now “insisting” we give the two spy mansions back. Looks like he has more to release if Trump doesn’t comply.
I think Trump thinks that if there is no video, then SNL cannot mock them.
I’m not sure what’s being leaked by whom, what journalists are digging up through non-leak methods, etc. I am also not an attorney or investigator.
But as someone with seemingly more common sense than all the Trumps combined, if I’m Mueller or on his team I’m just going to keep my head down and nose clean and watch from the sidelines. I mean, every time something comes out, Trump and Co. lie, dial back that lie with another lie, dial back that lie with another lie, and somehow confess to the wrongdoing along the way. I don’t know if there’s a need to leak or just watch.
…
[QUOTE=Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy]
…wrap it round your head to ward off noxious fumes or avoid the gaze of the Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal (a mind-bogglingly stupid animal, it assumes that if you can’t see it, it can’t see you — daft as a brush, but very very ravenous)…
[/QUOTE]
Can I hear the chorus of “what is she hiding”?
You know that chorus would be in full throat if that was a Trump administration official refusing to testify.
Susan Rice refuses to testify before House Intelligence Committee
"Susan Rice is no longer expected to visit Capitol Hill on Tuesday for a meeting with the House committee probing allegations she “unmasked” President Trump associates in Russian meddling probes.
Rice had been expected to face tough questions on her role in the matter while serving as then-President Barack Obama’s national security adviser. Trump alleges Rice may have committed a crime by asking government analysts to disclose the names of his associates documented in intelligence reports."
or how about this:
"Rice told PBS in March that she “knew nothing” about the unmasking of Trump associates.
She later acknowledged having occasionally sought the identities of Trump associates who communicated with foreigners, a process known as “unmasking” in the intelligence community. But she later told MSNBC, “I leaked nothing to nobody.”"
You know that when a Republican official changes his statements, it is “why is he lying, what is he covering up”, right?
Wrong thread Okrahoma. The tu quoque thread is just down the street.
That’s pretty much all it says. Nowhere does it say it was her decision, certainly doesn’t say she refused anything. Bogus.
This is exactly true. If only you would bend some effort to learn the extremely vast difference between the terms, “unmasking” – a completely routine, expected practice done by persons at the highest levels of government, such as a national security advisor – and “leaking,” which is illegal.
These terms are not interchangeable. It is one of the many disingenuous tactics used by Fox “News” and the alt-right to conflate meanings and imply nefarious conduct where there was none, in order to mislead gullible people.
Can I hear a chorus of “Okrahoma is as disingenuous as always?”
a) No one but you and Trump think she did anything wrong.
b) The House hearing has only been postponed and it was postponed by the House Intelligence Committee, not Rice, but you’ll never see that detail on FoxNews.
c) Susan Rice to appear before Senate **Intel **Committee this week
We’ll await your correction and apology.