Jump to content
IGNORED

They both can't be Fredo, can they? Junior and Eric


GreyhoundFan

Recommended Posts

21 hours ago, fraurosena said:

In case anyone was wondering, this LA Times op-ed has the answer.

Why did Don Jr.'s emails surface? Because Robert Mueller is already changing Washington's lying ways

  Hide contents

For more than a year, the most senior officials in the Trump administration have adamantly, even scornfully, denied that there was any contact between the Trump campaign and the Russian government. The bombshell report earlier this week of Donald Trump Jr.’s efforts to secure dirt on Hillary Clinton from Russian officials — and his June 9, 2016, meeting with the supposed purveyor of that dirt as well as then-Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort and his father’s aide Jared Kushner — has put the lie to those denials.

Why has the truth emerged now? A careful parsing of the events of the last few days points to the importance of the federal criminal investigation overseen by a stalwart special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III. His behind-the-scenes work already has changed the rules of the game for the White House and contributed to a more accurate public accounting.

The New York Times, which broke the story, reports that it was Kushner’s legal team that recently discovered the now-infamous email chain in which Trump Jr. was told that a senior Russian government official had documents that “would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father,” to which Trump Jr. quickly replied, “If it’s what you say I love it.”

And here is where Mueller’s investigation has rewritten the rule book for senior White House officials. To receive a security clearance, Kushner had to complete a form — the SF-86 — detailing, under penalty of perjury, every contact he had with foreign government officials in the last seven years. (I dealt with SF-86s as a deputy assistant attorney general at the Department of Justice.)

The Trump Jr. emails have given rise to a circular firing squad in the West Wing that we are told features widespread suspicions of Kushner.

Prosecutions for lying on an SF-86 are rare, but they happen, and Kushner already has one strike against him: He first signed and submitted his SF-86 without listing more than 100 applicable contacts with foreign leaders or officials. His lawyer said the questionnaire was submitted prematurely; it took two tries to fully supplement it. The Trump Jr. emails reportedly surfaced when Kushner was going through his records as part of that process.

In a pre-Mueller world, Kushner might have approached the matter casually and, if anyone asked, pleaded ignorance and a busy schedule. That approach, however, is no longer feasible. In the midst of a wide-ranging criminal investigation, with multiple targets, the threat of a perjury prosecution is the sort of offense zealous and sophisticated federal prosecutors — and there is no doubt that Mueller’s team fits that description — could bring to bear.

All of this would lead a good Washington counsel — and Kushner’s lawyers, Jamie Gorelick initially, and then suddenly on Friday, criminal defense specialist Abbe Lowell, are among the best — to conclude that Kushner needed to “get ahead of the story” and turn over the emails (a development the Times learned from people “familiar with” Kushner’s application, who requested anonymity because the questionnaire is not a public document).

Absent the special counsel investigation and the potential legal jeopardy for Kushner, the email chain very possibly would never have seen the light of day. Indeed, President Trump and Trump Jr. at first decided to provide a dishonest account of the June 2016 meeting, omitting the offer of dirt on the Clinton campaign. It was only after further reporting in the New York Times and finally its plan to publish the actual emails that Trump Jr. fessed up.

The threats represented by the Mueller investigation are having additional consequences within the White House, familiar to veterans of previous scandals. Multiple accounts suggest that the Trump Jr. emails have given rise to a circular firing squad in the West Wing that we are told features widespread suspicions of Kushner. These kinds of effects will only get worse as Mueller’s work advances.

Perhaps no quality has more stunned and frustrated the president’s critics than his brazen willingness to lie. Trump frequently appears to have no independent regard for truth, to see veracity in purely expedient terms: What he can get away with in public debate. More dumbfounding, he and others in the White House do seem to get away with it, ridiculing plainly objective accounts as “fake news.”

But the prospect of genuine legal jeopardy upends the calculation, certainly for Trump’s subordinates, who have future careers to lose, families to raise and, unlike the president, no general insulation from criminal prosecution. It is probable that some powerful people will be going to jail as a result of the Mueller investigation. Among the likeliest candidates are those who don’t realize that the game has changed, and that in the ambit of the special counsel investigation, and the courts of law, a lie is a lie.

