Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Tuesday, November 14, 2017

Just before the stroke of midnight on September 20, 2016, at the height of last year's presidential election, the WikiLeaks Twitter account sent a private direct message to Donald Trump Jr., the Republican nominee's oldest son and campaign surrogate. "A PAC run anti-Trump site putintrump.org is about to launch," WikiLeaks wrote. "The PAC is a recycled pro-Iraq war PAC. We have guessed the password. It is 'putintrump.' See 'About' for who is behind it. Any comments?"

Advertisement

Advertisement

More

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

"Hey Don. We have an unusual idea," WikiLeaks wrote on October 21, 2016. "Leak us one or more of your father's tax returns." WikiLeaks then laid out three reasons why this would benefit both the Trumps and WikiLeaks. One, The New York Times had already published a fragment of Trump's tax returns on October 1; two, the rest could come out any time "through the most biased source (e.g. NYT/MSNBC)."

It is the third reason, though, WikiLeaks wrote, that "is the real kicker." "If we publish them it will dramatically improve the perception of our impartiality," WikiLeaks explained. "That means that the vast amount of stuff that we are publishing on Clinton will have much higher impact, because it won't be perceived as coming from a 'pro-Trump' 'pro-Russia' source." It then provided an email address and link where the Trump campaign could send the tax returns, and adds, "The same for any other negative stuff (documents, recordings) that you think has a decent chance of coming out. Let us put it out."

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Mueller and the Congressional investigation, by the Atlantic's own admission, have had these emails for months and "Trump Jr. mostly ignored the frequent messages from WikiLeaks". When he did respond, he said he would "ask around" or that he had "already commented on " an article about Hillary. After the Clinton/DNC email dump, he did tweet out a link that they had sent him. That appears to be it.

Not sure why the Atlantic is so hot on this but from an evidentiary standpoint there really isn't much here. If Jr. was in constant correspondence with WikiLeaks that would be one thing, but there isn't much to be gleaned by this article.

#1 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-13 06:52 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

"Though Trump Jr. mostly ignored the frequent messages from WikiLeaks, he at times appears to have acted on its requests. When WikiLeaks first reached out to Trump Jr. about putintrump.org, for instance, Trump Jr. followed up on his promise to "ask around."

According to a source familiar with the congressional investigations into Russian interference with the 2016 campaign, who requested anonymity because the investigation is ongoing, on the same day that Trump Jr. received the first message from WikiLeaks, he emailed other senior officials with the Trump campaign, including Steve Bannon, Kellyanne Conway, Brad Parscale, and Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner, telling them WikiLeaks had made contact.

Kushner then forwarded the email to campaign communications staffer Hope Hicks. At no point during the 10-month correspondence does Trump Jr. rebuff WikiLeaks, which had published stolen documents and was already observed to be releasing information that benefited Russian interests."

"Strongly suggest your dad tweets this link if he mentions us," WikiLeaks went on, pointing Trump Jr. to the link wlsearch.tk, which it said would help Trump's followers dig through the trove of stolen documents and find stories. "There's many great stories the press are missing and we're sure some of your follows [sic] will find it," WikiLeaks went on. "Btw we just released Podesta Emails Part 4."

Trump Jr. did not respond to this message. But just 15 minutes after it was sent, as The Wall Street Journal's Byron Tau pointed out, Donald Trump himself tweeted, "Very little pick-up by the dishonest media of incredible information provided by WikiLeaks. So dishonest! Rigged system!"

Two days later, on October 14, 2016, Trump Jr. tweeted out the link WikiLeaks had provided him. "For those who have the time to read about all the corruption and hypocrisy all the @wikileaks emails are right here: wlsearch.tk" he wrote."

Trumps and Wiki helping Russians help Trump... with stolen docs.

#2 | Posted by Corky at 2017-11-13 07:02 PM | Reply

Trump tweeted about Podesta emails 15 minutes after WikiLeaks asked Trump Jr. to: report
thehill.com
Do you smell smoke?

#3 | Posted by bored at 2017-11-13 08:32 PM | Reply

#3

The NothingBurgers are burning!

#4 | Posted by Corky at 2017-11-13 08:33 PM | Reply

Flap flap flap...

Good job posting the long version of my summary...Jr. responds three times to numerous Wikileaks emails.

If you are going to build a case, you need more than this.

#5 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-14 12:03 AM | Reply

"Jr. responds three times to numerous Wikileaks emails."

Gee, that would make him a liar, wouldn't it? All those times he bad-mouthed folks who suspected the truth, he was lying about contacts.

