HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » I just saw the bit on Rac...

Thu Apr 11, 2019, 10:28 PM

 

I just saw the bit on Rachel about Don Jr. and his communication with WikiLeaks...

that is documented by Mueller. How can they say there was no collusion by the tRump campaign, when they have the messages between the Russians, WikiLeaks, Don Jr., and his public tweets doing what WikiLeaks told him to do? Barr says he could find no collusion? The GRU must not be the "Russian Government". That must be his out, I'm guessing. That sure seemed damning to me. Unless Don Jr. wasn't a part of the campaign. Maybe pResident tRump doesn't know who he is too...

3 replies, 1052 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 3 replies Author Time Post
Reply I just saw the bit on Rachel about Don Jr. and his communication with WikiLeaks... (Original post)
PeeJ52 Apr 2019 OP
UniteFightBack Apr 2019 #1
Leghorn21 Apr 2019 #2
RockRaven Apr 2019 #3

Response to PeeJ52 (Original post)

Thu Apr 11, 2019, 10:36 PM

1. It beats the fuck outta me.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PeeJ52 (Original post)

Thu Apr 11, 2019, 10:39 PM

2. Pee, whenever I see a mention of jr., I like to mention this tidbit:

Spanish prosecutor Jose Grinda said Don Jr should be "very concerned" about wiretaps of his meetings w Putin crony Alexander Torshin (also NRA's contact in Russia). Grinda turned those wiretaps over to FBI.

http://www.newsweek.com/trump-jr-should-be-concerned-over-putin-allys-wiretapped-calls-spanish-945753

So we got that goin for us as well, dammit

Hang tough, my friend

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PeeJ52 (Original post)

Thu Apr 11, 2019, 10:50 PM

3. People are way over-blowing Barr's "no collusion/conspiracy" in exactly the way Barr intended...

He's been a lawyer for 40+ years, he knew exactly what he was doing. And corporate media unthinkingly, or maliciously, ran with it.

Barr said that Trump(1) did not conspire(2) in advance(3) on two specific crimes(4) committed by Russians.

(1) What about people close to him, including ones with poorly defined relationships?
(2) This depends on an application of Barr's interpretation of the legal definition of conspiracy
(3) What about being an accessory after the fact, or knowing in advance but not acting in furtherance in advance?
(4) What about everything other than these two specific crimes?


Barr is a goddamned weasel. Like a lot of lawyers, he can lie to your face in spirit while technically making correct statements -- and that implies maybe he was not out-right lying, which is a presumption I will never grant a person who *accepts* a job from Trump, never mind a sh*t-smear like Barr who LOBBIED for a job from Trump.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread