I think they are both attractive, and that Tiffany will become even more beautiful in her 30s and 40s. Here is my favorite picture of her:
Posted on 07/12/2017 3:49:54 PM PDT by FreeAtlanta
Longtime Trump confidant Roger Stone claims to know the identity of the leaker who provided to The New York Times emails from Donald Trump Jr. about a meeting last year with a Kremlin-linked lawyer promising dirt that could hurt Hillary Clinton. But he's only giving away this person's initials.
Speaking to a gathering at the Capitol Hill Club for Young Republicans, Stone was asked if he knew anything about the Trump Jr. email controversy, which started taking command of headlines over the weekend after the Times first reported on the meeting.
According to Independent Journal Review, someone from American Bridge, a Democratic opposition research group, repeatedly pressed Stone on his knowledge of the leaker. Stone at first said he did know who it was, but was hesitant to reveal a name.
After saying he would not say who it was, Stone finally conceded, "Their initials are J.K."
IJR notes there are at least three high-level officials in the Trump administration with those initials: Jared Kushner, son-in-law to President Trump; Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly; and Jeremy Katz, a deputy assistant to the president.
Kushner was in attendance at the meeting, which took place in June 2016, along with Trump Jr., former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort, and the Russian attorney, Natalia Veselnitskaya.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonexaminer.com ...
Looks are only skin deep, her politics are starting to grate on me. Just imagine living with someone who doesn’t understand the meaning of NO.
Jared updated his disclosure form (one where he got top secret clearance) to include this meeting a week ago. Presumably he handed over the email exchange as well as part of that disclosure. That disclosure was leaked to the NYT.
There’s a lot of disinformation going out to create confusion and backstabbing on all this. With unmasking (and this 20 minute nothing of a meeting was likely the pretext for the FISA warrant) telephone calls, emails, you name it are all in the possession of deep state. Lot of gamesmanship going on.
As for the legalities, Don Jr. did not break the law. He didn’t receive anything of value from a foreign government.
There is only one opinion ever that states (in dicta as it wasn’t an issue) that information could have “value” that fits the element of the code. It had to do with a hypothetical situation where a polling company that GAVE one side its results and recommendations for actions and not the other. It was considered value (in the dicta) because such information is usually paid for by campaigns to polling companies.
There are zero other times value has been applied to information. There is also a quantifiable value associated with the gift from a polling company because they are in the business of providing those services for a fee.
The Dems try to stretch that one instance of dicta to mean that all info could be considered “value”. It is a huge stretch. Especially because violations of FECA are to be construed liberally in favor of the accused.
What this means is that a court would have to find for the first time ever that in the case at issue that information constitutes value...and for the first time ever in any case that information not easily quantifiable constitutes value. All while considering the facts liberally in favor of Trump.
I have no doubt there is a court out there somewhere that may agree. That would be a political ruling, however, which should be very scary to everyone. Pushing this narrative is extremely short sighted.
The Russians stated goal, according to the IC report constantly cited by democrats, was to instill doubt in the electoral process of the US. The democrats reaction and “muh Russians” has done more to accomplish Russia’s goals than they could have ever hoped.
Great post thanks!
“I feel sorry for Jr getting thrown under the bus right now..he isnt even part of DC.”
Not much of a bus. Don Jr. came out smelling like roses, the MSM comes out looking foolish (again) and since the Trump campaign did nothing wrong they have nothing to lose.
In fact the only people at risk from further digging are the real culprits; the Clinton’s, Obama, the Democrat party and the MSM themselves.
If I’m right that Trump is purposely keeping these investigations alive and cleverly turning them toward the Democrats, (and I think I am) the proof will come when the MSM suddenly goes silent about all things Russian.
When they no longer want the to talk about Russian collusion you’ll know they’ve finally figured out that Trump has out maneuvered them to be the target of their own heat seeking torpedo.
Did Stone’s boss, Al Sharpton, tell him this?
The my new thread on the article from Front Page. Should be near the top. Thanks.
Tiffany also presumably has required less plastic surgery:
http://www.express.co.uk/life-style/life/761241/Ivanka-Trump-plastic-surgery
Ivanka has a better figure than Chelsea Clinton, but she has needed facial cleanup similar to Chels.
>> why Stone is stirring the pot, I’d like to know <<
Stone is very good a conspiracy theories.
So maybe he’s auditioning for a gig as substitute host on the Alex Jones show?
Or on the old Art Bell overnight show, whatever it’s now called?
>> He didn’t receive anything of value from a foreign government <<
Maybe not. The law might be very unclear on the question.
