Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
Updated 10.50pm
DONALD TRUMP’S ELDEST son said he met with a Kremlin-linked lawyer shortly after his father clinched the Republican nomination, hoping to get information helpful to the campaign.
A New York Times report yesterday citing advisers to the White House briefed on the encounter said Donald Trump Jr agreed to the meeting after being promised information damaging to Hillary Clinton.
In a series of tweets today, Donald Trump Jr rejected claims that there was inconsistency in statements he has given on the matter and said that he would work with the Senate Intelligence Committee to “pass on” what he knows.
He said “obviously I’m the first person on a campaign to ever take a meeting to hear info about an opponent… went nowhere but had to listen”.
Trump Jr has also hired a New York-based lawyer to represent him in this matter.
Alan Futerfas confirmed in an email to The Associated Press today that he’s the lawyer for Donald Trump Jr.
The Senate Intelligence Committee’s top Democrat says he “absolutely” wants to hear from President Donald Trump’s eldest son about his meeting with the Russian lawer.
Virginia Senator Mark Warner said: “This is the first time that the public has seen clear evidence of senior-level members of the Trump campaign meeting with Russians” to obtain information damaging to Clinton.
Meeting
The June meeting at Trump Tower with attorney Natalia Veselnitskaya involved Trump Jr, his brother-in-law Jared Kushner and Paul Manafort, who was then the campaign chairman.
The existence of the meeting was disclosed only recently to government officials and confirmed at the weekend by representatives of Trump Jr and Kushner following a separate Times report.
In a statement yesterday, Trump Jr did not confirm that the information he was promised would be damaging to Clinton.
But he said he was asked by an acquaintance he knew from the 2013 Miss Universe pageant to have a meeting with a person he was told might have information that would be helpful to the Trump campaign. He said he was not told the name of the person before the meeting.
Trump Jr said that during the meeting the attorney claimed to have information that “individuals connected to Russia were funding the Democratic National Committee” and supporting Clinton.
“No details or supporting information was provided or even offered,” Trump Jr said. “It quickly became clear that she had no meaningful information.”
He said no details or supporting information was ever offered, and that his father was unaware of the meeting.
On Saturday, Trump Jr had described the same gathering as a “short introductory meeting” during which the three discussed a disbanded programme that used to allow US citizens to adopt Russian children.
Russia ended the adoptions in response to American sanctions brought against the nation following the 2009 death of an imprisoned lawyer who spoke about a corruption scandal.
He said yesterday that the attorney turned the conversation to the adoption of Russian children, and that he believed that this was the “true agenda” of the meeting and that claims about having information helpful to the Trump campaign had been a pretext for the encounter.
“I interrupted and advised her that my father was not an elected official, but rather a private citizen, and that her comments and concerns were better addressed if and when he held public office,” Trump Jr said in the statement.
Mark Corallo, a spokesman for Trump’s legal team, said only, “The President was not aware of and did not attend the meeting.”
Unlike Kushner, Trump Jr does not serve in the administration and is not required to disclose his foreign contacts.
The newspaper said the meeting was disclosed in recent days to government investigators when he filed a revised version of a form needed to obtain a security clearance.
His attorney has previously acknowledged that Kushner’s first security clearance submission was incomplete.
Manafort also recently disclosed the meeting to congressional investigators, the newspaper said.
The newspaper said Veselnitskaya is known for her attempts to undercut the sanctions against Russian human rights abusers. The Times also said her clients include state-owned businesses and the son of a senior government official whose company was under investigation in the United States at the time of the meeting.
With reporting from Sean Murray
Great I will have loads of porn stars trying to contact me!
Time to start ditching it…
The NSA has to make some claw back out of its enterprise
No such thing as a free lunch with these corps.
Google and Microsoft have been doing this for years. Nothing new here. Interest based advertising is actually a good thing. You get to see ads that are at least relevant to you. You’re going to see ads, they might as well be something you can stomach and that may be useful. Like with Google and Microsoft, if you want to opt out, fine.
You are the product. You should have known that when you signed up. If you don’t like that, opt out or stop using these services.
We should be thankful that at least they’re disclosing that they’re tracking us.
Dave,
Advice like that could do a lot of damage to Facebook. We need assurance about privacy, not the “if you don’t like it, don’t use it” line.
Facebook is a useful tool, and they should be allowed make their money where they can, but only if they are doing so with full disclosure.
An iPhone, for example may block location services for the Facbook App but I’m not holding out much hope for similar security on Google developed android…
The issue of how consent is obtained for this will be interesting. Without a clear opt out, users might request their details and posts to be removed before closing their accounts – as it appears they now have a right to be forgotten.