1

 

Further proof that these chuckle-heads don't understand the difference between the business world and government. In business, lying is commonplace, it's even expected. Do you really believe your cable company is being completely honest with you?

But it looks like, if the above is true, that the backstabbing is getting very close to home for poor Cheeto. :pb_lol:

  • Upvote 11
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"6 defenses of Donald Trump Jr.’s Russia meeting — each more dubious than the last"

Spoiler

It's been a week since the Donald Trump Jr. scandal broke, and the White House and its allies have trotted out a whole bunch of different defenses — some of them only suggestive — from the 39-year-old's age to blaming former attorney general Loretta Lynch to the idea that it was only attempted collusion. Over the weekend, President Trump's lawyer even tried to suggest the Secret Service had no problems with the meeting — only to have that argument quickly unravel.

It's getting a little hard to keep track of all it. So below is a scorecard of each one, along with how plausible it is — scored from 0 to 10, with 10 being the most plausible.

1) Donald Trump Jr. is young

“My son is a wonderful young man,” Trump said in Paris last week. “I have a son who's a great young man,” he added later. Aboard Air Force One, he did it twice more: “He's a good boy. He's a good kid.” Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) called Trump Jr. “a very nice young man.” And an anonymous Trump friend told The Post that Trump Jr. was “an honest kid” who just wanted to hunt, fish and run the family business. The biggest problem here is that Trump Jr. is going to be over the hill before the calendar hits 2018. He has been an adult longer than he was ever a “kid,” and in fact he's the same age, 39, as the president of France next to whom Trump made the first two comments above. The suggestion here seems to be that Trump Jr. was out of his depth and didn't know better.

Plausibility rating: 1 out of 10. You can argue, perhaps, that Trump Jr. was a *political newcomer* who didn't know how the whole thing worked. But the idea that he's just a kid who should be given a pass is a pretty remarkable and subtle admission that this was bad. Also, the law generally doesn't allow exceptions for well-meaning and youthful adults, and being unaware of the law isn't a valid defense. We'll give it a 1 because perhaps it plays in the court of public opinion, but the implication is still that Trump Jr. just wasn't smart enough.

2) The Secret Service didn't stop it

Trump's personal lawyer, Jay Sekulow, tried this one out during his appearance on ABC's “This Week” on Sunday. “I wonder why the Secret Service — if this was nefarious — why the Secret Service allowed these people in,” Sekulow said. “The president had Secret Service protection at that point, and that raised a question with me.” The main problem with this one is that the White House has said Trump wasn't in the meeting, and Donald Trump Jr. didn't have Secret Service protection at the time, in June 2016. The Secret Service said after Sekulow's comments that it thus “would not have screened anyone he was meeting with at that time.”

Plausibility rating: 0 out of 10. This was a very bad moment for Sekulow, who has regularly struggled to defend his client.

3) Loretta Lynch let the Russian lawyer into the U.S.

This one got a presidential push last week while Trump was in France. “Somebody said that her visa or her passport to come into the country was approved by Attorney General [Loretta] Lynch,” Trump said. “Now, maybe that's wrong, because I just heard about that a little while ago, but I was a little surprised to hear that: She's here because of Lynch.” Well, it does appear to be wrong. It was based of a report in the Hill that said the Justice Department granted Natalia Veselnitskaya entry into the United States for the limited purpose of helping a Russian businessman with a matter before the DOJ. But this setup — labeled “immigration parole” — is actually the domain of the Department of Homeland Security, not the DOJ, and a spokesman disputed the report that Lynch was personally involved: “Attorney General Lynch, as the former head of the Justice Department, does not have any personal knowledge of Ms. Veselnitskaya's travel.” What's more, when the June 2016 meeting was held, Veselnitskaya was no longer there on immigration parole, but had reportedly been given a B1/B2 nonimmigrant visa by the State Department — again, not the Justice Department.

Plausibility rating: 1 out of 10. Perhaps Trump's underlying argument is intact — that it was the *Obama administration* that allowed Veselnitskaya into the United States — but that still leaves the question of why that matters. Donald Trump Jr. took the meeting of his own volition, knowing what he was being offered.

