SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 17 submissions in the queue.
SoylentNews
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."
This discussion has been archived.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
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
You know, the difference between this company and the Titanic is that the
Titanic had paying customers.
(Score: 3, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday August 07 2018, @07:24PM (10 children)
Some russian bigmouth guy promised some sort of info on clinton
Which is a crime! Also, soliciting that information, in the form of accepting a meeting to discuss it, is also a crime.
So your "meh" is an admission of two federal election crimes.
I posted the statute in a different post. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 07 2018, @07:33PM (5 children)
As uber trump hater Strzok also said, collusion is not a crime.
(Score: 5, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday August 07 2018, @07:48PM (4 children)
As uber trump hater Strzok also said, collusion is not a crime.
You're right, it's multiple crimes. [washingtonpost.com]
(Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 07 2018, @10:25PM (3 children)
No, thats not what he meant. And he was the one in charge of the investigation, who said he didnt want to waste any more time with it careerwise since "there was no there there". People have apparently come up with their own armchair legal advice to disagree with FBI and DoJ who public records show were investigating trump, totaly biased against him, but didnt think there was anything there. Read the actual reports by the people involved and listen to their testimony.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday August 07 2018, @11:49PM (1 child)
"there was no there there".
Whelp, turns out the guy who was swiftly removed from the investigation due to a conflict of interest was wrong. "Cause we're "there" already and "there" keeps getting bigger every time a lie is exposed.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 08 2018, @11:47AM
What? He wasnt swiftly removed, he decided he didnt want to do it. You need to go watch the Strzok hearing and read the OIG report on all this.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Tuesday August 07 2018, @11:55PM
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday August 08 2018, @05:15AM (2 children)
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.
What I also think is remarkable about your post is that if this information really was the real deal, then the law would have suppressed a bit of vital information that the US public should have known about Clinton. It is remarkable that you would support this merely because of who or how that information was obtained.
OR is that rather that you support this interpretation of law because of whose side you are on?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 08 2018, @05:23AM (1 child)
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
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.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 08 2018, @06:50AM
I wonder what paying a foreign agent in the UK to write a fake dossier is a crime for then. :-/