Breaking News: Trump Jr. secretly referred to as Fredo

Trump Jr.’s caustic Twitter habits have only intensified since his father was elected. He frequently amplifies conspiracy theories about the president’s political enemies—the news media, particularly CNN of late, are favorite targets. In cable news appearances, Trump Jr. has occasionally replicated campaign-era communications missteps by implicitly contradicting the official White House version of events.

Ever since the campaign, a popular, behind-his-back nickname for Trump Jr. among some in his father’s political inner circle has been “Fredo,” referring to Fredo Corleone, the insecure and weak failure of a son in The Godfather series who ends up causing major damage to the crime family and contributing little of value. This has been relayed to The Daily Beast in several stories by Team Trump veterans over the past several weeks.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-aides-russia-flap-proves-don-jr-is-the-fredo-of-the-first-family

GRR Spartan wrote:Don Jr can't keep his lies straight.

Rocinante wrote:There is no Michael in that family. They're all Fredo.

DWags wrote:

Rocinante wrote:There is no Michael in that family. They're all Fredo.

My first thought was the daughter, but she might be driven by her purse collection more than anything. Who knows, of all of them, she seems to be the sharpest.

DWags wrote:

Rocinante wrote:There is no Michael in that family. They're all Fredo.

My first thought was the daughter, but she might be driven by her purse collection more than anything. Who knows, of all of them, she seems to be the sharpest.

Just as the “Russian collusion” fantasy — a resentful smear cooked up in the immediate aftermath of Clinton’s stunning defeat last fall — was finally fading from the fever swamps of the “resistance” and its media mouthpieces, along comes the Times with a pair of journalistic nothingburgers.

They first reported that Trump Jr., along with Paul Manafort (then the campaign manager) and Jared Kushner, the president’s son-in-law, met with Natalia Veselnitskaya, a Russian lawyer “linked to” the Kremlin, back in June, shortly after Trump had clinched the Republican nomination. The second claimed she’d promised dirt on Clinton and the Democrats in order to entice Trump Jr. and the others.

According to the younger Trump, the Clinton angle was just a ruse: “Her statements were vague, ambiguous and made no sense. No details or supporting information was provided or even offered,” he told the Times.

The real reason, it seems, was that Veselnitskaya wanted to lobby for the repeal of the Magnitsky Act, an Obama-era law that allows the US to deny visas to Russians thought guilty of human rights violations. In retaliation, the Russians promptly ended the adoption of Russian orphans by Americans.

And that’s what all the fuss is about? No campaign in its right mind would turn down an offer of information on their opponent. That is what opposition research is all about. You can bet Hillary wouldn’t have hung up on the person who claimed to have dirt on The Donald. After all, the Clinton campaign lobbied the comedian Tom Arnold two days before the election to release potentially embarrassing footage from Trump’s TV show, “The Apprentice.” Arnold declined.

But in the end, the lawyer had nothing, gave nothing, got nothing in return, in a meeting that lasted 20 minutes. This is a scandal?

Having established the smear of “collusion,” the Times must now link every story with the word “Russia” to it in the hopes that the rubes and suckers won’t stop believing that Trump somehow cheated his way into the White House.

Turtleneck wrote:

DWags wrote:

My first thought was the daughter, but she might be driven by her purse collection more than anything. Who knows, of all of them, she seems to be the sharpest.

This...and she has the benefit of not looking like the real life version of a character from a Mike Judge cartoon.

LooseGoose wrote:

According to the younger Trump, the Clinton angle was just a ruse: “Her statements were vague, ambiguous and made no sense. No details or supporting information was provided or even offered,” he told the Times.

The real reason, it seems, was that Veselnitskaya wanted to lobby for the repeal of the Magnitsky Act, an Obama-era law that allows the US to deny visas to Russians thought guilty of human rights violations. In retaliation, the Russians promptly ended the adoption of Russian orphans by Americans.

And that’s what all the fuss is about? No campaign in its right mind would turn down an offer of information on their opponent. That is what opposition research is all about. You can bet Hillary wouldn’t have hung up on the person who claimed to have dirt on The Donald. After all, the Clinton campaign lobbied the comedian Tom Arnold two days before the election to release potentially embarrassing footage from Trump’s TV show, “The Apprentice.” Arnold declined.

LooseGoose wrote:both omit they're taking Veselnitskaya seriously.

