CNN's Mike Rogers: Nothing Illegal About Trump Jr. Russian Lawyer Meeting

[ducks]

Donald Trump Jr.'s meeting with a Russian lawyer believed to have compromising information on Hillary Clinton was not illegal, former GOP congressman Mike Rogers said Wednesday, adding critics are confusing "conspiracy with incompetence."

The CNN national security commentator said the June 2016 meeting "speaks to the lack of understanding and the lack of experience in these matters" of President Donald Trump's eldest son during the presidential campaign.

"I would not confuse conspiracy with incompetence," he said, adding: "Clearly from a legal standpoint, there was nothing illegal that he did . . . when somebody says that a foreign government is interested in passing you information, the first reaction you should have is, 'I think I'm going to pick up the phone and call the FBI and have a chat.'"

The characterization by both Democrats and Republicans has been extreme, he said.

"It's not what the Democrats say — the end of the world," he said. "It's probably not what the Republicans say, absolutely nothing. . . . The truth is somewhere right there in the middle."

"The thing that concerned me was the judgment call that when they identified that this information would be coming from a foreign government . . . [they didn't stop] and say, 'wait a minute, this probably isn't something we should be dealing with or messing with,'" he said. "I don't believe anything that I've seen here is illegal."
Rogers speculated the FBI had discovered Trump Jr.'s emails, prompting his release of them to the public, but asserted, "This is a long way from saying, 'we've got you, you're going to go to jail, we're charging you with X.'"


"It was probably inappropriate, but it wasn't illegal by any stretch of the imagination," he added.

[Pavlov]

You know it big deal when all GOP make article say it not big deal.

[tlongII]

Uh, no.

[pgardn]

Donald Trump Jr.'s meeting with a Russian lawyer believed to have compromising information on Hillary Clinton was not illegal, former GOP congressman Mike Rogers said Wednesday, adding critics are confusing "conspiracy with incompetence."

The CNN national security commentator said the June 2016 meeting "speaks to the lack of understanding and the lack of experience in these matters" of President Donald Trump's eldest son during the presidential campaign.

"I would not confuse conspiracy with incompetence," he said, adding: "Clearly from a legal standpoint, there was nothing illegal that he did . . . when somebody says that a foreign government is interested in passing you information, the first reaction you should have is, 'I think I'm going to pick up the phone and call the FBI and have a chat.'"

The characterization by both Democrats and Republicans has been extreme, he said.

"It's not what the Democrats say — the end of the world," he said. "It's probably not what the Republicans say, absolutely nothing. . . . The truth is somewhere right there in the middle."

"The thing that concerned me was the judgment call that when they identified that this information would be coming from a foreign government . . . [they didn't stop] and say, 'wait a minute, this probably isn't something we should be dealing with or messing with,'" he said. "I don't believe anything that I've seen here is illegal."
Rogers speculated the FBI had discovered Trump Jr.'s emails, prompting his release of them to the public, but asserted, "This is a long way from saying, 'we've got you, you're going to go to jail, we're charging you with X.'"


"It was probably inappropriate, but it wasn't illegal by any stretch of the imagination," he added.

Ducks

Read the following and summarize. Betcha can't do it.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/sto...llusion-215366

[spurraider21]

CNN says nothing illegal

CNN is fake news

therefore it's illegal

[TSA]

Ducks

Read the following and summarize. Betcha can't do it.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/sto...llusion-215366

Thanks for the article. It will be very disappointing for a lot who choose to read it.

[Blake]

"I would not confuse conspiracy with incompetence," he said, adding: "Clearly from a legal standpoint, there was nothing illegal that he did . . .*

Lol

[pgardn]

Thanks for the article. It will be very disappointing for a lot who choose to read it.

Welcome.

Also realize the experts interviewed come from different parts of the political spectrum but all emphasize pretty much the same thing. Legally speaking, lots to be looked into. As far as who find what dissappointing, pick your paragraph in the article.


What pro-Donald Trump spinners were calling a “nothingburger” yesterday has become a Whopper.



Who is gonna find the above dissappointing?

[TSA]

Welcome.

Also realize the experts interviewed come from different parts of the political spectrum but all emphasize pretty much the same thing. Legally speaking, lots to be looked into. As far as who find what dissappointing, pick your paragraph in the article.


What pro-Donald Trump spinners were calling a “nothingburger” yesterday has become a Whopper.



Who is gonna find the above dissappointing?

Almost all of the experts said there wasn't much to look into in terms of collusion, legally speaking.

[pgardn]

Almost all of the experts said there wasn't much to look into in terms of collusion, legally speaking.

Yep.

Said it was not a proper legal term for criminal activity.
But they did have a wide range of points of emphasis.

[Thread]

- "We can laugh about it now, we're okay."

- John Candy - "Planes, Trains & he mopped the in' floor with her in' ass."