For example, let’s say an Englishman emails you to say that he’d like for you to meet with a Russain who can supply some illegal drugs. You email back and request a rendez-vous, saying you’d love to meet the prospective drug dealer.
If the NSA or FBI then got hold of your emails, could the feds charge you with conspiracy to violate the drug laws — even if you never bought any drugs?
I just don’t know. But I sure wouldn’t wanna to be in that position!
Post your picture so we can evaluate.
I think they are both attractive, and that Tiffany will become even more beautiful in her 30s and 40s. Here is my favorite picture of her:
He is an attention-seeker. It's revealing that Trump did not hire him for the campaign, even though they are long-time friends. You get the feeling Stone is just trying to stay relevant by dropping names and speculations.
A fair example for line drawing. Do illegal drugs have value? Yes. If you take possession of them, have you broken the law?
Now, change the offer to one where the Englishman tells you he has information that your business partner has been selling your business secrets. This is valuable too. are you breaking the law by taking possession of this information?
The legality or taint assocaites with the substance of what is being offered. Illegal drugs vs. evidence of unethical business practice. And to be fair, there is some infoamtion that is dangerous or illegal to possess, such as the detail drawings of warheads.
Is it illegal to possess information about Russian contributions to Hillary Clinton's campaign?
>> Do illegal drugs have value? Yes. If you take possession of them, have you broken the law? <<
Yep. For sure. But what if you go to meet the Russian drug dealer and he really doesn’t have any drugs. Have you still been involved in an illegal conspiracy? I simply dunno.
On the other hand, if the guy who emailed you was actually a cop in a sting operation who offered to supply child pornography and you went to meet him, you’d certainly be in big trouble even tho’ there never was any actual porn that could have changed hands.
>> Is it illegal to possess information about Russian contributions to Hillary Clinton’s campaign? <<
Mere possession would surely not seem to be illegal, unlike the case with child pornography.
But if the information had been stolen or otherwise obtained illegally, and if you knew about the theft, then your taking the info might constitute “knowlingly receiving stolen property” — not to mention possible misprison of a felony.
I can’t say what’s correct here in terms of the law. As far as I know, the rightness or wrongness may depend on which judge happens to get involved. Or it may depend mainly on the case law precedents of the state where the action occurred. But I definitely wouldn’t want to be on either side of such a matter!
Yes, that's the usual case. Outcome first, then the rationale. There are enough precedents out there to facilitate going in whatever direction a judge prefers.
I think you got my earlier point. The legality of agreeing to go along with receiving thes stuff, depends on the legality of possessing the stuff. If the material is a trade secret (and Coke employees have offered the Coke forumla to PepsiCo, this stuff happens), or illegal, then it's a crime to take it.
Your example was an illegal drug, and that example doesn't apply.
I don’t feel sorry for anyone throwing themselves into the category of lightweight for believing or helping to perpetrate the attempted character assassination of Trump Jr.
He’s not being thrown under the bus. Kamala Harris picked the wrong era to join the swamp.
>> The legality of agreeing to go along with receiving thes stuff, depends on the legality of possessing the stuff. If the material is a trade secret (and Coke employees have offered the Coke forumla to PepsiCo, this stuff happens), or illegal, then it’s a crime to take it. <<
No doubt about it.
But what if some guy emails you to say he has a friend willing to sell you a whole truckload of Coca-Colas at a ridiculously low price. You think to yourself, “There’s nothing illegal about possessing Cokes,” so you email back that you’d “love” to meet and do business with the Coke seller.
In this scenario, are you in danger of walking into a legal trap?
Dunno. But on the other hand, I think I surely wouldn’t want to have the meeting.
That smells like stolen goods to me.
Now, as to what DJT, Jr. did, there is no question that the DEMs are going to find it criminal. It's what they do, make a crime out of opponent's legal activities.
In this case, the product is legal. Adding the stolen goods overlay, the "quality" of the offered goods is UNKNOWN to DJT, Jr., and unlike the "stolen/cheap Coke" example, there is no sign from the offer that the goods have any taint.
The election law the DEMs are abusing assigns taint to ANYTHING and EVERYTHING offered by a foreigner. But because the DEMs have accepted campaign information from foreigners, they attempt to narrow the rule to "hostile foreigners" followed by a conclusory labeling of Russia as "hostile."
In other words, the DEMs aren't saying the Coke is stolen/cheap. They are saying it is illegal to agree to accept ANY campaign information from the Russians.
.
Do you have your dark glasses on ???
.
.
Frankly, she exudes leftist arrogance.
That may impress some.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.