Now, let’s go to near the bottom of the story and get these paragraphs about what Goldstone told the New York Times:

“He [a client of Goldstone’s] said, ‘I’m told she has information about illegal campaign contributions to the D.N.C.,’” Mr. Goldstone recalled, referring to the Democratic National Committee. He said he then emailed Donald Trump Jr., outlining what the lawyer purported to have.

But Mr. Goldstone, who wrote the email over a year ago, denied any knowledge of involvement by the Russian government in the matter, saying that never dawned on him. “Never, never ever,” he said. Later, after the email was described to The Times, efforts to reach him for further comment were unsuccessful.

So Goldstone denies it, someone told the Times it was unclear Goldstone knew about the Russians, and the New York Times is stating as fact that a memo its reporters did not see directly said the Russian government wanted to help Trump by handing over damaging information.

None of that is consistent with any other part of that, but that is all together what the Times has reported.

Turtleneck wrote:

GRR Spartan wrote:Don Jr can't keep his lies straight.

One is Fredo and the other is....

LooseGoose wrote:Read the whole thing and see what the NYT is feeding you.

These Lines From the New York Times Story Should Leave You Scratching Your Head

Now, let’s go to near the bottom of the story and get these paragraphs about what Goldstone told the New York Times:

“He [a client of Goldstone’s] said, ‘I’m told she has information about illegal campaign contributions to the D.N.C.,’” Mr. Goldstone recalled, referring to the Democratic National Committee. He said he then emailed Donald Trump Jr., outlining what the lawyer purported to have.

But Mr. Goldstone, who wrote the email over a year ago, denied any knowledge of involvement by the Russian government in the matter, saying that never dawned on him. “Never, never ever,” he said. Later, after the email was described to The Times, efforts to reach him for further comment were unsuccessful.

So Goldstone denies it, someone told the Times it was unclear Goldstone knew about the Russians, and the New York Times is stating as fact that a memo its reporters did not see directly said the Russian government wanted to help Trump by handing over damaging information.

None of that is consistent with any other part of that, but that is all together what the Times has reported.

MOSCOW — The Russian lawyer who met with Donald Trump Jr. during the presidential campaign denied in an exclusive interview with NBC News that she had any connection to the Kremlin and insists she met with President Donald Trump’s son to press her client’s interest in the Magnitsky Act — not to hand over information about Hillary Clinton’s campaign.

“I never had any damaging or sensitive information about Hillary Clinton. It was never my intention to have that,” Natalia Veselnitskaya said.

Robert J Sakimano wrote:looks like the sexual predator's kid - one of the ones from his many wives/girlfriends/mistresses/victims - has a bit of an issue with his email.

not that someone's email account is a big deal to the deplorables.. it's just email..

msugolfguy wrote:

Robert J Sakimano wrote:looks like the sexual predator's kid - one of the ones from his many wives/girlfriends/mistresses/victims - has a bit of an issue with his email.

not that someone's email account is a big deal to the deplorables.. it's just email..

Just e-mails lol.

LooseGoose wrote:Read the whole thing and see what the NYT is feeding you.

These Lines From the New York Times Story Should Leave You Scratching Your Head

Now, let’s go to near the bottom of the story and get these paragraphs about what Goldstone told the New York Times:

“He [a client of Goldstone’s] said, ‘I’m told she has information about illegal campaign contributions to the D.N.C.,’” Mr. Goldstone recalled, referring to the Democratic National Committee. He said he then emailed Donald Trump Jr., outlining what the lawyer purported to have.

But Mr. Goldstone, who wrote the email over a year ago, denied any knowledge of involvement by the Russian government in the matter, saying that never dawned on him. “Never, never ever,” he said. Later, after the email was described to The Times, efforts to reach him for further comment were unsuccessful.

So Goldstone denies it, someone told the Times it was unclear Goldstone knew about the Russians, and the New York Times is stating as fact that a memo its reporters did not see directly said the Russian government wanted to help Trump by handing over damaging information.

None of that is consistent with any other part of that, but that is all together what the Times has reported.

LooseGoose wrote:Heartbreak again for the TinFoil Brigade here....

Russian Lawyer Who Met With Trump Jr.: I Didn’t Have Clinton Info They Wanted

MOSCOW — The Russian lawyer who met with Donald Trump Jr. during the presidential campaign denied in an exclusive interview with NBC News that she had any connection to the Kremlin and insists she met with President Donald Trump’s son to press her client’s interest in the Magnitsky Act — not to hand over information about Hillary Clinton’s campaign.

“I never had any damaging or sensitive information about Hillary Clinton. It was never my intention to have that,” Natalia Veselnitskaya said.

LooseGoose wrote:

LooseGoose wrote: