Trump admits son met Russian lawyer for information on opponent
Washington, Aug 6 : US President Donald Trump has admitted his son met a Russian lawyer in June 2016 "to get information on an opponent", but argues it was legal.
It is his most direct statement so far on the reason for Donald Trump Jr's meeting with Kremlin-linked lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya in June 2016, BBC reported on Monday.
Special Counsel Robert Mueller is investigating US intelligence findings that Russians conspired to sway the election in Trump's favour. President Trump denies any collusion.
He has called the ongoing investigations in the US "the greatest political witch hunt in history".
Russia has repeatedly denied claims it interfered in the November 2016 presidential elections, where Trump defeated Democratic rival Hillary Clinton.
On Sunday, US media including the Washington Post and CNN reported that Trump was worried Donald Trump Jr could be in legal trouble because of the June 9, 2016 meeting with Veselnitskaya. They cited multiple unnamed sources.
Trump responded: "Fake News reporting, a complete fabrication, that I am concerned about the meeting my wonderful son, Donald, had in Trump Tower.
"This was a meeting to get information on an opponent, totally legal and done all the time in politics - and it went nowhere. "I did not know about it!"
Trump's latest tweet appears to contradict a previous statement from the Trump camp about the meeting.
When the meeting was first reported by the New York Times, Donald Trump Jr said in a statement that he and Veselnitskaya had mostly discussed a suspended programme for Americans to adopt Russian children.
However, he subsequently admitted he had agreed to the meeting after being told he would be offered information that would prove detrimental to Clinton. He also released the email exchange that brought about the meeting.
US media then reported that the US president had been involved in the initial statement his son issued on the meeting.
This was initially denied by Trump's team, but his lawyers later confirmed that he had in fact dictated his son's statement.
US commentators have argued that Trump's new admission that the meeting was to gain information about Clinton shows that the earlier statement was misleading.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
May initiate contempt action if states, UTs non compliant against misleading ads: SC
New Delhi (PTI): The Supreme Court on Wednesday warned states and union territories of contempt action if they failed to act against misleading advertisements.
A bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan perused a note submitted by senior advocate Shadan Farasat, who is assisting the apex court as an amicus curiae in the matter, and observed a number of states were non-compliant as indicated in the note.
"We make it clear that if we find non-compliance by any of the states and union territories, we may have to initiate proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, against the states concerned," the bench said.
The issue pertaining to misleading advertisements had cropped up before the top court while hearing a plea filed by the Indian Medical Association in 2022 alleging a smear campaign by Patanjali Ayurved Ltd against the Covid vaccination drive and modern systems of medicine.
The top court had highlighted the aspect of misleading advertisements being published or displayed in media contrary to the provisions of the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954 and the rules, the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, and the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
During the hearing on Wednesday, the amicus said as per the affidavits filed by the states and union territories so far, virtually no prosecution under the 1954 Act was taking place.
While Section 3 of the Act deals with prohibition of advertisement of certain drugs for treatment of certain diseases and disorders, Section 4 relates to prohibition of misleading advertisements of drugs.
The bench referred to affidavits filed by some of the states and questioned why they hadn't acted on the basis of complaints received.
Some states, it noted, found it difficult to identify the violaters.
"We will take contempt action now," the bench said, "and we will threadbare examine the compliance made by each states."
The bench said it would consider the compliance made by Andhra Pradesh, Delhi, Goa, Gujarat and Jammu and Kashmir on February 10.
And if these states wanted to file further affidavits reporting compliance, they were free to do so by February 3, it added.
The bench said compliance by states including Jharkhand, Karnataka, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh and Punjab would be considered on February 24.
It said compliance regarding other states and union territories would be considered on March 17.
While hearing the matter in July last year, the apex court said the Ministry of Ayush should set up a dashboard to make available to the consumers the details about the complaints filed on misleading advertisements and the progress made on them.
In April last year, the top court asked the Centre and state licensing authorities to "activate" themselves to deal with misleading advertisements.
