I said earlier this morning. And here we go:
Here's my statement and the full email chain pic.twitter.com/x050r5n5LQ— Donald Trump Jr. (@DonaldJTrumpJr) July 11, 2017
And here's the 4th page, which really is where to begin to read chronologically (click to enlarge):
ADDED: Here's the NYT article on this. The email (from Goldstone) says:
The Crown prosecutor of Russia met with his father Aras this morning and in their meeting offered to provide the Trump campaign with some official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your fatherThe Times explains that confusing title, "Crown prosecutor":
There is no such title as crown prosecutor in Russia — the Crown Prosecution Service is a British term — but the equivalent in Russia is the prosecutor general of Russia.Later, Goldstone writes:
Don Hope all is well Emin asked that I schedule a meeting with you and The Russian government attorney who is flying over from Moscow for this Thursday. I believe you are aware of this meeting — and so wondered if 3pm or later on Thursday works for you?AND: Most damaging is this line from Goldstone: "This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump." To which Don Jr. responded: "If it’s what you say I love it especially later in the summer."
ADDED: Poll results:
পোস্টগুলি
২৫৯টি মন্তব্য:
«সবচেয়ে পুরাতন ‹পুরাতন 259 এর 201 – থেকে 259"Freedom of the press was described in Branzburg v. Hayes as "a fundamental personal right", not confined to newspapers and periodicals.[3] In Lovell v. City of Griffin (1938),[4] Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes defined the press as "every sort of publication which affords a vehicle of information and opinion."[5] This right has been extended to newspapers, books, plays, movies, and video games.[6]"
"Although it had been uncertain whether people who blog or use other social media are journalists entitled to protection by media shield laws,[9] they are protected by the Free Speech and Free Press Clauses (neither of which differentiates between media businesses and nonprofessional speakers).[1][2][10] This is further supported by the Supreme Court, which has refused to grant increased First Amendment protection to institutional media over other speakers;[11][12][13] In a case involving campaign finance laws, the court rejected the "suggestion that communication by corporate members of the institutional press is entitled to greater constitutional protection than the same communication by" non-institutional-press businesses.[14]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_the_press_in_the_United_States
roesch/voltaire
Assume there was negative information about Hillary Clinton and her complicity with Russian interests. Spin that story out in a way that creates legal danger for Trump, Jr.
Also, whether a company has articles of incorporation that make them "the press"
Now that's not what I said. I think it would be up to courts to decide if someone had Top Secret information for corrupt use or personal gain, as opposed to having such information as an agent of the free press.
If you want to tell me I'm full of shit it will help if I know you have some academic or practical background in these matters. If you do have that background maybe I'll learn something. If you don't maybe you're just blowin' smoke.
So according to Don Jr, and the released emails, he went to the meeting to collude, but because, according to him, there was no information to collude about they left. Really this is what we are to believe?
You keep using that word "collude." I don't think it means what you think it means.
So Brookzene says that the "Press" can have information us mere plebes cannot. Why does the "Press" get this privilege, and what determines who is a member of the "Press?"
Please tell me, Brookzene, what rights accrue to whom in the following case: Assume someone goes into a Planned Parenthood abortion clinic and videos the PP employee taking a clearly still living infant and stabbing it in the brain, then screaming "For you, Moloch!"
Could said someone publish that video? What if it was a NYT reporter (yes, I know the ludicrousness of expecting a NYT reporter to publish something like that)?
What if it was me, private citizen, filming a secret Pentagon meeting on troop movements in Afghanistan? Could I publish that? Email it to "SupremeIntelligenceOfficer@TalibanHQ.ISIS?" What if it was again a NYT reporter emailing it to the Taliban?
From what I can tell, your position would be that publishing the PP video is grounds for execution for anyone, but anyone could spill the troop movement to ISIS with ho problems, and that if it was a Hillary campaign meeting only the NYT person should be allowed to report on it... after careful coordination with the campaign, of course. This is, after all, the exact argument made by CNN on wikileaks: it was illegal for mere plebes such as the great unwashed citizenry to read the wikileaks. Only our betters in the news media could be allowed to read them. Your position is similar, no?
--Vance
Now that's not what I said. I think it would be up to courts to decide if someone had Top Secret information for corrupt use or personal gain, as opposed to having such information as an agent of the free press.
OK, at this point I can only conclude that Brookzene is a troll.
