Donald Trump Jr. Is Expecting To Be Indicted By Mueller Soon

Submitted by: littlemissqt 1 week ago in News & Politics


Tick tock.

An excerpt from New York Magazine: Last year, Donald Trump Jr. testified that he never informed his father of a meeting with Russian officials promising “dirt” on Hillary Clinton. It seemed hard to believe that the ne’er-do-well son would neglect to seek credit for his expected campaign coup from the father whose approval he so obviously craves. And now it seems that Robert Mueller has obtained proof that it is not in fact true. The Trump family lies all the time, of course, but doing it under oath is a crime.

Two days ago,
Gabriel Sherman reported that White House officials are concerned about Donald Jr. “I’m very worried about Don Jr.,” a former West Wing official told Sherman, who fears Mueller will be able to prove perjury. Deep in a report about Trump’s 2020 campaign plans, Politico drops the news this morning that Trump Jr. “has told friends in recent weeks that he believes he could be indicted.”
There are 50 comments:
Male 2,737
We'll wait and see.
1
Reply
Male 13,164
casaledana This. This is the only appropriate response. The people calling this a "witch hunt" or a "nothing burger" just have no concept of how investigations work or the history of investigations of this magnitude.
3
Reply
Male 2,336
The Trumps are bad, America is good.
0
Reply
Male 45,272
When he gets to prison those big boys will grab him right in the pussy
1
Reply
Male 18,342
"Lock her up." - Donald 
Trump

"You have to go after their families." - Donald 
Trump
5
Reply
Male 1,684
Draculya Provide a source for that second one. 
As all the actual attacks against families have been from the Dems against Repub targets. Conveniently 'doxied' by Dem staff members. Organized mobs with the blessing of the DNC and CNN... Tucker Carlson's home being the latest.
-1
Reply
Male 1,971
gohikineko
When asked about his plan for winning the war on terrorism during an interview with Fox & Friends in December 2015, Donald Trump suggested that U.S. forces needed to start targeting terrorists’ family members.

“We’re fighting a very politically correct war,” Trump said. “And the other thing with the terrorists — you have to take out their families. When you get these terrorists, you have to take out their families! They care about their lives, don’t kid yourselves. They say they don’t care about their lives. But you have to take out their families.”
0
Reply
Male 13,164
gohikineko seriously? He said that was how tho go after terrorists. He said it on tv. I refuse to believe you haven't heard that.
0
Reply
Male 1,684
holygod So his opinions on terrorists are identical to his opinion on Hillary? How does putting those two "quotes" together make the slightest bit of sense.

Or are you saying it's OK to go after the families of America's elected officials? As long as they are right-wing of course...
-1
Reply
Male 13,164
gohikineko Just that fact that he thinks it is OK to go after someone's family. I don't care if they are a political adversary or a war adversary that is completely unacceptable to any decent person.
1
Reply
Male 1,684
holygod Actual terrorists do not qualify for 'rules of war' you do know that right? They are not protected by any treaty or convention.

And this is yet another case of the liberal-left accusing the Repubs of "wanting to do" something they consider horrible... WHILE THEY DO IT IN REALITY themselves. Organized mobs attacking Repubs or conservatives in public and even invading their homes? That's far worse than anything the Repubs have done or even said. This is on top of violent 'anti-fa' riot mobs and their continuing, ongoing terrorism. (was it you who claimed they were really 'right wing'? Lolz funniest excuse ever!)

And yet the Dems are silent, or even approving! (both of attacking families and antifa) They've been calling for it for months now, why would thye not approve? And of course the MSM not only approves of both? Apologizes & makes excuses for them? They actively encourage more of it. Especially CNN, the propaganda arm of the DNC. Disgusting...
0
Reply
Male 13,164
gohikineko

"Actual terrorists do not qualify for 'rules of war' you do know that right?"

Their families don't deserve to die for their transgressions?

"That's far worse than anything the Repubs have done or even said"

So yelling at people in restaurants is worse than mailing them bombs?

"was it you who claimed they were really 'right wing'"

No.

