Advisors Reportedly Telling Trump to Stop Tweeting About the Trump Tower Meeting

Trump Putin

Advisors Reportedly Telling Trump to Stop Tweeting About the Trump Tower Meeting

Russian officials were under US sanctions at the time. We're going to give our advice. "If this goes all the way up to this Supreme Court. this Supreme Court seems to make its decisions based on what Donald Trump and the Republican Party want, as opposed to precedents or the Constitution".

While the explanations for the meeting have vacillated a lot since the first "it's just about adoptions" story, this is the first time that Trump has tried to argue that there was nothing illegal about the act itself.

"And there's a lot of language articles and precedent against that". There have been no reports that information about Clinton was offered or exchanged.

"The question is, how would it be illegal?" he asked.

He also claimed not to know about the now-infamous 2016 Trump Tower meeting between senior campaign officials, including his son, and Russians who'd promised dirt on Hillary Clinton. This was a meeting to get information on an opponent, totally legal and done all the time in politics - and it went nowhere.

He concludes the tweet by saying, "I did not know about it!"

In a post on Twitter, Trump also denied reports in the Washington Post and CNN that he was concerned his eldest son, Donald Trump Jr., could be in legal trouble because of the meeting with the Russians, including a lawyer with Kremlin ties.

Schiff said he believes congressional investigators found evidence of conspiracy and collusion by the Trump campaign, including Trump Jr.'s meeting with the Russian attorney at Trump Tower. Trump Jr. initially claimed in a statement - which the president dictated himself - that he had "primarily discussed a program about the adoption of Russian children" during the "short introductory meeting". The self-contradictory and legally questionable nature of Trump's claims prompted his own advisers to beg him to stop tweeting about the incident. He quickly replied, "if it's what you say I love it". "I've talked about that before". But this theory that's being bandied around that you can have an obstruction case by tweet - and by the way, Jeff Sessions and [special prosecutor] Bob Mueller and all of them, the entire Department of Justice are under what?

According to Rubin, Trump's acknowledgment of the objective of the 2016 meeting was worse than his previous remarks to Lester Holt, where he told the NBC anchor that he fired FBI Director James Comey because he was thinking about Special Counsel Robert Mueller's ongoing probe into Russia's alleged involvement in the 2016 elections. "Obviously, I think this was extraordinarily damning to the president and son. That would nearly certainly mean Donald Jr. would get indicted", Abrams said.

But legal experts have pointed out several possible criminal charges, including conspiracy against the United States and aiding and abetting a conspiracy. More specifically, Mueller has reportedly been looking at potential obstruction in Trump's tweets and other public statements targeting former Federal Bureau of Investigation directors James Comey and Andrew McCabe, as well as sitting Attorney General Jeff Sessions.

Women's Month: Mothers are encouraged to breastfeed regardless of HIV status
Liverpool target Nabil Fekir won't rule out Lyon exit this week