Why didn't Donald Jr, Manafort and Kuschner report this supposed Clinton/Russia collusion to the FBI?
Because nothing regarding the election came out of the meeting and no one was identified as having any connection to the Russian government. (Thus they were not "The Russians".)
"If you are holding top secret information you can hope that a jury will believe you (or Donald Jr.) were acting as an agent of the press intending to publish them for the public, but I think the prosecution will take the chance that the jury will not believe you."
-- Do you not believe that the Trump campaign planned to publish, maybe anonymously, but publish, damaging information about their political opponent?
Also: Being a reporter doesn't give you more rights than non-reporters. If it does, we do not have a "free" press.
Roesch,
No, the point is that if that is collusion, everyone who has ever been involved in a campaign is guilty of collusion. The Democrats are guilty of collusion for being involved in the Piss Dossier, too, under this proposal. However, you do seem to concede that this wasn't collusion after all, right?
Also, Brookzene, I would ask that you peruse the page at this link.
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/05/press-freedom-everyone
Don't worry, the Electronic Freedom Foundation is a deeply liberal organization that is probably as appalled as you are that Donald Trump is POTUS. But. They can offer you some guidance on what a "free" press means.
Assuming you aren't a troll that is.
roesch/voltaire said...
So according to Don Jr, and the released emails, he went to the meeting to collude, but because, according to him, there was no information to collude about they left. Really this is what we are to believe?
Yes, he went to collude in perfectly legal activities.
One paragraph that is especially relevant to the discussion here.
"The rhetoric of attacks on the free press always denies that their intention is to stop legitimate reporting. So bloggers are described as "not journalists". Social media journalism isn't real journalism, but merely gossip and a threat to family values. Punitive media registration for websites is simply creating a level playing field with traditional news organizations. Online censorship will be aimed only at disreputable sites, not "legitimate" news and commentary. And so on."
"I think it would be up to courts to decide if someone had Top Secret information for corrupt use or personal gain, as opposed to having such information as an agent of the free press."
-- Tabloid news papers and papers that print for profit have just as much free press rights as those that do not publish for "personal gain."
"On World Press Freedom day, we remember the hundreds of individuals who have personally faced the brunt of the attacks on the press: intimidated, exiled, imprisoned, beaten, and killed as a result of their work. As we do so, we can't afford to bow to others' definitions of who of those are "real" journalists who should be defended, and who are merely acceptable damage in a battle to create a well-mannered, respectable, and pliant press. To defend the freedom of the press, we need to defend the free speech rights of everyone who contributes to that freedom. And that, if our digital technology lives up to its promise, should be everyone."
Reading this thread it reminds me of the "emoluments clause" garbage the left clinged to as trump was taking the oath of office. Twisting, turning, wishcasting that somehow if they twist the meaning of the statutes that somehow a crime has been committed. It didn't work then and its not going to work now.
Brookzene:
I know it's not "what you said" and I also know it's a logical implication of what you have said. If you don't wish me to draw logical conclusions that make your whole argument seem stupid, try to avoid making stupid arguments.
That was easy.
Am I the only one here who can't help reading 'IANAL' as 'I♥ANAL' with the pictographic heart omitted in transcription?
The NY Times believes corporations have constitutional rights. They are just upset that the Supreme Court didn't rule that "media corporations" have special constitutional rights that other corporations or individuals can't have. The Supreme Court rejected the Times lobbying effort. Media corporations or "the press" don't have any first amendment rights that other corporations or individuals have. People have the right to acquire and disseminate stolen or hacked or other information and publish it as long as that person didn't participate in the theft. No evidence here that Trump Jr did anything other than take a meeting hoping to receive dirt on Hillary. No different than what The NY Times does every day.
so, in essence, to the left/MSM, Jr is guilty of a thought crime: 'Hoping For The Defeat of (HRM) HRC.' Got it.
Goldstone will be found dead within a month: "suicide".
This whole story reminds me of the dog I had when I was 15. My father had a golf range and I used to work there summers.
Our dog would watch birds settling down at about the 100 yard marker. After they landed and began feeding he would race out to try to catch them.
They would keep an eye on him and when he got within about 20 yards, they would all lift off and fly away.
If a dog could shrug his shoulders, he would have.
A half hour later, he would be up by the office and the birds would return. He would go racing out and they would take off again just in time.
He never got tired of it and never caught a bird but the exercise was good for him. He lived to be 19.
