why would he want me? so when i keep hearing about he would have rather had trump, i think probably not. so, congressman, repeatedly denied collusion, anything like collusion, repeatedly said that his son didn t do anything wrong, but he is making the argument that they would have rather had hillary anyway. what do you make of that? i mean that argument is a complete joke. everybody understands that vladimir putin had it in for hillary clinton based on tension that existed during the time in which she was the secretary of state. the most important question i think that we ve got to ask in this whole sordid affair is why were all of the president s men, paul manafort, the campaign chairman, jeff sessions, the attorney general, michael cohen, his personal attorney, carter page, his foreign policy advisor, donald trump, his son, his son-in-law jared kushner, roger stone, his advisor why
so the big question everybody is asking, is donald trump jr. in legal trouble? well, president trump s personal attorney says no. what is the law alleged to be violated here? the truth of the matter is a meeting under the circumstances described by the release of the e-mail that donald trump jr. did yesterday is not a violation of the law. and to be clear, collusion is not a legal term, it is not a crime. the meeting itself, not a crime. you heard trump s lawyer say there was no exchange of information. but if there was, could that be a crime? campaign finance law states, it is unlawful for a foreign national to make a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value in connection with a federal, state or local election to a committee of a political party. it is also unlawful for someone to solicit, accept or receive a
on jared kushner and the president rather than donald trump jr. ryan, we know this statement that was initially put out has been revised four times for various reasons. the new york times now reporting that president trump actually was the one who signed off on that initial statement. so that begs the question, is there a legal issue if he knew the statement was false or does it just look bad for him? we don t know, but does a statement that is not a signed statement, does that matter? so or is it just another piece of information investigators will use? it doesn t matter as a legal in terms of legal exposure or legal liability. an individual can lie to the press and they can lie to the public, that s not illegal. if they were to lie to authorities like a congressional investigation or an fbi investigation, then they re in trouble. so i will be interested to see if, for example, they repeat the most recent story, the most recent statement to the special counsel, and if th
we should be focusing on jared kushner and the president. jared was on those e-mails. he knew that the russian government was purportedly trying to help the campaign. this was a meeting set up at the behest of the russian government. all of the analysis about donald trump jr. applies equally to jared kushner and potentially the president if he was told about this. that begs a question i wondered about when i read this statement, particularly the part that says, to a committee of a political party. in other words if that s who gets the information. now, donald trump jr. had, adam, know fis no official role in the campaign unlike paul manafort, for example. are the stakes different if they were an official part of the campaign or not? i think they are. even with donald trump jr. he clearly had a role with the campaign, even if informal. having the chairman of the campaign and having jared kushner who had an active role in the campaign would satisfy that aspect of the legal requirem
required to provide cakes for e same-sex marriage violated his religion. he argues he is an artist and cakes are a work of art, he is forced to create a message he doesn t agree with. secondly, the court once again today said it is not getting into the issue of begun rights. biggest issue nationwide on gun rights, is there a right to carry a gun outside the home. in 2008, the supreme court in a very big decision for the first time in our history said the second amendment provides an individual right to have a gun and the court said specifically you have a right to have a gun at home for self defense. the big legal question is what about outside the home. is there a right to carry a gun outside, what about conceal carry. the court had a big invitation to take that up from today from california and it declined to do so. one other notable case, without hearing any argument simply on the record, the court today overturned a policy in the state