Also, as the author of the scoop pointed out via Twitter, Junior skipped a page.

#6 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-11-14 12:07 AM | Reply

#5

Mueller has a lot more... and farts in your general direction.

#7 | Posted by Corky at 2017-11-14 12:10 AM | Reply

- Jr. responds three times to numerous Wikileaks emails.

Jr forwards Wiki mails to Daddy and Daddy tweets his praise of Wikileaks theft.

#8 | Posted by Corky at 2017-11-14 12:12 AM | Reply

"Jr forwards Wiki mails to Daddy and Daddy tweets his praise of Wikileaks theft."

And a few days later, Junior tweets out the link Wiki sent him.

Also, look closely, and you'll see Junior (and Carter Page) forwarding emails to Hope Hicks. Plausible deniability, so they'll claim.

#9 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-11-14 12:34 AM | Reply

"Trump tweeted about Podesta emails 15 minutes after WikiLeaks asked Trump Jr"

So at this point, for Daddy to be telling the truth, Junior had to say Hey, Dad, tweet this!, and Donnie did without asking anything at all. And without Junior spilling any beans. Junior, who lives for pleasing the old man.

#10 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-11-14 09:51 AM | Reply

Advertisement

Advertisement

If you are going to build a case, you need more than this.

#5 | Posted by Rightocenter

No, we don't.

The case is building itself.

#11 | Posted by donnerboy at 2017-11-14 04:27 PM | Reply

#11

You better hope it gets better than this, because no prosecutor is going to touch a criminal conspiracy case based on the evidence that we have seen to date. Mueller knows he needs more than supposition and conjecture, even if he has evidence that Donnie Jr. is as much of a liar as his dear old dad.

#12 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-14 04:34 PM | Reply

If you are going to build a case, you need more than this.
#5 | Posted by Rightocenter

You really can be THAT stupid.... oh wait, your a Nazi sympathizer, never mind......

#13 | Posted by aborted_monson at 2017-11-14 06:52 PM | Reply

That's a serious blind spot you have there, aborted.

#14 | Posted by 101Chairborne at 2017-11-14 06:58 PM | Reply

"no prosecutor is going to touch a criminal conspiracy case "

Wow. We've quickly gone from there was no contact to lots of contact, but nothing criminal.

Not only must it be difficult to move the goalposts that far, that fast, but it still leaves the giant elephant in the room: Team Trump has been lying and lying and lying, to YOU, their constituent. And they expect you to lap it up.

Are you okay with that? And if so, why?

#15 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-11-14 07:01 PM | Reply

The official position of the United States Intelligence Services is that Wikileaks is a hostile foreign intelligence agency. Donald Trump Jr. was corresponding and responding (by actions taken) with this organization in which they suggested the Trump campaign intentionally sow discord should they have lost the election per Jr.'s emails. Donald Trump repeatedly mentioned how much he loved Wikileaks or made direct mention of them over 140 times going down the stretch in his campaign. He celebrated this counterintelligence dump of stolen information as a centerpiece and rallying cry of his campaign.

The case is already made. You're looking at each piece and missing the big picture. Trump Jr., along with every relevant Team Trump member has said over and over that none of them had any contacts with Russians nor had anything to do with influencing the election. The existence of the emails and those who received copies of them confirms all those assertions were lies. The information in the email string confirms a foreign entity was actively suggesting subversion of our electoral process, and those who received that message did not disclose this illegal act at all, and continued contact with the entity even after the election.

The case for collusion or coordination is over. Of course the details have to be filled in, but the picture is unmistakable because it's written in simple-to-understand English.

#16 | Posted by tonyroma at 2017-11-14 07:11 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

You better hope it gets better than this, because no prosecutor is going to touch a criminal conspiracy case based on the evidence that we have seen to date. Mueller knows he needs more than supposition and conjecture, even if he has evidence that Donnie Jr. is as much of a liar as his dear old dad.
#12 | POSTED BY RIGHTOCENTER

It's only gotten better over the past couple months! What are the odds it's suddenly slowing down now? Hope?

#17 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2017-11-14 07:15 PM | Reply

The Trump campaign received and utilized information received from a hostile foreign entity and did not disclose this attempted incursion to federal officials. Don't know what crime that is, but it surely is something because there is no defense for what they did and they can't plead ignorance when they all got the email. And everyone else knows that Hope Hicks reads everything she gets to Donald in order to give him plausible deniability. It's his business practice, something he's done for years because he's always in lawsuits.