Three words. Data protection officer. Surely this can be challenged?
As long as there’s an opt out, doubt there’s much can be done.
There will be some interesting adverts on people’s profiles so :)
Wall to wall porn.
I was wondering why the journal was advertising transexual escorts!!
Delighted I never joined that stupid website.
On the one hand this makes me feel squicky for privacy reasons. On the other if I HAVE to see ads, I’d rather they cater to my interests. Currently Facebook assumes I want to see ads for wedding dresses because I’m female and in a long term relationship. Like god Facebook! Do you even know me at all!?
Id rather not have my privacy invaded though.
It’s not Facebook that decides that. It’s the advertiser.
Big data is a scary thing. Good story on this in Freakonomics to do with JC Penney in USA. Their EPOS data (club card points etc.) allowed them to profile people that shopped there and were registered with them.
An (irate) father contacted them about his 15 yr old daughter because they were sending direct mail to do with deals for pre-maternal products based on her purchase history. Turns out irate Dad was eating humble pie before too long and big data was right.
If you’re getting wedding dress ads it’s based on your profile. Once they include browsing history it will become very intrusive. I left FB about 4 yrs ago. I could see where it was going.
Nobody “has to see ads” simply install Ad-Blocker on your browser or smart device, it’s used by millions and personally I am always shocked when seeing how much invasive clutter assaults ones eyes when not using it. Have been for 3 or 4 years and it’s an absolute godsend..
Adblock plus, block the ads
No, Facebook does not know you at all. But then, nor does RTE. Presumably you don’t take offense at tv adverts for fertiliser.
For a start, it’s not Facebook that decides to give you ads for wedding dresses, it’s the advertiser, who may or may not be knowledgeable about selecting an appropriate audience in Facebook’s advert manager. There are some dumb advertisers out there, and right now many small businesses are just starting to get their head around Facebook.
Faced with the traditional option of advertising to, perhaps, buyers of Cosmo, they’ve decided that it’s cheaper or more effective to advertise to “females in long term relationships” (and probably a few other demographics that you didn’t guess – Ireland, English-speaking, an age-range, perhaps a certain education-level). It doesn’t mean that anyone has looked at you personally, and it doesn’t mean they think all females in long-term relationships are about to get married. It’s just a better focused demographic than was available to them before.
That’s a relief. Perhaps now they will cop on that I don’t drink, don’t gamble and have no interest in football. Neither do I use men’s cosmetic products particularly Lynx. And I don’t drink any kind of Cola. In fact I barely use any products at all. It is a waste of time targeting me fir anything. I am the ad man’s nightmare. :)
So the working class can be exploited again.
So you would have the working class without nice clothes and shoes and holidays , comrade , why do we work if not to enjoy the spoils, or is that just for the ” top pigs , who are more equal “than the rest .
Because these will convince working class people to take loans from the middle class elite bankers to pay for these ‘nice’ clothes. The circle of corruption and exploitation will go on.
You can’t describe bankers and elites and middle class at the same time.
A chara. I just did, because they are.
elite or élite (ɪˈliːt Pronunciation for ; eɪ-)
Definitions
noun
(sometimes functioning as plural) the most powerful, rich, gifted, or educated members of a group, community, etc
middle class
Definitions
noun
Also called: bourgeoisie. a social stratum that is not clearly defined but is positioned between the lower and upper classes. It consists of businessmen, professional people, etc, along with their families, and is marked by bourgeois values
Clearly not the same thing.
Yes they are. I wouldn’t expect you to understand though. They earn more then the working class. They are elite to is.
*us.
Surely this will affect middle class exactly the same as it’s going to affect the working class
No as the elite middle class are protected by their banker mates.
The banks don’t have much of a say as to whether or not Facebook wants to access out internet history
Don’t be so sure. They are all in the hands of corrupt government and business and middle class elite.
No I am pretty sure
Well you are wrong.
PLANS?? Ha, this has been happening ages now..
Companies like Google and Facebook have been doing this for years. Nothing new here
That headlines definitely misleading.
You’re better saying, “facebooks adverts now use web browsing cookies to help better targeted adverts.”
At absolutely no point does facebook share your information ever
Plans to ? They already do as far as I can see
For the past while everything i Google search has been coming up as Facebook ads almost straight away, this is especially true with hotels, etc..
When i booked a hotel for Belfast recently, i started seeing ads for certain hotels and even Visit Northern Ireland ads.
Is there any way of stopping this, other than deleting my cookies constantly?
have your say