Nightly Recurring Melodrama -- We Got Him Now! (Episodes 1 to 58)
Posted on 07/11/2017 2:54:35 PM PDT by righttackle44
Earlier today, here at Townhall and on Fox News, I said that more information needed to be gathered before anyone should declare the Donald Trump, Jr. story a bombshell or a dud. First and foremost, I argued, it would be very helpful to see the actual emails that preceded the now-infamous June meeting, which the New York Times claimed would demonstrate that the president's son was well aware of the alleged source and nature of the promised anti-Clinton information (which never materialized) in advance. The Times story was rooted in unnamed sources who characterized, but apparently did not produced, the messages in question. In order to determine if the documents were being mischaracterized, we should see them, I said. About an hour later, Donald Trump, Jr. tweeted the full four-page exchange, which Cortney relayed here. Trump Jr. cast his tweets as efforts at full transparency, but one can't help but wonder if there was another pressing motive at play: He preempted the Times, which had the chain and was about to run with it. In any case, the content of these emails was, in my case, literally jaw-dropping. Trump Jr's associate alerted him to the supposed existence of highly sensitive information regarding wrongdoing tied to Mrs. Clinton, telling him that it would be furnished by a "Russian government attorney" who was representing "Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump" (who now claims she wasn't tied to the Kremlin). To which Trump Jr. replied, "if it's what you say I love it." This couldn't be much clearer: And these shifts look really bad, especially when you read the quote from March in which Trump Jr. flatly denies meeting with any Russian nationals in arranged meetings: . . .
(Excerpt) Read more at townhall.com ...
If they were, then that would be proof of collusion between the Russians and Hillary.
Your rock awaits you - now crawl back under it. Since when would anyone condemn the obamas or clintons or do anything about the evil they have committed? Yeah, right - since never. Shut up and go away. This is a nothing burger.
Jens David Ohlin, a law professor at Cornell University finds it criminal.
Opinion shared by Ryan Goodman, a former Defense Department special counsel and current editor of the legal site Just Security, agrees.
Paul S. Ryan, a lawyer and vice president at Common Cause, finds it criminal.
Brendan Fischer, a lawyer at the Campaign Legal Center, agrees it is a crime
Jan W. Baran, a Washington lawyer and former general counsel for the Republican National Committee disagrees
Jeffrey Jacobovitz, a white-collar lawyer who represented officials in the Clinton White House finds it criminal.
Turley thinks it is not a crime
The legal test by the lawyers is the same one used by the courts. When the defendant is a republican and the opponent or judge is a demoocrat, then the activity is a crime. Conspiracy to commit an election offense. This is a very simple legal test, and it works every time.
“do these never trumpers ever go away.”
It appears not. I’ve noticed that these GOPe turds seem to be showing up more recently. Their eternal hand-wringing is obviously a call for a fainting couch. Does FR have a few in storage to accommodate these weenies?
Turley has posted an opinion piece discussing various viewpoints after the emails on The Hill if anyone wants to read it
.
>> “Not good.” <<
Bullshit !!!!
Hillary, how long have you been posting threads here?
There is nothing wrong in any of Junior’s emails.
It is not against any law to gather evidence about a criminal candidate.
And there was nothing there.
That is not “collusion,” and there is nothing illegal about “collusion” anyway.
Change your depends and go to bed.
.
.
She had nothing on Hillary that wasn’t common knowledge. She was just scamming Trump in hopes of getting rich.
.
Second time I have linked Turley's opinion, after the emails, in a post addressed to you ...
Don Jr.'s Russia meeting wasn't collusion -- just amateur hour
Same link at post 76, above.
Turley addresses the value aspect in his piece at THe Hill
What is the political affiliation of those who imagine it’s illegal? What statute are they citing?
Nightly Recurring Melodrama -- We Got Him Now! (Episodes 1 to 58)
They swarm like termites here ever time there fellow Trump Hating media hit-men are on the attack .
Cheer them on .
That you Karl?
Except that the Clinton campaign did work with Ukraine to hurt President Trump and nobody is talking about that. Shocking, isn’t it?
Please read the links. They have the only information available to me, and I made that available to anybody who takes the time to check. Some of the political affiliations are clear on reading, other have to be inferred by affiliation with an interest group.
At least two of the articles cite the relevant statutes with precision.
I didnt see it. I went to his twitter page
The only way I’d be remotely interested in your links would be with the advance assurance that those imagining a crime are not Leftists.
I though my sarcastic description of the legal test made that clear. Democrats see a crime here. Your previous post asked for names, and I did a little footwork to gather a few names who went on the record, on both sides of the question.
Given your reaction, I see that my effort to answer your inquiry was a waste. I shant make the same mistake a second time.
See new thread:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3568518/posts
.
There are no statutes about “collusion.”
.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.