Is it a conspiracy since none of the email recipients reported the contact? And what's Trump's defense going to be for weaponizing Wikileaks disclosures (and publicly saying their name over and over again to rousing cheers from his crowds) into his most effective and consistent attack against Hillary?

#18 | Posted by tonyroma at 2017-11-14 07:22 PM | Reply

LOCK HIM UP! LOCK HIM UP!!!!!

#19 | Posted by aborted_monson at 2017-11-14 07:31 PM | Reply

Let me give a more enlightening example of what Team Trump was doing during their campaign on just what we now know from these emails:

Trump: I love (the KGB)! Dont'cha? There's a new (release of emails stolen by the KGB) as I was getting off the plane but I didn't have a chance to read it. Want me to go back? (The KGB)! ... Gotta love (the KGB)!

#20 | Posted by tonyroma at 2017-11-14 07:32 PM | Reply

*run in circles*

Wikileaks!!!

*flap flap flap*

Liar!!!

*run in circles*

Smoke!!!

*flap flap flap*

Nazis!!!

*run in circles*

Move the Goalposts!!!

*flap flap flap*

LOCK HIM UP!!!

*run in circles*

KGB!!!

*wheezing*

Very entertaining, to say the least, but as I said before, Mueller needs more than has been publicly made available. If he gets it, then great, impeach The Donald, he deserves it. As of now, from what we have been allowed to see, Manafort and Flynn are going down and unless they drag Trump with them, that may be as good as it gets.

#21 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-14 07:54 PM | Reply

Digging even deeper, there is no longer any question that a foreign entity provided the Trump campaign with something of immense value, I believe the threshold for violating that one specific law often mentioned. Can anyone say that Wikileaks wasn't of incalculable value to Trump's election? And the kicker on the ying/yang of Trump's use of Wikiuleaks is that there really wasn't anything truly salacious or shocking in any of their releases.

It was Trump's hyperbolic interpretations and exhortations of each additional release (as being the next absolute reason for Hillary Clinton's imprisonment) that underscored the vital role the Wikileaks disclosures played. Trump did it all right before our eyes and everyone can Google the videos anytime they want and now view them under the filter of what the emails disclosed of both Team Trump's and Wikileaks' communications.

#22 | Posted by tonyroma at 2017-11-14 08:00 PM | Reply

Manafort and Flynn are going down and unless they drag Trump with them, that may be as good as it gets.

#21 | Posted by Rightocenter

Trump HIRED manafort and flynn, as well as others who all ended up lying about covert discussions with russians.

Either he was working with the russians or he's so incompetent that he hired a bunch of poeple who were working for the russians without knowing it.

Either one of those possibilities means he would me removed from office if republicans had an ounce of ethics or real patriotism.

#23 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-11-14 08:01 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#22

I understand where you are coming from but that is still all conjecture, barely rising to the level of circumstantial evidence. If Mueller is going to bring down a POTUS, he needs direct evidence of a conspiracy to commit a crime, circumstantial evidence is not going to cut it. None of this shows a causal connection, much less concrete acts in furtherance of a criminal conspiracy.

#23

The mere fact that you have presented an either/or scenario underscores the need for admissible evidence of the former to get Trump impeached. No matter how much you wish that he could be removed from office for negligently hiring alleged Russian Agents, that does not rise to the level of High Crimes and Misdemeanors.

The avenue to impeachment that Mueller is pursuing is Obstruction of Justice and all of this Wikileaks nonsense is merely sound and fury.

#24 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-14 08:10 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

"The avenue to impeachment that Mueller is pursuing is Obstruction of Justice"

That avenue probably crosses Money Laundering street on the way.

#25 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-11-14 08:19 PM | Reply

"The avenue to impeachment that Mueller is pursuing is Obstruction of Justice and all of this Wikileaks nonsense is merely sound and fury." - #24 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-14 08:10 PM

"And if it goes to the convention, and the SD's have to decide who is the candidate, then either the Clintonista or the Obamaites are going to be livid that their candidate isn't the nominee, and two months of campaigning in the GE by the victor isn't going to heal the wounds incurred by the vanquished.

"Got to hand it to the Dems, they may once again have found a way to lose an election that the GOP had no chance of winning just three months ago." - Posted by Rightocenter at 2008-03-20 02:19 PM

Probably best to not pontificate as to what is or what isn't "merely sound and fury."

Just a friendly suggestion.

You're welcome.

