Trump Jr. Agrees to Senate Interview

Donald Trump, Jr. has agreed to be interviewed in June by the Senate Intelligence Committee. He he will be questioned "for two to four hours on five to six topics".

One topic reportedly relates to inconsistencies between his 9 hour private testimony to the Committee in December 2017 about the the Trump Moscow project and testimony of Michael Cohen. The Wall St Journal reports:

The Senate committee wants Mr. Trump Jr. to answer questions about his previous testimony and possible inconsistencies with other witnesses’ accounts, according to people familiar with the matter. Mr. Trump Jr. in 2017 told a Senate panel he was “peripherally aware” of negotiations for a Trump Tower Moscow project. But former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen told a House committee in February that he briefed Mr. Trump Jr. about the project about 10 times.

The New York Times reports the committee also has more questions about the 2016 Trump Tower meeting. And an ally of Trump, Jr. tells the Times:

A person close to the younger Mr. Trump, who in 2018 was a highly in-demand Republican surrogate on the campaign trail, said he was grateful for the support that some Republican senators and members of the House gave him against Mr. Burr, and that he would remember it when the 2020 campaigns begin.

How typical of the Trump clan to offer re-election support in return for a showing of personal support. Only Trump Jr. has nothing to offer in 2020 other than maybe a personal appearance which is more polarizing than helpful to any Republican other than those on the far right. Just another illusion of grandeur by the non-prodigal son.

< Bachelorette Hannah: A Hit or Misfire? | Admissions Cheating Scandal: Updates and Thoughts >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    The Rubicon has arrived (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon May 20, 2019 at 03:19:00 PM EST
    Democrats are at a crossroads.  It's time to go or get off pot.  Insert preferred analogy.

    Seriously.  It could not be more clear that unless something ELSE happens they are at a dead end.  The DOJ says McGahn is not required to respond to his subpoena.

    IMO that's it.  It's time for one of two things.  They have to start official impeachment hearings which would give them more leverage going forward


    They need to hold a press conference and explain they are to cowardly and pathetic to do anything about oversight of the out of control executive and just move on to whatever else they think they are supposed to do (I would recommend looking for a job after congress) and just SHUT UP about it.

    DOJ (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon May 20, 2019 at 04:06:08 PM EST
    is not going to uphold the laws makes it even more imperative to do something. Trump breaking all the laws is one thing but the DOJ backing up him breaking laws has become intolerable.

    Oh (none / 0) (#4)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon May 20, 2019 at 03:28:20 PM EST
    And F republicans being

    unsettled, alarmed and/or troubled


    Adding (none / 0) (#5)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon May 20, 2019 at 03:40:44 PM EST
    There is a tiny hope, tiny, they are doing nothing because Nancy and possibly others know things are coming we do not and there really is a plan.

    They better come soon.

    S'all I'm sayin


    Actually (none / 0) (#9)
    by FlJoe on Mon May 20, 2019 at 04:58:13 PM EST
    there are still landmines out there that are blowing up every few days. Flynn last week and the still ticking Deutsche bank revelations Sunday.

    tRump lost the first round of his bid to quash the subpoena for his accountants record.

    The Amash thing is no big deal, but I bet it stings like hell.

    The longer Nancy et al wait, the more evidence will come out of the woodwork. The longer they wait the more tRump rope has to hang himself.....or us, if she is wrong.


    I have agreed (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon May 20, 2019 at 05:02:31 PM EST
    And perhaps still do at the moment but there is a time coming, fast I think as I commented, they will have to use it or lose it.

    More stuff is coming out and people are getting sicker of hearing about it every day.  They have to change the game because right now they are losing.  People are tuning it out.


    I (none / 0) (#12)
    by FlJoe on Mon May 20, 2019 at 05:21:11 PM EST
    agree the Democrats are on the verge of losing the narrative, but aren't they always?

    The media of course will never get it right and they
    practically give Democrats an uphill battle no matter what they do.

    I thought that Deutsche Bank story was going to be big but judging from CNN it didn't even last a full cycle. Now they are blathering on about his financial records but they do NOT connect the dots.

    Multiple suspicious financial transactions before and after the election, nothing to see here.  


    When indeed (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon May 20, 2019 at 06:20:19 PM EST
    It's time.  If democrats are incapable of taking this list of outrages and running with it they do not deserve to have any power.  We are f'ed.  It's time for a third party or armed resistance or I don't know what but bullshi+ dithering and hand wringing time is over.

    I really think if Nancy can't do it she will begin to face open revolt of her leadership.


    I think (none / 0) (#18)
    by KeysDan on Mon May 20, 2019 at 07:55:31 PM EST
    the Speaker is there.  She, clearly, is prudently rolling out an impeachment inquiry.  The Democrats need to deploy hearings soon before it all goes cold.  The time for slow-walking is past.

    Apparently not (none / 0) (#20)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon May 20, 2019 at 08:02:33 PM EST

    House Democratic leaders sparred internally on Monday over whether to begin an impeachment inquiry against President Donald Trump, with Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her allies rejecting the call to move forward for now, according to multiple sources.