4) It didn't yield any useful information

From the very beginning, when it was first reported that this meeting was actually about Trump Jr. seeking opposition research about Hillary Clinton, he and the White House have assured us he got nothing — that the information was a bust. The implication is that perhaps his intent was to collude, but the collusion failed, and thus there was no collusion. And there is a legal logic behind this argument: Some have suggested that the meeting might run afoul of campaign finance law, which prohibits taking foreign contributions. If the information wasn't of value, though, perhaps it wasn't technically a contribution. Of course, we still don't know if he actually didn't get useful information; one person in the meeting, Rinat Akhmetshin, said last week that Veselnitskaya brought a plastic folder with documents allegedly showing illicit money funding the Democratic National Committee. There were no such stories written about this during the 2016 campaign.

Plausibility rating: 5 out of 10. This may actually be a good legal defense when it comes to campaign finance law and the line between intent and actual wrongdoing. But it doesn't really change the fact that Trump Jr. sure seemed to hungry for such information.

5) It's not collusion unless it's extensive or planned

Kellyanne Conway offered this one on Friday. “We were promised systemic — hard evidence of systemic, sustained, furtive collusion that not only interfered with our election process but indeed dictated the electoral outcome,” she said on Fox News. As I noted, Conway was really moving the goal posts here. The suggestion is that it's not really collusion unless it's planned or part of a concerted effort is making basically the same argument as Nos. 1 and 4 above. It's allowing that what Trump Jr. did was bad, but arguing that it could have been much worse. Also, the idea that the collusion must have “dictated the electoral outcome” is a huge stretch.

Plausibility rating: 1 out of 10. Conway's definition of what “we were promised” is quite slanted. And even if it were true, it's kind of immaterial as to whether or not this meeting broke the law.

6) Veselnitskaya was just a lobbyist/not a government lawyer

“Fox and Friends” host Steve Doocy offered this one in that same interview with Conway. “As it turns out, the Russia story is starting to fall apart,” Doocy said, “because it looks like [Veselnitskaya] was just a lobbyist, and she met with a whole bunch of members of Congress and State Department officials” and others. President Trump has offered a similar defense, saying Trump Jr. “took a meeting with a Russian lawyer — not a government lawyer but a Russian lawyer.” Veselnitskaya does not hold an official government title, but that's kind of how things work in Russia. Her interests were clearly aligned with the Kremlin, and she lobbies on its foremost policy goal in the United States: the Magnitsky Act. Former CIA intelligence officer and top Energy Department intelligence staffer Rolf Mowatt-Larssen and others have noted that it follows a familiar pattern for the Russians. “It bears all the hallmarks of a professionally planned, carefully orchestrated intelligence soft pitch designed to gauge receptivity, while leaving room for plausible deniability in case the approach is rejected,” Mowatt Larson wrote in The Post.

Plausibility rating: 2 out of 10. Maybe Veselnitskaya really isn't working for the Kremlin! But to take her and the Kremlin's word for it is pretty intellectually incurious and is asking us all to grant a pretty questionable premise. And at the very least, she was presented to Trump Jr. — multiple times in those emails — as working on behalf of the Russian government. So again, we're asked to separate Trump Jr.'s intent from what he actually succeeded at.

I think most of them should have a plausibility rating of -1000.

  • Upvote 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guys Fredo Jr. is having SUCHH a hard time dealing with his dad in power. ( hope y'all get my sarcasm ;) )

Inside Trump Family’s Turmoil Amid Russia Scandal: Don Jr. Is ‘Miserable’ and Wants ‘These Four Years to Be Over’

Quote

When Donald Trump Jr.—just hours after tweeting the email chain that exposed his glee (“I love it”) over the prospect of getting dirt on Hillary Clinton from a Russian lawyer in 2016—went on Fox News’ Hannity July 11 and said, “In retrospect, I probably would have done things a little differently,” some friends took notice.

“Those are not words normally heard from a Trump,” a source who knows the family well tells PEOPLE in this week’s cover story.

Those who know and have studied Donald Trump Sr. and the grown children running his empire while he’s president—Don Jr., Ivanka and Eric—say the family is guided by their father’s creed of winning at all costs and never admitting mistakes.

Though the president publicly defended his eldest son, telling reporters 39-year-old Don Jr. is a “good boy” and insisting “nothing happened with the meeting,” sources say performance is what matters to the patriarch.

