Current Events > Trump dictated son's misleading statement on meeting

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-dictated-sons-misleading-statement-on-meeting-with-russian-lawyer/2017/07/31/04c94f96-73ae-11e7-8f39-eeb7d3a2d304_story.html

On the sidelines of the Group of 20 summit in Germany this month, President Trump’s advisers discussed how to respond to a new revelation that Trump’s oldest son had met with a Russian lawyer during the 2016 campaign — a disclosure the advisers knew carried political and potentially legal peril.

The strategy, the advisers agreed, should be for Donald Trump Jr. to release a statement to get ahead of the story. They wanted to be truthful, so their account couldn’t be repudiated later if the full details emerged.

But within hours, at the president’s direction, the plan changed.

Flying home from Germany on July 8 aboard Air Force One, Trump personally dictated a statement in which Trump Jr. said he and the Russian lawyer had “primarily discussed a program about the adoption of Russian children” when they met in June 2016, according to multiple people with knowledge of the deliberations. The statement, issued to the New York Times as it prepared a story, emphasized that the subject of the meeting was “not a campaign issue at the time.”
...
Over the next three days, multiple accounts of the meeting were provided to the media as public pressure mounted, with Trump Jr. ultimately acknowledging that he had accepted the meeting after receiving an email promising damaging information about Hillary Clinton as part of a Russian government effort to help his father’s campaign.

The extent of the president’s personal intervention in his son’s response, the details of which have not previously been reported, adds to a series of actions that Trump has taken that some advisers fear could place him and some members of his inner circle in legal jeopardy.

As Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller III investigates potential obstruction of justice as part of his broader probe of Russian interference in the 2016 election, these advisers worry that the president’s direct involvement leaves him needlessly vulnerable to allegations of a coverup.

“This was . . . unnecessary,” said one of the president’s advisers, who like most other people interviewed for this story spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive internal deliberations. “Now someone can claim he’s the one who attempted to mislead. Somebody can argue the president is saying he doesn’t want you to say the whole truth.”

---

this bombshell shit drops while i'm at a fucking bbq

you fucking serious
---

Washpo fabricates these crazy stories with their "anonymous sources" every day. They're worse than Alex Jones.
---

F
a
k
News
---

fuck news
---

A shady and corrupt business man is a shady and corrupt president. Everyone but the dumbasses who voted for him could see this.

Nomadic View posted...

Washpo fabricates these crazy stories with their "anonymous sources" every day. They're worse than Alex Jones.

Keep beating that sad, sad drum
---

UnholyMudcrab posted...

Nomadic View posted...

Washpo fabricates these crazy stories with their "anonymous sources" every day. They're worse than Alex Jones.

Keep beating that sad, sad drum

Keep believing in fairy tales.
---

Nomadic View posted...

Keep believing in fairy tales.

You saying it's a fairy tale does not make it so.

Rather surprised you've been shilling as hard for Trump as you have. Never thought you cared much for him.
---

I remember when the meeting itself was fake news. Now look at where we're at. Good times. Who knows where this story will be in a weeks or months time.
---

The actions of honest men.
---

Darmik posted...

I remember when the meeting itself was fake news. Now look at where we're at. Good times. Who knows where this story will be in a weeks or months time.

Yep

First the meeting was fake news
Then the fact that it was Russians they were meeting was fake news
Then the fact that it was set up prior was fake news
Then the fact that information was promised was fake news
Then the fact that the individual was connected to the Russian gov was fake news


hoo boy i wonder if they're tired from all this spinning
---

Doom_Art posted...

Nomadic View posted...

Keep believing in fairy tales.

You saying it's a fairy tale does not make it so.

Rather surprised you've been shilling as hard for Trump as you have. Never thought you cared much for him.

He does some things I like, and he does a lot of things that I don't like. What I like the most is substantive facts. Washpo is notorious for releasing bad information that is depending on "anonymous sources." It's in the realm of possibility for the story to be true, however Washpo's reputation for providing wrong information based on anonymous sources have been undependable.

Washpo is overdrawn on credibility. I'll believe a story they produce when they produce substantive evidence.
---

Bullet_Wing posted...

The latest defense is literally "we're too disorganized to collude"

Actually this is very believable
---

Nomadic View posted...

Washpo is notorious for releasing bad information that is depending on "anonymous sources." It's in the realm of possibility for the story to be true, however Washpo's reputation for providing wrong information based on anonymous sources have been undependable.

Let's get one thing clear here. Your personal opinion does not make them "notorious" or "reputable" for anything
---

Nomadic View posted...

Doom_Art posted...

Nomadic View posted...

Keep believing in fairy tales.

You saying it's a fairy tale does not make it so.

Rather surprised you've been shilling as hard for Trump as you have. Never thought you cared much for him.

He does some things I like, and he does a lot of things that I don't like. What I like the most is substantive facts. Washpo is notorious for releasing bad information that is depending on "anonymous sources." It's in the realm of possibility for the story to be true, however Washpo's reputation for providing wrong information based on anonymous sources have been undependable.

Washpo is overdrawn on credibility. I'll believe a story they produce when they produce substantive evidence.

Any "substantive facts" to prove this claim here?
---

A 2017 Pew poll showing that only 20 percent of adults trust what they read from national news organizations like the NYT and WaPo. It was only a year ago that Republicans and Democrats agreed on the scope of the press’ influence, but 2017 now boasts a wider gap between the parties than ever before. While 77 percent of Republicans and 74 percent of Democrats thought that news criticism kept political leaders on track in 2016, now only about a third of Democrats say they really trust national news outlets, along with just 11 percent of Republicans, according to Pew.

http://www.journalism.org/2017/05/10/democrats-republicans-now-split-on-support-for-watchdog-role/
---

Nomadic View posted...

A 2017 Pew poll showing that only 20 percent of adults trust what they read from national news organizations like the NYT and WaPo. It was only a year ago that Republicans and Democrats agreed on the scope of the press’ influence, but 2017 now boasts a wider gap between the parties than ever before. While 77 percent of Republicans and 74 percent of Democrats thought that news criticism kept political leaders on track in 2016, now only about a third of Democrats say they really trust national news outlets, along with just 11 percent of Republicans, according to Pew.

http://www.journalism.org/2017/05/10/democrats-republicans-now-split-on-support-for-watchdog-role/

Not only is a poll not proof of what you're claiming, the article also doesn't even mention the Washington Post...
---

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/washington-post/

Factual Reporting: HIGH

---