The Democrats are doing the same thing with Trump but I don't think it will do them as much good.
Each time they think, "That's it ! We've got him !" And they find nothing.
If the prophesied Goldstone suicide happens with three shots to the back of the head in Fort Marcy Park, I blame Otto.
and btw, Brookzene, IAAL - a 'constitutional' one, to boot.
dogs can't shrug their shoulders?
There is no such person as the "Crown Prosecutor of Russia".
There might have been one in the days of the Romanovs. But Russia hasn't been a monarchy for 100 years. By much evidence, its a garden variety kleptocracy run by a Russian Mafia boss. Also a kleptocracy with nukes that kills defectors with polonium.
"The Prosecutor General of Russia (also Attorney General of Russia, Russian: Генеральный Прокурор Российской Федерации) heads the system of official prosecution in courts known and heads the Office of the Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosecutor_General_of_Russia
So who made up this Crown Prosecutor of Russia bullshit? How 'bout someone who lives in a country with crown prosecutors! The UK has a "Crown Prosecution Service". Rob Goldstone (the jowly "publicist" who likes to wear funny hats) lives it the UK. Since publicists do puffery, ergo the most logical explanation.
“Emin just called and asked me to contact you with something very interesting,” publicist Rob Goldstone emailed Trump Jr. in June 2016. “The Crown prosecutor of Russia met with his father Aras this morning and in their meeting offered to provide the Trump campaign with some official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father.”
Unlike Hilary, Don Jr. forgot to wipe this email "with a cloth".
so, in essence, to the left/MSM, Jr is guilty of a thought crime: 'Hoping For The Defeat of (HRM) HRC.' Got it.
I don't know what "crimes" Don Jr is guilty of, but I figured just about everyone agreed he was guilty of being very stupid in this particular case.
Be very careful, everybody. It may not be a crime to meet with people who have Russian heritage but it is stupid.
Democrats, when they aren't celebrating the mass murder of Stalin, they're criticizing people who have any Russian heritage.
Oh no!! This is the really big one that will bring the Trump administration down I'm telling you. It's not like the last one or the one before that or the one before that or--you know. This is the big one! Treason! We finally got him!! Or if not we might be able to kill one of his children. That'll stop him.
The coalition of forces trying to stop President Trump from success are actively harming the nation to do so. This is the weirdest thing I've ever seen in politics. There is definitely something wrong here that is beyond my meagre reasoning skills to figure out. I know about the Hillary lost and he is brash and crude purported reasons, but it is something way beyond that. I'm not bashing Chuck, but he is a perfect example of it. He seems to be ok with a majority of Trump's policies and appointments, but but Trump! We just know he's guilty of something. Crudeness and unfamiliarity with the inner workings of government I guess.
To think of Donald J. Trump or his family as not loving their country or trying to sell it out requires living in a different space time continuum than the one I live in.
Disagree with policy, but this is just some insane game being played by people that have no regard for the common good.
JFC on a stick! I'm sorry to say it, but it wants to make me grab some of the worst offenders (not talking about commenters on a blog) by the shoulders and shake them. Wake up! Wake up! Just think. Think!!
This isn't just simple TDS for MSM and Dems. There is something far darker going on.
Sorry for the rant, and IMHO as always.
Why is Donald Jr. "stupid in this particular case"? He was gathering dirt on an opponent which is pretty s.o.p for all modern campaigns. I guess he could lose style points for not using a surrogate but that is what I would expect from a bunch of political novices which is what the trump people were and still are.
Ron Winkleheimer said...
If I understand Brookzene correctly, its OK for New York Times reporters to reveal classified information because they are such fine, upstanding, moral folk they could only be doing so for the very bestest of reasons in order to further the public good and therefore no DA would ever attempt to indict them while the rest of us have no such privilege because we are dirty, dirty proles.
Thanks for clearing that up.
7/11/17, 1:42 PM
That is actually the case. See this...
“OAG has determined to exercise its prosecutorial discretion to decline to bring criminal charges against Mr. Gregory, who has no criminal record, or any other NBC employee based on the events associated with the December 23, 2012 broadcast.
I would say sure, stupid law, no one should be "burned" by it but many, many in DC are. They just don't have David's pedigree (or friends). He was told it was against the law and did it anyway but the OAG let it slide. One law for thee and one for me...