    Reps. David Cicilline (D-R.I.), Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), and Joe Neguse (D-Colo.) -- all members of the Democratic leadership -- pushed to begin impeachment proceedings during a leadership meeting in Pelosi's office, said the sources. Pelosi and Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) -- one of her key allies and a member of leadership herself -- rejected their calls, saying Democrats' message is being drowned out by the fight over possibly impeaching Trump.

    What exactly is your stupid f'ing "message"?

    Is it that you are feckless useless and helpless?  Because if it is MISSION ACCOMPLISHED

    I'm done with Nancy and her mealy mouthpieces.


    This (none / 0) (#22)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon May 20, 2019 at 08:16:45 PM EST
    Several members and aides said an impeachment inquiry resolution could be introduced in the House Judiciary Committee in the next several days, spurring more Democratic debate over how to respond to Trump.

    Like I said

    Open revolt is coming.


    Yes, (none / 0) (#24)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon May 20, 2019 at 08:36:46 PM EST
    I was just reading from a congressional reporter that said the entire house supports moving forward and Nancy is the only one holding them back. They said she is going to have to change her mind within two weeks.

    This (none / 0) (#26)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon May 20, 2019 at 09:23:36 PM EST
    Ok, yes, it's FOX.  But it's really not hard to guess who the source is here.  You can bet it's one of the ones named as clashing with her in the POLITICO link.  And they are going to start talking to any reporter who will print it.

    I think they are right it's coming to a head

    House Speaker Nancy Pelosi could soon be left with no choice but to embrace calls from some within her party to impeach President Trump, one senior Democrat told Fox News.

    The Senior House Democrat -- speaking on the condition of anonymity -- said, despite Pelosi's repeated attempt to quell talk of impeaching the president, "isn't going to be able to hold off on impeachment much longer."

    "It is coming to a head," the Democrat told Fox News, before predicting the mounting pressure from inside her own ranks could force Pelosi to change her position "within the next two weeks."

    The Democrat argued that "the vast majority of us are for impeachment." Fox News was told there was a hearty debate in the Democratic Steering Committee today about impeachment.

    I do not appear to be alone (none / 0) (#7)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon May 20, 2019 at 04:22:19 PM EST

    Profile picture for David Cicilline
    David Cicilline
    Twitter > davidcicilline
    If Don McGahn does not testify tomorrow, it will be time to begin an impeachment inquiry of @realDonaldTrump

    9 mins ago

    More news (none / 0) (#11)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon May 20, 2019 at 05:07:26 PM EST
    Apparently Trump is threatening Jones Day with loss of business if McGahn shows up and testifies.

    Can McGahn be disbarred from defying a subpoena?


    McGahn is doing the right thing, IMHO (none / 0) (#15)
    by Peter G on Mon May 20, 2019 at 07:21:39 PM EST
    Tr*mp, in his official capacity as President (yuck), was McGahn's client when he served as White House counsel. If the client wants to assert a privilege, the lawyer must obey until and unless a judge -- or in this case, the Committee chair -- rules that the claim of privilege is invalid. Unlike the White House claim of privilege to prevent Mueller from testifying -- which is baseless on its face, since there was never any sort of confidential relationship between the two -- the privilege claim as to McGahn is facially plausible, and will require a ruling. My own opinion is that Tr*mp has waived the privilege by publicly stating his version of what the discussion was between himself and McGahn (thus waiving the confidentiality on which the Executive and attorney-client privileges are premised), but as I say, that's for a judge (or perhaps the Committee chair) to decide.

    I actually knew (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon May 20, 2019 at 07:37:53 PM EST
    And agree with this and thought about doing a similar but less eloquent comment.  There is precedent for it.

    However I still think it's enough for democrats to say ENOUGH.  It's not like this is a stand alone act plus most people are not going to understand The subtleties of it.

    It sounds and seems bad enough.


    They (none / 0) (#19)
    by FlJoe on Mon May 20, 2019 at 07:59:27 PM EST
    are going beyond executive privilege and claiming blanket immunity
    "This testimonial immunity is distinct from, and broader than, executive privilege," Engel wrote, arguing that the immunity "extends beyond answers to particular questions, precluding Congress from compelling even the appearance of a senior presidential adviser
     Testimonial immunity?

    Typical proto-fascist Federalist Society (none / 0) (#21)
    by Peter G on Mon May 20, 2019 at 08:13:26 PM EST
    legal b/s. No valid basis in constitutional law (or any other law) whatsoever. In my not-so-humble opinion. That's not a "privilege" theory; it's a claim of something like sovereign immunity. Which is unAmerican, as applied to any person.

    More seriously (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon May 20, 2019 at 08:54:30 PM EST
    Here's what I don't really get.

    I understand why they might want McGahn to testify publicly.  But the fact is every thing he would say is in the freakin report in sworn testimony in black and white.

