Donald Trump Jr. may have crossed the legal line on collusion

The Scotsman

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2008
Messages
3,032
Location
South of the Haggis Munching Line
The New York Times reported — and Donald Trump Jr. appeared to confirm — that he agreed to a meeting with a Russian lawyer who had damaging information on Hillary Clinton after getting an email that the Russian government was trying to help his father win the election.

“It's as close as you can get to a smoking gun” of whether the Trump campaign colluded with Russia, said Jeffrey Jacobovitz, a white-collar lawyer who represented officials in the Clinton White House and now is with Arnall Golden Gregory. And it could mean Trump Jr. crossed the legal line on collusion with Russia.

First, a reframing of the way we think of collusion. Collusion actually is a political term; there's no line in the criminal code that says you go to jail for colluding with a foreign adversary

more sordid details

And the spin...............
He's done nothing wrong....
Not collusion.....
Just dirt....
Nothing Illegal....
 
Werbung:
The irony of the whole situation is that it was the Trump camp that originally used the word "collusion," as in there wasn't any. The FBI was investigating, or trying to investigate when their director was summarily fired, Russian meddling in the campaign, and not any collusion. Nevertheless, Trump denied collusion, which now appears to have happened.
 
The irony of the whole situation is that it was the Trump camp that originally used the word "collusion," as in there wasn't any. The FBI was investigating, or trying to investigate when their director was summarily fired, Russian meddling in the campaign, and not any collusion. Nevertheless, Trump denied collusion, which now appears to have happened.


The "irony" is that there are still those who believe Trump & co.
 
Hadn't seen that particular one, however, when I take the test they offer I always end up Libertarian.
So do I. Way off on the libertarian side, just about at the center of the liberal/conservative continuum.

I think there's a third dimension as well, just like in the real world: in foreign policy, from isolationist to neoconservative. I'd probably come out somewhere in the middle of that one, too.
 
So do I. Way off on the libertarian side, just about at the center of the liberal/conservative continuum.

I think there's a third dimension as well, just like in the real world: in foreign policy, from isolationist to neoconservative. I'd probably come out somewhere in the middle of that one, too.

I am also way off on the libertarian side, but also squarely to the left (in the middle of the left side of continuum), almost to the center of the Left/Libertarian square.
 
So do I. Way off on the libertarian side, just about at the center of the liberal/conservative continuum.

I think there's a third dimension as well, just like in the real world: in foreign policy, from isolationist to neoconservative. I'd probably come out somewhere in the middle of that one, too.


I have always looked upon myself as a Classical Liberal in the form of the Founders. Most people who count themselves as "patriots" have no clue as to what the Founders stood for when it comes to corporations, taxes, foreign relationships, taking care of the poor, etc., or even gun rights. Their lack of knowledge as to the intentions of the Founders in regard to the country (and I look upon the Founders as being very intelligent even if somewhat naive at times) is what has brought us to the confused point we are at now where the two most popular candidates for President were the too least qualified to be President. I am not certain the country can survive Trump, and fear that his replacement may be of even a lower quality such as a Ted Cruz, or a Jeb Bush.
 
I have always looked upon myself as a Classical Liberal in the form of the Founders. Most people who count themselves as "patriots" have no clue as to what the Founders stood for when it comes to corporations, taxes, foreign relationships, taking care of the poor, etc., or even gun rights. Their lack of knowledge as to the intentions of the Founders in regard to the country (and I look upon the Founders as being very intelligent even if somewhat naive at times) is what has brought us to the confused point we are at now where the two most popular candidates for President were the too least qualified to be President. I am not certain the country can survive Trump, and fear that his replacement may be of even a lower quality such as a Ted Cruz, or a Jeb Bush.
Given the time in which they lived, they were radicals, revolutionaries. What, all men are created equal? No nobility, no royalty, all equal under the law? Why, that's just way, way out of the mainstream thought.
 
Given the time in which they lived, they were radicals, revolutionaries. What, all men are created equal? No nobility, no royalty, all equal under the law? Why, that's just way, way out of the mainstream thought.
So long as you were a land owner and male.
Not THAT radical.
 
Werbung:
Back
Top