Brookzene is not only worried about what did happen, but he is concerned about the legality of what didn't or the legality of what might have happened. I am picturing him with eyeballs spinning in circles, truth be told.
This email chain is proof of Russian government collusion, in the same way Steele's dossier is proof that the Russian KGB has incriminating photos of Trump's golden showers. But to registered Democrats, 60% of whom believed that W.Bush colluded in the 9-11 attacks by 2007, the evidence is always out there.
Michael K said...
This whole story reminds me of the dog I had when I was 15. My father had a golf range and I used to work there summers..
Similar story. Had a dog that we had to put on a chain after he wandered off one day- and got hit by a car, but lived with a limp. The chipmunks learned how far the chain went and would gather right outside his reach and make chipmunk noises and frolic in front of him. And all his charging at them I swear produced chipmunk laughter. Then one day my father put an extra 5 feet of chain on. The whole family was watching when he went out. I don't know who was more surprised, the chipmunks or the dog when he was suddenly among them.
The email reads weird. I wonder what an NSA analyst reading it over (or GCHQ) would do with the line about the Russian government wanting to help Mr. Trump. Would that be enough to open a FBI counterintelligence (or other FISA) investigation?
Did the FBI attempt a FISA warrant in June 2016?
And when the meeting actually happened, would that generate enough interest to "tap" Trump tower?
I agree with pacwest, there is something much more sinister happening beneath all of this. I really don't quite understand the deep states loathing of trump as he will continue to sell yuuge weapon packages to Saudi Arabia. He is still keeping us involved in syria & the middle east. He will continue abiding by the federal reserves ludicrous policy of propping up unsupportable federal debt. Other than superficial style points why is Trump perceived as a threat to the established world order in Wash D.C? I just don't get it. And if they manage to hound trump out of office we would then have President Pence? Is that the angle? The washington elite must have a vetted establishment figure at the helm?
I figured just about everyone agreed he was guilty of being very stupid in this particular case.
I don't agree with "very stupid." Many very smart people get fooled by those who have no ethics and live to lie and intrigue.
I wonder if you know that James Jesus Angleton was close friends with Kim Philby and did not suspect he was a Soviet spy ?
Trump Jr may not have the savvy his father has after all these years dealing with NYC crooks.
Excellent question, Brian.
Brookzene: "I don't know what "crimes" Don Jr is guilty of,..."
Sure you do.
Treasonous crimes!
Heinous Treasonous crimes!
Heinous Treasonous crimes worthy of execution!
This is pretty standard fare on the lefty/"lifelong republican" side.
So, as near as I can tell from this thread, DTJr is absolutely guilty of conspiracy to commit conspiracy.
Yes?
If so, I am fully on board with his being sentenced to one complete sentence and fined the maximum sum of one fine.
As the old saying goes, politics ain't beanbag. In just about every political contest, if one side has the opportunity to get dirt on their opponent, even from skeevy foreign provenance, they'll do it. We know that Clinton did the same thing, from the same sort of skeevy foreigners. We also know that Clinton took huge amounts of contributions to the family "charitable" foundation, also from many skeevy foreigners who were trying to buy influence with the future U.S. president. Fortunately for America, that did not come to pass, and the foreigners wasted the money given to the Clintons. Sad!
And yes, the word of the day is "skeevy."
mikeski,
That was brilliant. I laughed. Tears welled.
In that all of the principles involved were private citizens, engaging in an endeavor to find "information" on yet another private citizen..
Reading newspapers is now a crime. Reading the Daily Mail U.K., treason.
Blogger Jupiter said...
Two years ago, I would have read this. A year ago, I would have read this. Hell, six months ago, I would have read this.
But I no longer give fuck zero what lie the MSM are peddling this week. I don't care if they have video of Trump giving Putin a blowjob. They are liars, they lie. Videos can be faked, and why wouldn't lying liars fake videos to support their lies?
You don't need to read your horoscope to know that what it says is not true. And you don't need to read the MSM to know that what they say is not true. The really amazing thing is that I ever believed otherwise.
Jupiter says it perfectly. The result of of constant media irresponsibility and untruth is that many people assume they are lying and won't believe anything they say.
They were given a chance in November to do some self-reflection and they decided that pursuing their agenda was worth more to them than guarding their credibility. They chose to be grasshoppers, not ants.