"And yet the Dems are silent, or even approving!"

link
link
link
link
link
link

Get out of your bubble occasionally. It's fun out here in reality.
0
Reply
Male 1,684
holygod Who said anything about killing their families? Going after them legally is perfectly reasonable. It was the Scalesi shooter who was following the rhetoric of Sanders and Pelosi, shouting their slogans, or was that a 'false flag' and he was secretly a Republican operative?
BTW that was a 'good guy with a gun stopping a bad guy' too, even if he was a security team member. No one else had a gun because parks there are 'gun free zones' eh?  And it was a friendly baseball game, lolz! So the shooter didn't expect resistance... I know you agree with me (mostly) about guns, but I just came across that recently. Interesting, I think.

Organized mobs targeting the families of politicians and public figures is terrorism, plain and simple. Cruz's attack was not a 'spontaneous group' unless 'spontaneous' means making a group plan hours before and gathering nearby to wait for their arrival... and Carlson's was the definition of terrorism too.

Fake bombs, just like the Ricin was 'fake' but still detectable. The 'bombs' contained basic black powder (iirc) and none had functioning triggers, timers or igniters. The only way to set them off would be to put them in a fire... they were fake, and so was the sender of them.
0
Reply
6,813
 so all we're talking about is a perjury charge
-1
Reply
48
dm2754 Perjury charge and the fact that he allegedly did tell his father, which brings the big Don into the mix. I'm sure there will be other charges as well. 
0
Reply
Male 258
dm2754 ever heard of felony perjury? cant imagine this would be anything else. this isn't some small case in a small court with a nobody defendant.
1
Reply
Male 1,971
dm2754 "so all we're talking about is a perjury charge"
Yep! That was the charge in Clinton's impeachment. Republicans consider perjury a very big deal.
2
Reply
Male 5,239
semichisam01 It is a crime though, hence the High Crimes and Misdemeanors clause.
0
Reply
6,813
semichisam01 LordJim 
and remind me how much Jail time Clinton got? I bet Don Jr will get the same
-1
Reply
Male 1,684
dm2754 Trump Jr is not the President of the USA. He is not even an elected official. Only a freaking idiot with no grip on reality would equate the President proven to be lying under oath with the ACCUSATION against civilian. Not you of course, some idiots on IAB do.
0
Reply
Male 1,971
dm2754 "and remind me how much Jail time Clinton got? I bet Don Jr will get the same"
You don't need to be reminded that Clinton got no jail time. I was pointing out that Republicans thought then that perjury justified impeachment.
I would be surprised and disappointed if Don Jr. went to jail over this. He was not under oath when he told multiple lies to a congressional committee, which puts him in the same box with Justice Kavanaugh. 
If it were up to me, I would not send anyone to jail for lying to Congress. After all, lying to Congress seems only fair. Tit for tat.
0
Reply
Male 9,185
dm2754 I've never been a fan of Slick Willie, but he was very smart and still managed to fuck up his legacy. He could have been remembered as a capable president if he could have kept it in his pants. He got away with just being tarnished. These guys? Is this the best and brightest?
-1
Reply
6,813
LordJim Bill Clinton was a fantastic president. So make a big deal about a man being a man it was ridiculous. But when it happened to boosted the economy lol  
-1
Reply
Male 9,185
dm2754 They got Capone on tax. Perjury is enough to put you away, particularly in a major investigation. I wonder how long he'd be prepared to do for his dad? Three years? Five? 
0
Reply
6,813
LordJim 0 presidential pardon
-1
Reply
Male 9,185
dm2754 Accepting a pardon means admitting guilt. You escape the consequences, but you admit guilt. 
-1
Reply
Male 1,684
LordJim Nope. Nothing of the sort. A pardon can be given to a completely innocent, wrongfully convicted, party. It has not one thing to do with guilt or innocence.

HELL! Obama pardoned HUNDREDS of drug dealers and released prisoners from Guantanamo, Trump can surely pardon an innocent man.
-1
Reply
Male 13,164
gohikineko released non violent offenders selling consenting adults a product? AND released people being held without proof or charges? BURN THE WITCH!!!!!
0
Reply
Male 1,684
holygod Cocaine, heroin and crystal meth... TOTALLY HARMLESS!
No one ever went on a crime spree because they needed money to buy the JUNK they were addicted too! Never! A truly "victim-less crime" which should be ignored by the police and society!

Fuck that shit, ok? He released horrific criminals by the hundreds because most of them were Negros and no other reason required. Just go find them (like I DID ALREADY) and see for yourself how these were hard-core, repeat offenders of the worst kind. THAT is why they got long sentences, not because of their skin colour but because they were pushing drugs for YEARS. Importation, manufacturing and distribution. Drug kingpins in their domains. Parasites on society, a plague to the race they belonged to.