“He doesn’t like failure and mistakes, and he doesn’t accept them,” says a source who has had business dealings with Trump. “You have to justify your existence to be in his realm.”

These days, the child most in Trump’s “realm” is his daughter Ivanka, 35, who, by all accounts, has always been his favorite.

Long outshone by his sister—first at the Trump Organization and now in the White House, where she and her husband, Jared Kushner, have West Wing offices and White House titles—Don Jr. has had a harder time adapting to life after the election.

For all his campaign rallies last year and bellicose tweets this year, Trump Jr., who along with his brother Eric, 33, remained in N.Y.C. to run the family business, still relishes the quiet of his lifelong loves of hunting and fishing.

Most weekends, he escapes Trump Tower Manhattan to a rustic cabin upstate with his wife, Vanessa, and their five children. He’s a regular at the Riverside Café in Roscoe, New York, where the manager says Trump Jr. is “good people,” doesn’t seek attention, and “never has his hair slicked back like he does on TV.”

A friend of the Trump brothers tells PEOPLE they hate their role as First Sons: “Eric and Don, they never wanted this.”

Adds a source in their circle: “Don can’t do any deals, because he’ll be overly scrutinized. He just goes to work every day and is miserable.”

That scrutiny includes potential legal jeopardy over his June 2016 meeting at Trump Tower with Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya and a Russian-American lobbyist who was once a Soviet military officer in a counterintelligence unit. The emails Don Jr. released detailing how he eagerly set up a sit down with the Kremlin-linked lawyer have only made matters worse for him.

Trump Jr. agreed to accept an offer to meet with someone described in the emails as a “Russian government attorney” who was bringing “high level and sensitive information … part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump” to hurt Hillary Clinton’s campaign.

“That’s an illegal offer and his response (in an email) is “I love it” so that right there is the offer and the acceptance of this criminally prohibited foreign government help,” says Norman Eisen, chief White House ethics lawyer for President Barack Obama.

Legal experts tell PEOPLE that campaign finance laws prohibit the acceptance of anything of value from a foreign government or a foreign individual, or coordinating to work with a foreign government.

Richard Painter, the chief White House ethics lawyer for President George W. Bush, considers the actions “treason.” “It is betraying your own country in the hands of a foreign adversary,” Painter tells PEOPLE. He notes that under the Bush administration, Don Jr. would have been in custody and brought in for questioning. “I think there are grounds here on campaign finance violations alone that it is illegal,” he says.

Whatever his personal and legal predicament, Don Jr. will remain loyal to his father, say his friends.

“The loyalty within this family is insane,” says a family friend especially close to Don Jr. and Eric. “They would never speak against their dad.”

Adds the source in the brothers’ circle, “You can’t bite the hand that feeds you, but he [Don Jr.] can’t wait for these four years to be over.”

 

 

  • Upvote 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, candygirl200413 said:

Guys Fredo Jr. is having SUCHH a hard time dealing with his dad in power. ( hope y'all get my sarcasm ;) )

Inside Trump Family’s Turmoil Amid Russia Scandal: Don Jr. Is ‘Miserable’ and Wants ‘These Four Years to Be Over’

 

Poor guy.  Give him a break he is just a (40 something with five children) kid.  Kids make mistakes.

  • Upvote 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, @onekidanddone, stop exaggerating -- he's still a boy of 39, according to his 70 year old toddler of a father.  :pb_biggrin:

Poor widdle snowflake doesn't like daddy's job.

  • Upvote 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, candygirl200413 said:

“The loyalty within this family is insane,” says a family friend especially close to Don Jr. and Eric. “They would never speak against their dad.”

I wonder if TT blanket trained his children. No, not trying to be funny I'm serious. Not excusing his spawn for who they are, but shit do you ever wonder what it was like growing up with that abusive shit stain for a parent? When he bothered to be there that is

  • Upvote 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm thinking the same thing @onekidanddone. I didn't know his history about how he was drunk all during his undergrad and fled to Colorado to leave his dad. From one classmate he witnessed fuckface use physical abuse on jr so it would not surprise me.