    Plus he is not the only witness they could get into an open hearing.  For god sakes DO SOMETHING. Something besides have your pathetic standard grinning mouthpieces go on MSNBC every damn night and say over and over what a travesty of justice it all is and how united the WHOLE CAUCUS is in thinking it's just awful and we really really are going to do something at some point when we are sure it's politically safe.

    In that POLITICO thing Nancy says she worried she (SHE, freaking Dragon Queen anyone?) might lose HER majority.

    I got news.  They were elected to do oversight.  And they really really better start freakin doing it.


    Republican Congressman (none / 0) (#27)
    by KeysDan on Mon May 20, 2019 at 10:39:58 PM EST
    Justin Amash may be more important than it appears at first bounce.  May generate a little courage among Democratic leadership. Ironic, if not embarrassing, that it takes a right winger to say what needs to be said.

    We really need "more information" (none / 0) (#23)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon May 20, 2019 at 08:19:18 PM EST
    To decide if it's proto-fascist.

    (Gag me with a f'ing spoon)


    Unlike an (none / 0) (#1)
    by KeysDan on Wed May 15, 2019 at 11:57:48 AM EST
    ordinary citizen whose Agreement would be to appear, sit down, and answer questions, junior struck a deal with restrictions on the time and topics that may be raised.

    It is rumored that there are, also, additional rules that the US Senators must abide or he will take his loose marbles and go home.

    RULES:  A red velvet cushion and matching pillow must be provided for his hearing room chair.  Ermine trim is optional; either three breaks and two Depends or two breaks and three Depends must be provided; junior must be allowed to bring his own special clock which will serve as the official timer; the Chairman shall serve cookies and milk.  The milk shall be warm, but not too warm. An alternate would be virgin mint juleps if Lindsey shows up as his Counsel; Republican Senators shall provide treats after junior answers their soft ball questions correctly. No treat means he gets a mulligan.

     Democratic Senators shall not be allowed to ask gotcha questions such as..if Hillary did what junior did in colluding with the Russian government in electoral cheating should she be locked up or be treated like a Trump or Orban.  And, last but not least, NO MATH. Junior is not good at converting rubles into USD.

    It's Sad (none / 0) (#2)
    by jmacWA on Wed May 15, 2019 at 03:18:11 PM EST
    But I bet you aren't far off the mark with the requirements.

    More Trump nooze (none / 0) (#8)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon May 20, 2019 at 04:56:14 PM EST
    Absolutely correct ruling (none / 0) (#16)
    by Peter G on Mon May 20, 2019 at 07:24:27 PM EST
    I have been waiting for a judge to say, "You want a valid legislative purpose to be articulated? Well, deciding whether there is a sufficient basis to open a formal impeachment inquiry is a valid legislative purpose. Next question?"

    and to be even more specific (none / 0) (#28)
    by Peter G on Tue May 21, 2019 at 07:56:04 AM EST
    It is a valid legislative purpose to inquire into whether the President is complying with the domestic and foreign Emoluments Clauses of the Constitution, which are expressly subject to Congressional supervision.

    Impeachment is a form of hope. (none / 0) (#14)
    by KeysDan on Mon May 20, 2019 at 06:25:25 PM EST
    (NYTimes op ed, May 18 2019).  In the Spring of 1868, Congress faced questions of presidential abuse of power similar to that confronted in 2019.  Andrew Johnson, who was Lincoln's Vice President and assumed the presidency upon his assassination, was considered to obstruct justice, defied the Constitution, disregarded Congress, issued Executive Orders with abandon, and worked his AG as his chief propagandist.

    All this shortly after the end of the Civil War, an election year, and at a time when there was not a sitting vice president (the then line of succession was firstly, to the president pro tempore of the Senate).  And, the Secretary of State had been badly injured in the Lincoln assassination plot.

    Andrew Johnson, although a Southern Democrat (TN), was expected to pick up where Lincoln left off, but, instead, he showed his true colors: He flouted Congress, declared the country was for "white men", and began pardoning Confederates at the rate of 100 per day.and proclaimed that members of Congress who opposed him should be hanged. And, he vetoed (over-ridden) the Civil Rights Act.

    After a second try at impeachment, Johnson was impeached 126/47.  The final straw was Johnson's violation of the (questionable) Tenure of Office Act of 1867 that stipulated cabinet members appointed with the advice and consent of the Senate could not be removed with the advice and consent of the Senate.  The Act was aimed at preventing Johnson from removing the Secretary of War, Edwin Stanton, who was in charge of the military who was protecting black men at the polls.  

    Andrew Johnson was saved from conviction in the Senate by one vote (Senator Ed Ross, Kansas) who some claim was bribed.

    It was always considered by the Congress to be an uphill battle, but the saving grace was that Johnson was not nominated by either Republicans or Democrats for his re-election in 1868, He bore the fate of being the first president impeached, and almost convicted, but the result was the discrediting of a white supremacist and the restoration of good government and faith in it. And, a hope of better things coming.  Until the next time.