US President Donald Trump admitted on Sunday that his son met a Russian lawyer in Trump Tower in 2016 "to get information on an opponent", and he defended it as "totally legal".
The president also said in his tweet Sunday that the Trump Tower meeting was "to get information on an opponent", which is a departure from the initial statement that asserted that the primary objective of the meeting was to discuss the issue of adoptions. I did not know about it!'
One part of the inquiry has focussed on a June 9, 2016, meeting at Trump Tower in NY between Donald Jr., other campaign aides and a group of Russians. As more details emerged, Trump Jr. released a new statement acknowledging there was an offer of potentially damaging information on Clinton and the Democratic Party, and he eventually published emails about the meeting.
The president called it "a complete fabrication" that he is "concerned about the meeting my wonderful son, Donald, had in Trump Tower".
Trump's admission that his son's 2016 Russian meeting was to get information on Clinton runs counter to the narrative he has previously pushed about the meeting.
Eleven children rescued from New Mexico compound after 'we're starving' note
Hogrefe said the adults and children had no shoes, wore dirty rags for clothing and "looked like Third World country refugees ". But Wahhaj and Morten initially refused to follow commands and Wahhaj was armed with a rifle and four handguns, Hogrefe said .
At the time, in July 2017, Trump offered a similar comment to the one he made on Sunday, dismissing the meeting with a Russian lawyer promising dirt on his political opponent as no big deal.
USA media then reported that the USA president had been involved in the initial statement his son issued on the meeting.
Sekulow said on Sunday his erroneous denial about Trump's involvement was a mistake based on "bad information".
Team Trump initially claimed the meeting was about "adoptions". At various times, they defended the meeting by claiming it was exclusively about global adoption, said that they were doing standard opposition research, and even argued that they didn't get anything out of it so how can it be illegal?
The lawyer told Stephanopoulos that discussions over whether the president should sit for an interview with Mueller are "ongoing".
Mr Trump also tweeted about the fires in California, which have destroyed dozens of homes and killed at least seven people.
Petition calls for Ohio State to 'save' Urban Meyer amid investigation
Smith was sacked on July 23 after reports emerged of multiple domestic abuse allegations involving Smith and his ex-wife Courtney. Smith denied assaulting his wife and said any physical injuries she might have suffered were the result of him defending himself.
"If it's what you say I love it", Trump Jr. responded.
They later reversed course in a memo to Mueller and said Trump was indeed behind the statement that omitted the prospect of collecting dirt on Clinton.
The Trump administration has previously stated the meeting was about a fight over allowing USA families to adopt children from Russian Federation. I think the president is under the belief that if he said something is legal, then it must be legal.
Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani also told Talking Points Memo in June that it was the legal team's "final position" that Trump was behind the statement. "Willfully soliciting a foreign contribution is a crime", Rick Hasen, a campaign finance expert and law professor at the University of California, Irvine, said in a statement.
"The question is how would it be illegal?" Well, well, would you look at that: the patented "how dare this Fox moron accuse me of smoking something other than premium cigars" tweet.
Chelsea step up interest in Reds target Nabil Fekir
In the latest instalment of transfers you didn't expect to see, it looks like Nabil Fekir could join Chelsea , according to France Football .