  • Upvote 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Russians sure knew who to go to, didn't they?  Approach the oldest son, the oldest of the Trump children, the one who was named after the narcissist who likes to think of himself as "The Donald".  Trump Jr. is also the kidult who has grown up with the obvious knowledge that his little sister Ivanka is Trump Sr.'s favorite child.

Donald Jr. must have been so stoked to get a message that someone wanted to give him the information that would take down Hillary and secure his father on the throne.  He probably ejaculated on the spot.

So why did he have this infamous meeting in Trump Tower, with his father in the building at the time?  Why not hold this meeting somewhere private, away from prying eyes?  Why have Jared Kushner, his brother-in-law and husband to Ivanka, attend the meeting?  Why have Paul Manafort, current adviser to Donald Trump, and former campaign manager to Donald Trump Sr. attend the meeting?  

Most likely because little Donny Jr. ran to daddy with the news that he was about to score some primo info on Crooked Hillary, and daddy decided that Junior couldn't be trusted to do this on his own.  I fully believe that at that point Donald Trump Sr. told Junior where and when to have the meeting, and told him that he would have Jared and Paul there as well.  Junior probably wilted a bit right about then, but like a good little soldier he went along with the plan.

Who knows what was actually discussed, or how long the meeting went on?  I bet the Russians, if they wanted to, could provide those details.

Now the fecal matter has hit the rotary impeller.  Did Junior release the emails with Daddy's blessing, or did he try to make another bold move?  Either way, it seems that no matter who goes down for this fiasco, Donald Trump Sr. intends to get off scot-free.

  • Upvote 11
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the Colorado experience was a response to being told by Daddy that without the Trump name and money he wouldn't amount to much. So he ran away to make it on his own and proved Daddy right. Then he came crawling back, got a nice office, job title and appropriate wife from Daddy. But he didn't stay loyal from start to finish so...

As for abuse, we know Daddy slapped Eric, right? I can see there being some of that, or maybe quite a bit of that for the boys while Princess Ivanka is worshiped. I bet she has to work hard to have a decent relationship with her brothers, if she does.

And I agree, @Flossie, I don't think Daddy trusted him to handle the meeting alone. So here comes damn Ivanka's hubby and Manafort. The meeting was in Trump Tower because it is their fortress, their castle, their comfort zone.

I would feel sorry for him but he does have other options and he's basically a whiny, spoiled little shit. This is a guy who relaxes by killing things.

  • Upvote 12
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, since he and daddy are both childish... "Is it okay to call Donald Trump Jr. a boy?"

Spoiler

How many parents do we know who refer to their adult sons as “boys” and “kids?” Lots. Yet there has been an explosive response to President Trump characterizing his son Donald Jr., who will testify next week before a Senate committee investigating possible collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign, as a “good boy” and a “good kid.”

As Jennifer Weiner recently pointed out, allowing men to be eternal boys excuses bad behavior by absolving them of responsibility for their actions. But “boyhood” as a social category has never been fully distinct from manhood. Calling a man a “boy” can mean many things, some of them contradictory. It can be a declaration of love, a call for sympathy, a warning of imminent violence or a calculated strategy to deflect attention from a crime.

In early America, whether rich, poor or somewhere in between, boys were expected to work as soon as they were able. The early achievements that Lin-Manuel Miranda ascribes to the Founding Fathers in “Hamilton” — Aaron Burr’s matriculation to Princeton as a 13-year-old, or Alexander Hamilton’s clerkship at 14 — were not unusual for young men of their class and race.

For the lower classes, indenture, apprenticeship and slavery defined boyhood. Free boys were put to work as small men in mines, on farms and in the factories that replaced household production after 1800, while enslaved boys too young for field or house labor would be assigned menial tasks or taught a trade so they could be rented out by their masters.

Boyhood as we understand it today — an extended period of play, leisure, experimentation and education — was more broadly enjoyed by privileged children before the Civil War. But it was brief, and most boys entered the workforce at an age when today’s students begin high school. As late as the 1880s, with the high school movement in full swing, if a boy showed initiative and intelligence, he was more likely to be sent into a clerkship than sent to college.