Of the nearly 400 (iirc) I recall 3-4 who were in for pot. The rest for coke, heroin, meth and many violent crimes. Period. 
-1
Reply
Male 13,164
gohikineko 

1. I don't do drugs. 

2. In a truly free society, consenting adults of sound mind should be able to make whatever choice they want in terms of what they put in their bodies. 

3. Drugs are only expensive because they are illegal. If they were legal and regulated they wouldn't be expensive and they wouldn't make criminals rich.

4. Saying people commit crimes for drugs so drugs should be illegal is asinine. People commit crime so they can buy Nikes too. Should Nikes be illegal?  

5. I'm pretty sure we've had this conversation before and you have said you think drugs should be legal, so you can't just change your mind now because it lets you shit on Obama.


0
Reply
Male 1,684
holygod I didn't suggest you do drugs, I'm saying the drugs those criminals were dealing was not harmless: it was hard-core. They were not all "non-violent" either, many had long rap sheets.

Well, nanny-state is the dream of the liberal-left, total gov't control over every aspect of our lives. Free access to any drug would be pretty damaging to society, I think. The only reason Pot got "legalized" here is to line the government coffers.
Drugs are far more dangerous than Nikes, you don't need $1000 a day to buy shoes, but you can for drug addiction.

I think drugs should be more legal yes, it would solve a lot of problems but also create different ones. At this point the 'war on drugs' is an abject failure so ending it is the best plan. Pardoning (commuting, whatever) hundreds of hard-core dealers and manufacturers and still keeping up the farce of being anti-drugs isn't helping anything.  

Make all drugs legal and pardon every drug offender is one way to solve the problem.
0
Reply
Male 1,971

gohikineko "A pardon can be given to a completely innocent, wrongfully convicted, party."
That is true. However, in Burdick v. United States, the written decision implied that accepting a pardon is an admission of guilt. That is the source of the disagreement about whether a pardon can be given to an innocent person. I discount the implication for several reasons that would take up too much bandwidth here, and stand with you on the unadorned claim.
Obama commuted the sentences of an unprecedented number of people. Commutation of a sentence reduces the punishment, but it lets stand the conviction. It is not a pardon.
The bottom line is that the pardoning power of a president has never been fully litigated. We don't have to agree about anything else to agree that Trump is likely to help define in what that power consists.
1
Reply
6,813
LordJim that is facetious reasoning 
-2
Reply
Male 1,971
dm2754 "that is facetious reasoning"
There is nothing at all facetious about LordJim's statement. It is a serious comment on a serious subject. Legal scholars have argued it at length. It is written law for some, but not all, state Governors, but less clear for a President.
Some legal scholars agree with LordJim; some do not. It is not clearly written nor settled case law.
See my reply to gohikineko above.
1
Reply
76
Dems better kick this into overdrive. This madman is causing a rapid descent into open racism, tyranny and violence.

I think perhaps the greatest irony about America is that those who yell the loudest about having their guns to fight a tyrannical government don't actually care about a billionaire, corporate oligarch taking over, cutting their living wages, healthcare, social programs and social security while giving themselves trillion dollar tax cuts. 

Couldn't care less about the single most tyrannical, corrupt administration in the history of the country, with 3,000+ lies since taking office out of a sitting president who openly admits to being a White Nationalist. 

Indictment after indictment. 

Guilty plea after guilty plea. 

Treason and collusion. 

Hush money paid. 

Declares openly his love affair with dictators saying of one who burn Christians at the stake that he "loves his people very much." Admires them and showers them in praise while condemning historical friends and democratic leaders across the board.

The same praise is reserved for white nationalist murderers who are "very fine people" but black peaceful protesters are "sons of bitches" that should be violently dragged off the field...

They don't care about any amount of tyranny to any amount of groups or people. 

Even themselves.

They just need one thing.

The perception that minorities and Muslims (Defined in Trump-Speak: "That boy dont look like me.") are treated worse. 
4
Reply
Male 1,684
He'll just say he "misremembered" eh? That worked for Hillary "landing under sniper fire" in Sarajevo... when she didn't. A story she told at least 7 times in prepared speeches and interviews...

It's a witch-hunt, a fishing trip, everyone knows that: he has nothing after all this time or he'd have "leaked it" long ago. Time to shut it down.
-4
Reply
76
gohikineko You don't really know much about how an investigation works do you? Nor do you have much of a grasp on the concept of a Witch Hunt...

