Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

President Trump Changed His Story on Son's Meeting with Russian Lawyer

posted by martyb on Tuesday August 07 2018, @05:08PM   Printer-friendly
from the "A-Tale-of-Flodden-Field" dept.

An Anonymous Coward writes:

5News reports:

President Donald Trump appears to have changed his story about a 2016 meeting at Trump Tower that is pivotal to the special counsel's investigation, tweeting that his son met with a Kremlin-connected lawyer to collect information about his political opponent.

[...] That is a far different explanation than Trump gave 13 months ago, when a statement dictated by the president but released under the name of Donald Trump Jr., read: "We primarily discussed a program about the adoption of Russian children that was active and popular with American families years ago."

also at Vox, MSN and Mic

Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
President Trump Changed His Story on Son's Meeting with Russian Lawyer | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 221 comments | Search Discussion
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 08 2018, @05:23AM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 08 2018, @05:23AM (#718670)

    Welp, you just turned this into a First Amendment issue. There is no exception for big mouth Russians or election campaigns. First Amendment trumps statutes.

    That would be false. The first amendment does not protect libel. It doesn't protect threats. It doesn't protect piracy. It doens't protect fraud. And it sure as fuck does not protect people soliciting a crime.

    you are such a fucken idiot

  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday August 08 2018, @06:10AM

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday August 08 2018, @06:10AM (#718676) Journal

    The first amendment does not protect libel. It doesn't protect threats. It doesn't protect piracy. It doens't protect fraud. And it sure as fuck does not protect people soliciting a crime.

    None of those are relevant. In this scenario, the only thing that could be a crime was the solicitation and that was of speech from said big mouth Russian, and hence, a protected activity.

    Let us keep in mind that if we can just pass laws willy nilly to restrict speech, then the First Amendment which is supposed to have primacy over those laws means nothing. What else then can we just decide mean nothing?

    Finally, once again, this particular interpretation of law is merely a bit of faction positioning. It should be obvious to everyone that the US public have a legitimate interest in such information and thus, that just from a public interest standpoint, election campaigns should have wide leeway in trading for information on their opponents, including purchasing said information from foreign nationals. When one then adds the First Amendment aspect, that's that.