Trump Jr./Russian lawyer meeting: Jr. knew info was part of Russian Gov effort

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

We need a Nixon Impeachment thread so I can go full EnglishPete. I keep wanting to argue that Nixon's impeachment was a real witch hunt by Tip O'Neill and his Democratic gang but keep feeling the thread isn't the right place for it. OTOH, it might not be the wisest thing to demonstrate my rabid Nixon bonafides.

Eh, it's six of one, half a dozen of the other.

As you were.

Go for it. History board is open for that sort of thing.

Especially since it was a witch hunt since Nixon's main problem was Bobby's crash at Chappaquiddick denied him the chance to beat a Kennedy for a change.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

We need a Nixon Impeachment thread so I can go full EnglishPete. I keep wanting to argue that Nixon's impeachment was a real witch hunt by Tip O'Neill and his Democratic gang but keep feeling the thread isn't the right place for it. OTOH, it might not be the wisest thing to demonstrate my rabid Nixon bonafides.

Eh, it's six of one, half a dozen of the other.

As you were.

Go for it. History board is open for that sort of thing.

Especially since it was a witch hunt since Nixon's main problem was Bobby's crash at Chappaquiddick denied him the chance to beat a Kennedy for a change.

Teddy, not Bobby.  I actually have a newspaper that I saved from Apollo 11's landing on the moon (July 20, 1969) and it has a tiny article on the front page talking about Sen. Kennedy being involved in a car accident at Chappaquiddick.

Ah.  I forgot that it isn't common knowledge that Bobby and Teddy traded places and faces in an attempt to save him from the mafia that killed their brother.  Of course, when the mafia got him they decided it would be better to ruin Bobby's chances to succeed his brother.  Perhaps if Jack hadn't died when his PT boat was sunk by the Amagiri, the four Kennedy brothers, Joe Jr., Jack, Bobby, and Teddy, would have amounted to something more than a part term presidency for Joe Jr.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/342225-trump-lawyer-secret-service-wouldnt-let-trump-jr-take-nefarious

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/16/politics/donald-trump-jr-jay-sekulow-secret-service/index.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So.... Trump's lawyer says the Secret Service screened the meeting. The Secret Service says they were only protecting Trump. There's one way both of those can be true.

No Trump's lawyer's statement was a conditional i.e. If ...... then..... Not the same thing as a statement that SS screened participants of the meetings. By asking that conditional question he has prompted the above response from the Secret Service, that they didn't screen the attendees of the meeting because no one under Secret Service protection was present.

The conditional wasn't "If the Secret Service was there, ..." but “If this was nefarious, why'd the Secret Service allow these people in?” Sekulow clearly wasn't trying to get the Secret Service to say they weren't there but was boldly asserting they were there and using that to imply the meeting had to be the nothingburger Trumpists wish it were. It's also clear he didn't count on the Secret Service reacting to his attempt to include them in politics by swiftly issuing their own statement that turned his attempt into a liability instead of the asset he'd hoped for. He probably ought to stick to his own talk show where he can control the narrative if this is the best he can do.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/342225-trump-lawyer-secret-service-wouldnt-let-trump-jr-take-nefarious

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/16/politics/donald-trump-jr-jay-sekulow-secret-service/index.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So.... Trump's lawyer says the Secret Service screened the meeting. The Secret Service says they were only protecting Trump. There's one way both of those can be true.

No Trump's lawyer's statement was a conditional i.e. If ...... then..... Not the same thing as a statement that SS screened participants of the meetings. By asking that conditional question he has prompted the above response from the Secret Service, that they didn't screen the attendees of the meeting because no one under Secret Service protection was present.

The conditional wasn't "If the Secret Service was there, ..." but “If this was nefarious, why'd the Secret Service allow these people in?” Sekulow clearly wasn't trying to get the Secret Service to say they weren't there but was boldly asserting they were there and using that to imply the meeting had to be the nothingburger Trumpists wish it were. It's also clear he didn't count on the Secret Service reacting to his attempt to include them in politics by swiftly issuing their own statement that turned his attempt into a liability instead of the asset he'd hoped for. He probably ought to stick to his own talk show where he can control the narrative if this is the best he can do.

He didn't "boldly assert" anything.

I suppose he didn't also go on five separate Sunday shows to spew his misinformation. If this is the best you can do, you might just have a place in the Trump Administration. As pathetic as your efforts have been, you'd fit right in.