7/11/17, 12:00 PM
So to summarize, DJT, Jr. was looking for blacktop, but the crew arrived with only 3-gal containers of used motor oil so he took a pass. Am I reading it right?
@ roesch/voltaire - If he went to the meeting to collude he would have asked the women to get dirt on Hillary. So this meeting was not about colluding, it was about receiving already supposed dirt.
So there is not smoking gun here about collusion. In fact there is nothing illegal also, no asking the Russian government or anyone to get dirt on Hillary or offering to pay to get dirt on Hillary or offering money on any dirt that anyone would already have on Hillary.
I am betting, and it's an informed guess, that the Brits intercepted this email, and turned it over to the Democrats.
The British don't need a Patriot Act, they can spy on anybody.
"Be very careful, everybody. It may not be a crime to meet with people who have Russian heritage but it is stupid"
"Russian heritage"? Hahahahahaha! She is a Russian lawyer, a citizen of Russia. are you stupid or naive?
Unknown,
I'm quite sincere in wanting a source that shows her current nationality. I've not seen anything on that point? Is she a legal immigrant or working in the United States on a Green Card? Do you have any evidence or are you basing your assertion on the poor wording of MSM sources?
It is interesting that Obama overtly tried to influence Brexit and the French election (not even counting the coups the US has done over the years). But it is ok when the good guys do it.
How naive do you have to be to not know that Russia has been trying to influence US elections for 70 yrs (or longer). Ever seen the RT cable network? It is Russia Today. I watched their commentary a few times and it is incoherent, though for sure a foreign influence. We have it on our TV. Likewise Al Jazeera.
The left says DJT Jr is stupid to take the meeting. Why? He's a young businessman, not a politician. (Which is 99.5% of the TDS) Businessmen take meetings all the time, millenials have renamed networking, but business has operated this way for 1000's of years. Face to face meetings to judge the person on the other side of the meeting. This is normal behavior.
Now for a politician, thats why you have surrogates, Like Clinton's wife has David Brock, and that Bluementhal sleaze ball. But again, President Trump is President Trump, decidedly because the voters wanted to oust Politicians from the White House.
Brookzene said...
I don't know what "crimes" Don Jr is guilty of, but I figured just about everyone agreed he was guilty of being very stupid in this particular case.
Stalinists.
And it is clear who is guilty of being stupid.
He was stupid to take the meeting because it was a setup. Perhaps it's more obvious in hindsight, but the emails read like a confession- no, not of a crime, but of intent to do the very thing that the Democrats have decided to frame Trump for doing.
I caught a bit of Rush Limbaugh today and he was talking about the way the Dems get things out in the media to support their narrative. His examples included the dossier story, which Comey showed Trump in Jan and that made it a news story so Buzzfeed leaked the content.
To me this reads the same way- the content of the emails serve the Democrats' purpose very well to advance their narrative. I realize Jr couldn't have foreseen all of this at that time but it is still stupid to think even in passing that it was a good idea to meet with this person. Why, for instance, did he not question the statements about high level help from Russia, or question who this person was? If he'd gotten her name and googled he'd have known that she is basically a lobbyist against the Magitsky Act and that this was obviously her motivation for the meeting. And then if he'd understood that he'd have known that the meeting was either a waste of his time or potentially worse if he'd been entrapped into saying something useful to her own interests.
In hindsight his response to the emails was monumentally stupid, but even with what was known at the time (had he had the sense to track down the information) he acted stupidly. I find myself thankful that Jr isnt involved in the administration if he is this gullible.
CStanley
What odds would you give that it was Comey who leaked that whole thing so that Buzzfeed could go to press?
That's what Rush implied, although I don't know if he meant that Comey was directly the leaker. It does seem plausible to me.
Don Jr. CAUGHT RED HANDED hoping for misfortune to befall an enemy of his father's and his own. And an enemy to values many Americans share with the Trumps.
Notice betting odds on Trump lasting out his term (which surely mostly rides on physical health or assassination and not the delusional legalistic "gotcha" dreams of the not-mys)
Yes, allegedly a set-up. Here she is next to an Obama person, allegedly. https://twitter.com/IWillRedPillYou/status/884964205786537984
Junior has learned a hard lesson. One day he was totally protected by Daddy's money and power bubble and then he wakes up surrounded by snarling dogs with no help in sight.
The lesson he learned was not to trust a Russian bearing gifts.
একটি মন্তব্য পোস্ট করুন