Benghazi was considerably longer than this. Four years. Lawmakers questioned Clinton for 11 hours. 800 page report. Zero indictments. Zero guilty pleas.

Hillary's email investigation. 2 years, zero indictments. Zero guilty pleas.

Mueller:
32 indictments. Six of these people (including now all four former Trump aides) have pleaded guilty.
3
Reply
Male 1,684
todd_dirks Hillary said, under oath, that she did things that are illegal. If the FBI hadn't been working for her as opposed to doing their job? She'd be in jail now where she belongs.

Mueller's "indictments and charges" have had absolutely nothing to do with Trump. Nothing: zero zilch nada. He refused to pursue one indictment when that person came forward and demanded a day in court, he fought against it proceeding! Give me a break dude.
-2
Reply
Male 258
gohikineko you cant say for sure there is nothing on trump, mueller hasnt released his report yet dum dum
1
Reply
Male 13,164
gohikineko Holy shit. You honestly can't read one bad thing about a republican without responding "BUT HILLARY!!!!!!!!!" Fucking hell man, is it some pavlovian instinctive response, or do you actually think it is some awesome counter?

I also find it funny that you had to go back a decade for your Hillary lie, yet we can literally go to yesterday for our blatant Trump lie? Actually, maybe today, I haven't been on Twitter yet. Those don't count though right?
2
Reply
Male 1,684
holygod Again: she said under oath she did things that are clearly illegal. The FBI was not trying to convict her, they were trying to excuse her and they couldn't even do that. Comey had to admit she broke the law (several of them) BUT he still didn't want her charged.

Your definition of "lie" is pretty amazing if Trump is involved, as opposed to a Clinton (either one) lying under oath (for example) which you think is A-OK and defend. And since when is "telling a lie" while not under oath a jailable offence? Your idea of 'law' is pretty... Democrat.
-1
Reply
Male 13,164
gohikineko I think it is A-OK and defend? Haven't we talked about this plenty of times where I said Clinton was guilty? I have too much to do tonight to fuck with your silly straw men.
0
Reply
Male 1,684
holygod But you think Kavanaugh is guilty? Or you let others push that line without comment?
Which Clinton is guilty? Hilly Billy or both? I'm glad you think for yourself on some topics, but your blind 'Orange Man Bad' is hardly admirable. And no, I do not defend him 'all the time' just when the accusations are outright fiction, which is most of the time.
-1
Reply
Male 7,136
gohikineko So you do not see a difference between possible embellishing a war story and possible collusion with an enemy nation?

Is this your stance?

There is a difference between your girlfriend spending 75$ on a pair of shoes, when she told you that she spent 30$, and her telling you that she is pregnant with your child and its not your kid.
2
Reply
Male 1,684
daegog You have proof of collusion? "Present it" or just keep spinning and spinning.
I can prove she lied about her story. EZ.
WTF are you talking about? How is a fictional lie (collusion) the same as a cold hard fact (Hillary's lie)? You are seriously confused if you think simply accusing someone ... OH RIGHT! Just the accusation of wrongdoing is enough to convict, but the admission and proof of guilt is not! If the politics are right or left of course. 
Please spare me your brainwashed nonsense, thanks.
-1
Reply
Male 7,136
gohikineko Here is the thing:

Your "Proof" =! Indictment

Donnie Jr is fucked, BECAUSE he lied about collusion not because he lied about getting shot at or some silly boast.  His lie is to cover up treason.  I hope we still hang traitors.

Tell me, when the indictments for donnie jr, do you have your next excuse ready or do you have to wait till the breitbart generates the excuse for you to parrot?
0
Reply
Male 1,684
daegog We've been waiting for Mueller to prove something, anything, for how long now? It's always "coming" but never arrives. And when it does arrive? It's all smoke, no fire.
Again: if there were anything it would have been 'leaked' long ago, for sure before the election.
0
Reply
Male 945
daegog Whataboutism is strong.
1
Reply
Male 7,136
One piece of corroborating evidence and he is guilty as fuck, im sure they have eye witness accounts, but they are gonna need an email, text or letter I think.

Just one text or email showing that he told papa trump means he is guilty, would trump let his boy stay in jail?
1
Reply
Male 18,342
daegog you betcha 
1
Reply