Free, white boys were a valuable resource for the nation, and parents were urged to scrutinize their sons for the qualities male citizenship required. Parson Weems’s invented exchange between 6-year-old George Washington and his father, first published in 1806 and popularized throughout the 19th century in McGuffey’s Readers, illustrated that even the youngest American boy should have a manly character. Parents were encouraged to reward such children with affection and approval. When the future Founding Father admits to having chopped down a favorite cherry tree, declaring himself incapable of lying, the elder Washington embraces him as his “dearest boy,” overjoyed because George has just proven himself to be a man.

A 19th-century boy’s errors could never be excused because of youth: Moral lapses arose from lack of character and parental instruction. Catherine Beecher, and later Horatio Alger, emphasized that capable boys became good men not only through their own choices, but through decisions that were often subtly guided by an adult. In 1836, Beecher noted in her “Treatise on Domestic Economy for the Use of Young Ladies at Home” that a boy of 10 ought to be trained to care for all of his domestic needs without the help of servants, not because he would do them as an adult but because it would make him a kind and understanding husband.

After the Civil War, American reformers came to believe more firmly that the health of the nation depended on its children. Boys became a particular object of scrutiny, as newly freed African Americans and immigrants swelled the ranks of aspiring male citizens. A new breed of experts — doctors, sociologists, scientists and philosophers — emerged to address anxieties that white boys might be overwhelmed by this competition. Modern pleasures of all kinds — masturbation, indolence, novel reading and vice — threatened to erode the character and courage that a strong nation required.

The fear that “native” American boys might become “soft” fueled initiatives as different as the call for war in 1898, President Teddy Roosevelt’s defense of college football in 1906 and the founding of the Boy Scouts in 1908. At the same time, Progressive reformers sought to expand the privileges of boyhood beyond the favored classes by fighting for mandatory schooling and prohibitions on child labor that might, in time, create the cohesive nation they sought.

Boyhood, however, was not a place to linger. Thus, around this time, “boy” also emerged as a term of disdain and class inferiority. African American men were generically addressed as “boy” by many whites throughout the 20th century: The word sometimes served as a warning of imminent racial violence. The lowest-paid male workers in a hotel were designated as “bell boys” and at a newspaper as “copy boys”; Asian men in 20th-century California frequently held the job of “house boy.” Matt Crowley’s 1968 play, “The Boys in the Band,” expressed a pre-Stonewall consensus among heterosexuals that gays were unmanly and psychologically immature.

As these examples show, a 20th-century American male might find himself occupying boyhood and manhood simultaneously. This became even more pronounced as military service became a rite of passage in the 20th century. If military recruiters promised to turn boys into men, in fact soldiers often found their lives as boys prolonged. Fed, housed and controlled by others, military service was often filled with humiliation, fear, bullying and pointless tasks.

Yet being a “soldier boy” allows men to retain a fictional innocence, despite war’s violence. From the American “doughboys” of World War I, to the “boys of Pointe du Hoc” memorialized by Ronald Reagan, to the resentment that “our boys” returning from Vietnam were scorned, to Barack Obama’s assertions that American soldiers fought “for their best friends” in the war on terror — Americans need to believe that their sons and husbands have not been transformed by war. As historian Mary Louise Roberts has observed, when Americans romanticize their “boys” in uniform, they shield themselves from “what soldiers do.”

Speaking about a grown son as a “boy” and a “kid,” as Trump did, might be just such an act of public deflection and a declaration of his son’s innocence. It might be a statement that he — not his “good” boy — is in charge, or that Donald Trump Jr. is still learning his way around politics.

But history gives us still other possibilities, like a postfeminist American culture that has opened new spaces for men to open their hearts about their sons. When Joe Biden admitted that he did not run for president because his adult son Beau was dying of cancer, he declared that it was the right decision “for my boy, for me.” Similarly, Fred Warmbier, the father of a college senior held captive in North Korea, repeatedly said before Otto was returned in a coma: “I want my kid home.”

Similarly, whatever else Donald Trump Jr. reveals about himself to the Senate committee next week, it is no contradiction to say that he is a man, responsible for actions — and his father’s beloved boy. Jennifer Weiner is right that the United States has a recent tradition of brushing off male social violence with the assumption that “boys will be boys.” But boyhood has always been a complex, fraught and contradictory cultural category that promises — but does not guarantee — innocence.