#26 | Posted by Hans at 2017-11-14 08:19 PM | Reply

"No matter how much you wish that he could be removed from office for negligently hiring alleged Russian Agents, that does not rise to the level of High Crimes and Misdemeanors."

There is no "level of High Crimes and Misdemeanors." Impeachment is completely left to the discretion of the House of Representatives. They could literally impeach a President because they don't like his hair style. This President isn't going to be impeached unless he starts frightening Congress with threats of war against N. Korea, in which case, I think it will happen much faster than anyone expects.

#27 | Posted by danni at 2017-11-14 08:23 PM | Reply

"They could literally impeach a President because they don't like his hair style." - #27 | Posted by danni at 2017-11-14 08:23 PM

In that case, Trump would have no defense.

#28 | Posted by Hans at 2017-11-14 08:25 PM | Reply | Funny: 2 | Newsworthy 2

That avenue probably crosses Money Laundering street on the way.

That would require a conspiracy and acts in furtherance by the Trump campaign for actions that happened before Trump announced his Presidency.

" they may once again have found a way to lose an election that the GOP had no chance of winning just three months ago."

What about the word "may" and the phrase "no chance of winning" is confusing to you Hans? That was in March, 2008 and I was talking about the nomination being deadlocked three months in the future and what would happen if the Special Delegates had to hand the nomination to either Barack or Hillary. That didn't happen, Obama cruised to the nomination and the GOP lost an election they had no chance of winning. Looks like I was right.

#29 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-14 08:25 PM | Reply

"Looks like I was right." - #29 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-14 08:25 PM

Looks like you were successfully trolled by me.

Looks like all is now right with the world.

Perhaps you should just stick with your faux outrage about sexual abuse.

Just a friendly suggestion.

Again, you're welcome.

#30 | Posted by Hans at 2017-11-14 08:29 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Not disagreeing Righto on the charges you're speaking about. What I'm telling you is how this specific factual evidence already lines up. Wikileaks is a "hostile non-state intelligence" agency. The Trump campaign did not report this contact, nor did they disclose that Wikileaks wanted the campaign to act subversively against this nation's interests; but instead they repeatedly used the information provided and spoke positively about where it came from.

There are crimes in those facts. The other facts are the timeline of the communication and the campaign's broadcast of that same communication. The evidence are the dated emails and the fact that information was utilized by the campaign, often with direct verbal or tweet recognition of Wikileaks as the source.

Foreign hostile-state provided information utilized by a domestic campaign organization = crime.

#31 | Posted by tonyroma at 2017-11-14 08:29 PM | Reply

""Got to hand it to the Dems, they may once again have found a way to lose an election that the GOP had no chance of winning just three months ago." - Posted by Rightocenter at 2008-03-20 02:19 PM"

I predicted it, right here, the Republicans cheated. Kris Kobach, Interstate Crosscheck, other voter suppression techniques served to prevent over a million voters from casting their votes in the three swing states that allowed Trump to steal the election from the popular vote winner.
Trump knows it, why do you think he appointed Kobach to investigate voter fraud on a federal level, which, as it has been proven over and over, is virtually non-existent. His job is really to sideline minorities, the elderly, they young, all groups that tend to vote Democrat.

#32 | Posted by danni at 2017-11-14 08:29 PM | Reply

Danni...

Look at the date again.

#33 | Posted by tonyroma at 2017-11-14 08:35 PM | Reply

"There is no "level of High Crimes and Misdemeanors." Impeachment is completely left to the discretion of the House of Representatives. They could literally impeach a President because they don't like his hair style."

That is a narrowly held view that has been pretty much universally rejected by legal scholars, here is a good summary of the law of impeachment:

Article II § 4 of the Constitution provides as follows:

"The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors."

Thus, the operative legal standard to apply to an impeachment of a sitting President is "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors." There is substantial difference of opinion over the interpretation of these words.

The first general school of thought is that the standard enunciated by the Constitution is subject entirely to whatever interpretation Congress collectively wishes to make. This view has been rejected by most legal scholars because it would have the effect of having the President serve at the pleasure of Congress. However there are some, particularly in Congress, who hold this opinion.

The second view is that the Constitutional standard makes it necessary for a President to have committed an indictable crime in order to be subject to impeachment and removal from office. The proponents of this view point to the tone of the language of Article II § 4 itself, which seems to be speaking in criminal law terms.

The third approach is that an indictable crime is not required to impeach and remove a President. The proponents of this view focus on the word "misdemeanor" which did not have a specific criminal connotation to it at the time the Constitution was ratified. This interpretation is somewhat belied by details of the debate the Framers had in arriving at the specific language to be used for the impeachment standard.

