Trump’s son invented new legal theory in testimony to Congress

[justabubba]

https://www.rawstory.com/2018/12/wa...invented-new-legal-theory-testimony-congress/

During closed-door testimony before Congress, President Donald Trump’s eldest son attempted to invoke a novel legal doctrine, a member of the House Judiciary Committee revealed to MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell on Monday.
... “There’s some questions about the communications with his father and about the meeting at Trump Tower,” O’Donnell noted. “Do you believe Donald Trump, Jr. lied to your committee?”
... “He told us he’s not going to answer any questions with his father, asserting a father-son privilege,” he [congressman eric stalwell] explained. “Which is privileged privilege — only something that the Trumps could create.”

when asked about whether he informed the presidential candidate tRump about the tRump tower meeting with the russians to obtain dirt on hillary donald jr refused to answer citing the well known father-son privilege

can't imagine why that did not cause the congress members to abandon that line of questioning

 

[Beaudreaux]

https://www.rawstory.com/2018/12/wa...invented-new-legal-theory-testimony-congress/



when asked about whether he informed the presidential candidate tRump about the tRump tower meeting with the russians to obtain dirt on hillary donald jr refused to answer citing the well known father-son privilege

can't imagine why that did not cause the congress members to abandon that line of questioning

Is this the same testimony that NPR, and others, had to retract their story and issue a printed apology to Don Junior for publishing things they were told by Democrats like Stalwell that were present at the testimony, that what they told the press was, well, wrong (a lie)?

You know me, and you know I have no love lost for Trump or his sons, but given the track record of the press and the Democrats on this particular testimony... I tend to not believe anything from anyone in that was in that room.

That said, if Don Junior actually said that, and he didn't mean it as Executive Privilege, then yeah, that would be laughable. Father/son privilege? Don't think that one would hold up at all.

 

[Xelor]

Is this the same testimony that NPR, and others, had to retract their story and issue a printed apology to Don Junior for publishing things they were told by Democrats like Stalwell that were present at the testimony, that what they told the press was, well, wrong (a lie)?

You know me, and you know I have no love lost for Trump or his sons, but given the track record of the press and the Democrats on this particular testimony... I tend to not believe anything from anyone in that was in that room.

That said, if Don Junior actually said that, and he didn't mean it as Executive Privilege, then yeah, that would be laughable. Father/son privilege? Don't think that one would hold up at all.

You are now the second DP member whom I've observed remarking about NPR having blundered regarding its depiction of Trump, Jr.'s remarks.

I finally happened upon the updated version of the article to which the other member referred, read it and its correction statement:

Editor's note: An earlier version of this report mischaracterized an answer Donald Trump Jr. gave to Senate investigators in 2017 about the prospective projects his family was negotiating with people in Moscow.​

​

The story reported that Trump Jr.'s response — that negotiations on one project concluded by the end of 2014 — contrasted with the version of events as laid out in the guilty plea by Michael Cohen on Thursday. In fact, Trump Jr. and investigators were alluding to a different set of negotiations — not to a deal that Cohen was reportedly pursuing. Trump Jr. did acknowledge in his testimony that Cohen and another man were exploring a possible deal in Moscow in 2015 or 2016.​

​

Trump Jr. did not address what Cohen has now admitted — that talks about such a deal continued at least into June 2016, longer than previously known and well into the presidential campaign.
​

That article has nothing to do with "father-son privilege." Have you a different article in mind?

 

[Deuce]

You are now the second DP member whom I've observed remarking about NPR having blundered regarding its depiction of Trump, Jr.'s remarks.

I finally happened upon the updated version of the article to which the other member referred, read it and its correction statement:

Editor's note: An earlier version of this report mischaracterized an answer Donald Trump Jr. gave to Senate investigators in 2017 about the prospective projects his family was negotiating with people in Moscow.​

​

The story reported that Trump Jr.'s response — that negotiations on one project concluded by the end of 2014 — contrasted with the version of events as laid out in the guilty plea by Michael Cohen on Thursday. In fact, Trump Jr. and investigators were alluding to a different set of negotiations — not to a deal that Cohen was reportedly pursuing. Trump Jr. did acknowledge in his testimony that Cohen and another man were exploring a possible deal in Moscow in 2015 or 2016.​

​

Trump Jr. did not address what Cohen has now admitted — that talks about such a deal continued at least into June 2016, longer than previously known and well into the presidential campaign.
​

That article has nothing to do with "father-son privilege." Have you a different article in mind?

Right wingers take one error as proof they can disregard anything and everything they don't like.

Meanwhile, their own propaganda machine spreads deliberate falsehoods every day and they don't bat an eyelash.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

Jr has much to be worried about. Looking forward to hearing of him being charged.

 

[Mycroft]

Is this the same testimony that NPR, and others, had to retract their story and issue a printed apology to Don Junior for publishing things they were told by Democrats like Stalwell that were present at the testimony, that what they told the press was, well, wrong (a lie)?

You know me, and you know I have no love lost for Trump or his sons, but given the track record of the press and the Democrats on this particular testimony... I tend to not believe anything from anyone in that was in that room.

That said, if Don Junior actually said that, and he didn't mean it as Executive Privilege, then yeah, that would be laughable. Father/son privilege? Don't think that one would hold up at all.

My comments...