I recommend that Donald Trump Jr. not linger there.

 

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmmm. So we decided that the presidunce is a tangerine toddler. That would infer that Fredo is a fetus.

Fredo the fetus.

I like the sound of that. :pb_lol:

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, fraurosena said:

Hmmm. So we decided that the presidunce is a tangerine toddler. That would infer that Fredo is a fetus.

Fredo the fetus.

I like the sound of that. :pb_lol:

A bad seed? In a pod-like intellectual vacuum?

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Poor snowflake: "Eric Trump: 'We're always under siege'"

Spoiler

Eric Trump lambasted Democrats and the news media in an appearance on "Fox and Friends" Wednesday morning, citing attacks on every sibling except for Tiffany Trump.

"They attack us for everything," Trump said. "You see what they've done to Don [Jr.], to Jared, you see the nasty things that they say about my pregnant wife, about Barron."

The president's second son then turned to an ongoing investigation into his foundation being led by New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, which began earlier this year after Forbes alleged that Eric Trump's charity shifted some money from a benefit for children with cancer at St. Jude's Hospital into the Trump Organization, a move that could run afoul of prohibitions against self-dealing on the part of charities.

"I've raised $20 million for St. Jude, they attack me," he said. "It's unthinkable about what did they'll come after us for. We're always under siege, but it is what it is."

Trump said he was frustrated at the attacks, but said the increased scrutiny comes with the spotlight. "You're the first family, it's a nasty system," he said.

I haven't seen any "attacks" on Barron. In fact, every source I've seen has been careful to not drag him into daddy's crap. Of course, it was typical deflection crap. He's just upset because his foundation is being nevestigated by the NY AG.

  • Upvote 10
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@GreyhoundFan, as far as I'm concerned, Barron is off limits. Tiffany gets a pass too, if she tries to maintain a low profile (not another expensive trip to Germany). Donald Jr and Ivanka are especially fair game because they are part of the administration. If Eric is vocal and visible, he'll be fair game as well.

  • Upvote 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Audrey2 said:

@GreyhoundFan, as far as I'm concerned, Barron is off limits. Tiffany gets a pass too, if she tries to maintain a low profile (not another expensive trip to Germany). Donald Jr and Ivanka are especially fair game because they are part of the administration. If Eric is vocal and visible, he'll be fair game as well.

I agree about Barron. I don't say anything negative about him. He's a child and didn't ask for this. It's too bad his father drags him into it. The three oldest are adults and fully steeped in the Drumpfian kool-aid, so they are fair game. In my mind, Tiffany is a middle ground. If she lays low, then she should be left alone, but as soon as she starts with the crap on social media, she'll be in the same boat with the older sibs.

  • Upvote 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, GreyhoundFan said:

Poor snowflake: "Eric Trump: 'We're always under siege'"

  Hide contents

Eric Trump lambasted Democrats and the news media in an appearance on "Fox and Friends" Wednesday morning, citing attacks on every sibling except for Tiffany Trump.

"They attack us for everything," Trump said. "You see what they've done to Don [Jr.], to Jared, you see the nasty things that they say about my pregnant wife, about Barron."

The president's second son then turned to an ongoing investigation into his foundation being led by New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, which began earlier this year after Forbes alleged that Eric Trump's charity shifted some money from a benefit for children with cancer at St. Jude's Hospital into the Trump Organization, a move that could run afoul of prohibitions against self-dealing on the part of charities.

"I've raised $20 million for St. Jude, they attack me," he said. "It's unthinkable about what did they'll come after us for. We're always under siege, but it is what it is."

Trump said he was frustrated at the attacks, but said the increased scrutiny comes with the spotlight. "You're the first family, it's a nasty system," he said.

I haven't seen any "attacks" on Barron. In fact, every source I've seen has been careful to not drag him into daddy's crap. Of course, it was typical deflection crap. He's just upset because his foundation is being nevestigated by the NY AG.

A cry for attention. Daddy, look, I'm defending the family! As for Tiffany, she seems the smartest-stay low, don't whine, don't get too greedy.

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, is this Eric who complains about negative comments about his family the same Eric who said Democrats aren't even people? 