Initially the standard was to be "malpractice or neglect of duty." This was removed and replaced with "treason, bribery, or corruption." The word "corruption" was then eliminated. On the floor during debate the suggestion was made to add the term "maladministration." This was rejected as being too vague and the phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" was adopted in its place.

The fourth view is that an indictable crime is not required, but that the impeachable act or acts done by the President must in some way relate to his official duties. The bad act may or may not be a crime but it would be more serious than simply "maladministration." This view is buttressed in part by an analysis of the entire phrase "high crimes or misdemeanors" which seems to be a term of art speaking to a political connection for the bad act or acts. In order to impeach it would not be necessary for the act to be a crime, but not all crimes would be impeachable offenses.

Findlaw: Presidential Impeachment: The Legal Standard and Procedure

#34 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-14 08:36 PM | Reply

#33 | Posted by tonyroma Danni is like Bluto in Animal House!

#35 | Posted by Federalist at 2017-11-14 08:37 PM | Reply

Looks like you were successfully trolled by me.

Uh, no, just pointing out the errors in your Creepy Archive.

Looks like all is now right with the world.

You need to set higher goals for yourself.

#36 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-14 08:38 PM | Reply

#35

Then what's that make Righto?

Or did you fail to even notice?

#37 | Posted by tonyroma at 2017-11-14 08:39 PM | Reply

#32

Danni, that post is from 2008 (still weird to me that Hans archives posts from even further back than that) but I guess could be applicable to 2016.

#38 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-14 08:41 PM | Reply

Uh, no, just pointing out the errors in your Creepy Archive.

He got you Righto. Check the date of your post.

#39 | Posted by tonyroma at 2017-11-14 08:41 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

You already got it.

#40 | Posted by tonyroma at 2017-11-14 08:42 PM | Reply

The mere fact that you have presented an either/or scenario underscores the need for admissible evidence of the former to get Trump impeached. No matter how much you wish that he could be removed from office for negligently hiring alleged Russian Agents, that does not rise to the level of High Crimes and Misdemeanors.

The avenue to impeachment that Mueller is pursuing is Obstruction of Justice and all of this Wikileaks nonsense is merely sound and fury.

#24 | Posted by Rightocenter

It is an either or scenario.

Either trump was in on collusion or he ignorantly hired a bunch of colluders. There are no other possibilities.

And both of those possibilities mean he should be removed from office, whether a crime was committed or not.

#41 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-11-14 08:42 PM | Reply

Then what's that make Righto?

Jeff Spicoli:

"What Jefferson was saying was, Hey! You know, we left this England place 'cause it was bogus; so if we don't get some cool rules ourselves - pronto - we'll just be bogus too! Get it?"

#42 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-14 08:45 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

"That would require a conspiracy and acts in furtherance by the Trump campaign for actions that happened before Trump announced his Presidency."

Not the Trump campaign, Trump. The money laundering started years ago, and continues. Meanwhile, Russian influence seems to have been unbroken since.

"Move the Goalposts!!!"

Which reminds me: you still haven't addressed how you feel being lied to repeatedly by Team Trump. Junior, in particular, clearly believes you're a gullible chump.

#43 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-11-14 08:46 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

He got you Righto. Check the date of your post.

I know the date, I was talking about a brokered convention. I was already conceding that the GOP was going to lose the election to whomever the Dems nominated (and I was correct) and was saying that if they had to broker the nomination one side of the Democratic Party was going to be furious. Looking at the venom and vote splitting that happened with the Bernie Bros just here on the DR in 2016, the same thing would have happened, 100x worse, if the 2008 convention was brokered between Hillary and Barack.

#44 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-14 08:48 PM | Reply

Dan, I am wholeheartedly in support of Trump being impeached if the evidence is there, I didn't vote for him and think he is a disaster.

Unlike you all, I am a lot more dispassionate about it and am looking at it from a legal standpoint. From that vantage, there is not enough to bring charges, but if there are direct money laundering charges that you know about with Donald Trump individually, please share with the class.

#45 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-14 08:51 PM | Reply

Don't know if I'm pulling the curtain on Hans' OZ but here's your Wayback Machine link Righto.

web.archive.org

Look at the timeline at the top of the page and choose the date you want to see. Wild, isn't it?

#46 | Posted by tonyroma at 2017-11-14 08:52 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I know how Wayback Machine works, Tony, but if you go onto my link you will find no captures for March, 2008, only February 2008 and then July 2008.