1. Didn't Comey have something to say about Republicans selectively leaking closed door testimony for political purposes? Isn't Swalwell a Democrat? I guess it's okay for some to do that...but not for others, eh?

2. If Trump Jr. did float that reason for not answering a question...if that reason is not acceptable or valid...why didn't Swalwell and his Dem buddies push to get the committee to REQUIRE Trump Jr. to answer the question?

3. Maybe it wasn't important enough at the time? Maybe it STILL isn't important but it's politically advantageous for Swalwell to make a big deal in the media...you know, red meat for the useful idiots?

4. Perhaps Swalwell is just setting the table for the purported flood of investigations everyone says are coming.

5. For sure, it's a waste of time to expect O'Donnell to raise the issues that came to my mind.

 

[Deuce]

My comments...

1. Didn't Comey have something to say about Republicans selectively leaking closed door testimony for political purposes? Isn't Swalwell a Democrat? I guess it's okay for some to do that...but not for others, eh?

2. If Trump Jr. did float that reason for not answering a question...if that reason is not acceptable or valid...why didn't Swalwell and his Dem buddies push to get the committee to REQUIRE Trump Jr. to answer the question?

3. Maybe it wasn't important enough at the time? Maybe it STILL isn't important but it's politically advantageous for Swalwell to make a big deal in the media...you know, red meat for the useful idiots?

4. Perhaps Swalwell is just setting the table for the purported flood of investigations everyone says are coming.

5. For sure, it's a waste of time to expect O'Donnell to raise the issues that came to my mind.

You're operating under the false assumption that Republicans are engaging in these talks in good faith.

 

[Mycroft]

You're operating under the false assumption that Republicans are engaging in these talks in good faith.

And you think the Dems are?

NEWS FLASH!! Congress is political.

 

[Mr Person]

You are now the second DP member whom I've observed remarking about NPR having blundered regarding its depiction of Trump, Jr.'s remarks.

I finally happened upon the updated version of the article to which the other member referred, read it and its correction statement:

Editor's note: An earlier version of this report mischaracterized an answer Donald Trump Jr. gave to Senate investigators in 2017 about the prospective projects his family was negotiating with people in Moscow.​

​

The story reported that Trump Jr.'s response — that negotiations on one project concluded by the end of 2014 — contrasted with the version of events as laid out in the guilty plea by Michael Cohen on Thursday. In fact, Trump Jr. and investigators were alluding to a different set of negotiations — not to a deal that Cohen was reportedly pursuing. Trump Jr. did acknowledge in his testimony that Cohen and another man were exploring a possible deal in Moscow in 2015 or 2016.​

​

Trump Jr. did not address what Cohen has now admitted — that talks about such a deal continued at least into June 2016, longer than previously known and well into the presidential campaign.
​

That article has nothing to do with "father-son privilege." Have you a different article in mind?

Nevermind that right wing media like Breitbart and Fox pretty much never issue corrections or retractions, it's "Democratic media" we have to worry about because NPR admitted making a mistake that one time.

If this was not Opposite World, the ability to admit error would be seen as a plus for a given media outlet. (Obviously, the total number of errors could factor in). But here? Nope. Admit that you're wrong and anything you say will be ignored at whim.

 

[Xelor]

Nevermind that right wing media like Breitbart and Fox pretty much never issue corrections or retractions, it's "Democratic media" we have to worry about because NPR admitted making a mistake that one time.

If this was not Opposite World, the ability to admit error would be seen as a plus for a given media outlet. (Obviously, the total number of errors could factor in). But here? Nope. Admit that you're wrong and anything you say will be ignored at whim.

Trust me, it's only a certain sort of folks who don't see a correction of a mistake as a plus.

 

[Beaudreaux]

You are now the second DP member whom I've observed remarking about NPR having blundered regarding its depiction of Trump, Jr.'s remarks.

I finally happened upon the updated version of the article to which the other member referred, read it and its correction statement:

Editor's note: An earlier version of this report mischaracterized an answer Donald Trump Jr. gave to Senate investigators in 2017 about the prospective projects his family was negotiating with people in Moscow.​

​

The story reported that Trump Jr.'s response — that negotiations on one project concluded by the end of 2014 — contrasted with the version of events as laid out in the guilty plea by Michael Cohen on Thursday. In fact, Trump Jr. and investigators were alluding to a different set of negotiations — not to a deal that Cohen was reportedly pursuing. Trump Jr. did acknowledge in his testimony that Cohen and another man were exploring a possible deal in Moscow in 2015 or 2016.​

​

Trump Jr. did not address what Cohen has now admitted — that talks about such a deal continued at least into June 2016, longer than previously known and well into the presidential campaign.
​

That article has nothing to do with "father-son privilege." Have you a different article in mind?

No. I'm discussing multiple articles that reference the same testimony. It appears you may have inadvertently conflated the articles. If I didn't make that clear, then I willingly take the blame for leading you to the wrong conclusion, and will try to be more clear in the future.

 

[Xelor]

No. I'm discussing multiple articles that reference the same testimony. It appears you may have inadvertently conflated the articles. If I didn't make that clear, then I willingly take the blame for leading you to the wrong conclusion, and will try to be more clear in the future.

Red:
No apology needed or warranted.

I wouldn't say you caused my confusion. It seems merely a temporally coincidence led me to think you may have been referring to the same article I'd earlier read about. It's not at all your fault that I did so.