  • Upvote 13
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎7‎/‎20‎/‎2017 at 8:49 AM, Flossie said:

 He probably ejaculated on the spot.

Not thanking you for this image....

If the whole Americans adopting Russian orphans thing was such a big deal that it required that special meeting between Jr. and the Russians, why isn't Trump talking about international adoption NOW?  Did Jr. resolve the problem last year, as a private citizen?  What other issues can he solve?  Maybe we should have Eric handle all of the dad's businesses, give Jr. a made-up title, and move him into the White House.

 

  • Upvote 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The one thing no one has brought up is Trump basically trying to play off oh I didn't know what high level ranking campaign people were doing. Great leadership there Donnie most bosses/leaders know WTH is happening in their organization when heads of departments have a meeting about subjects. To say he is ignorant or unaware paints his leadership in a light of he doesn't know what people around him do. I mean come on this reminds me of siblings who the oldest orchestrates the whole thing; then the younger siblings enact plan. Once caught the oldest sibling goes I don't have any clue what happened. The parents give the side eye and wait for the child to incriminate themselves in some manner. In a way I feel as though a percentage of people are just patiently waiting for the incriminating definitive evidence. In the mean time he's doing everything possible to appeal to his base, who display almost blind allegiance. Now remind me weren't they the same people who criticized Democrats for "blind allegiance to Obama." My thinking is if you can't point to at least one action you disagree with, you're not paying attention. This goes for anyone in office.

 

 

  • Upvote 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 27-7-2017 at 1:44 AM, JMarie said:

why isn't Trump talking about international adoption NOW?

But, but... the presidunce did talk about international adoption! With Putin himself no less, at that G20 dinner, remember? It was all over the news too. Sheesh.

>end sarcasm<

  • Upvote 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Um, no. Just no: "Eric Trump: ‘The People Of This Country Love My Father’"

Spoiler

Eric Trump joined Sean Hannity on the Fox News host’s Monday night program and lamented Republicans who “do not fight” for his father, especially considering President Donald Trump’s immense popularity.

“I want somebody to start fighting for him,” Trump said of the president. “How much weight does he have to carry by himself? My father has the voice of this country. The people of this country love him. Why wouldn’t [Republicans] get in line?”

...

Last month, polls showed that President Trump’s approval ratings were at historic lows nearly six months into office.

A Washington Post/ABC News poll found that only 36 percent of Americans approve of Trump’s job performance as president. A Bloomberg poll found that Trump had a 40 percent approval rating.

Compared with past presidents, Trump’s approval rating was the lowest six-month approval rating dating back 70 years. President Barack Obama had a 59 percent approval rating six months into his first term.

...

The president himself has also made clear his dissatisfaction with members of his own party. Last month, the president tweeted that it was “very sad” that Republicans “do very little to protect their president.”

...

The attack on members of his own party came after the president tweeted his outrage once again over the investigation into Russia’s meddling in the 2016 presidential campaign, an inquiry he has repeatedly labeled as “a witch hunt.” 

Oh, please. Eric, honey, just go away. Stop going on Faux News to proclaim daddy's greatness. Daddy will never love you more than he loves Ivanka. Give it up.

  • Upvote 14
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, GreyhoundFan said:

“I want somebody to start fighting for him,” Trump said of the president. “How much weight does he have to carry by himself? My father has the voice of this country. The people of this country love him. Why wouldn’t [Republicans] get in line?”

Eric, you expect people to be loyal to your father, but Trump's loyalty to others has a built-in expiration date. I'm no fan of Jeff Sessions, but that man endorsed your father, campaigned for him, made television appearances to defend him, and your father is still savagely attacking and belittling him for recusing himself in regards to the Russia issues.

Why should anybody go out on a limb for your father? Trump's going to cut the whole damn tree down once that person is no longer useful to him.

  • Upvote 12
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/28/2017 at 4:49 AM, fraurosena said:

But, but... the presidunce did talk about international adoption! With Putin himself no less, at that G20 dinner, remember? It was all over the news too. Sheesh.

>end sarcasm<

No, I don't buy for a second he or his son ever talked about adoption.  Never mentioned once during the campaign that I remember.  Since when did any Trump ever care about the welfare of children?

  • Upvote 11
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • GreyhoundFan locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.