Sorry to say that Hans kept his own personal copy of that post for the LAST NINE YEARS on his computer.

#47 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-14 08:59 PM | Reply

"I am a lot more dispassionate about it and am looking at it from a legal standpoint."

There is no legal standard for impeachment.
Have you tried being dispassionate enough to see that?

#48 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-14 09:01 PM | Reply

"That is a narrowly held view that has been pretty much universally rejected by legal scholars."

Please.

#49 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-14 09:04 PM | Reply

"I am a lot more dispassionate about it and am looking at it from a legal standpoint. "

Why? He's clearly an incompetent ----, and a pathological liar. And he's got his finger on the button.

At this point, it's all about Rs getting big tax cuts for their corporate masters. Any Dem would've been impeached by now.

"if there are direct money laundering charges that you know about with Donald Trump individually, please share with the class."

You're joking, right?
www.ft.com
www.newsweek.com
www.theguardian.com

#50 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-11-14 09:05 PM | Reply

Here is a guide to understanding the modern GOP:

How the 19th-Century Know Nothing Party Reshaped American Politics
From xenophobia to conspiracy theories, the Know Nothing party launched a nativist movement whose effects are still felt today
www.smithsonianmag.com

#51 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-14 09:12 PM | Reply

You're joking, right?

No, I am not:FT: "One former executive at a developer that worked with Mr Trump accused him of "wilful obliviousness" to the details of his partners' dealings. On the face of it, Mr Trump was not a beneficiary of the apartment sales."

Newsweek: "Although there is little evidence of Trump's direct involvement in money laundering, the trail does suggest, at best, complete disregard for knowing the origins and legal status of any funds raised."

The Guardian: "Ties with Russia are a matter of acute sensitivity for Deutsche. In February, it emerged that Deutsche had secretly reviewed multiple loans made to President Trump by its private wealth division to see if there was a connection to Russia. Trump owes Deutsche about $300m.

Deutsche refused to comment on its internal review. Sources say the bank discovered no evidence of any Moscow link. That covers other members of the US president's family who are also Deutsche clients. They include Trump's daughter, Ivanka, her husband, Jared Kushner, and Kushner's mother, Seryl Stadtmauer."Supposition and conjecture will not get you the result you desire.

#52 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-14 09:19 PM | Reply

I'm out for a while, let me know when you find something.

#53 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-14 09:20 PM | Reply

I'm out for a while, let me know when you find something.

#53 | Posted by Rightocenter

So you can keep playing "that's not something!"

That game ended when trump jr released his emails with the russians. A bunch of repubs are still acting like that never happened.

Again, either trump colluded with the russians, or he hired people who did. Either one of those means he is unfit for office. The only problem is republicans are willing to sell out to putin for tax cuts.

#54 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-11-14 09:25 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

"Supposition and conjecture will not get you the result you desire."

And where there's smoke, there's fire.

Any other platitudes we should exchange?

#55 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-11-14 09:36 PM | Reply

"The evidence isn't there! The evidence isn't there! The evidence isn't there!"

Did someone bring a parrot in here?

Who's cleaning up that mess? Next time put down some old newspapers.

#56 | Posted by Corky at 2017-11-14 09:38 PM | Reply

Actually this limited coordination is illegal.

#57 | Posted by Sycophant at 2017-11-14 10:32 PM | Reply

Rape Coddler

Hey look, the mouthpiece has some proof of Bubba Rape.

Let's see it, mah B.....

#59 | Posted by Corky at 2017-11-14 11:20 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#59

So he still gets a pass from you...how 1990s of you.

Coddling at its finest.

#60 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-14 11:23 PM | Reply

"So he still gets a pass from you."

My irony meter is pegging.

#61 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-11-14 11:32 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

#60

I think he did it, but don't need the proof many are demanding for Moore.

What proof you have for Clinton?

#62 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2017-11-14 11:49 PM | Reply

You want direct evidence of conspiracy, collusion and coordination? This:

WikiLeaks Looks Like a Russian Front Organization

#63 | Posted by tonyroma at 2017-11-15 12:12 AM | Reply

#59
So he still gets a pass from you...how 1990s of you.
Coddling at its finest.

#60 | POSTED BY RIGHTOCENTER

Is there some reason leftcoastlawyer gets to try to detail every thread on the site by bringing up a guy who was investigated for years, impeached, and disbarred for the things he did?

#64 | Posted by MrSilenceDogood at 2017-11-15 04:56 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

So, you believe impeachment is really based on "high crimes and misdemeanors," then I guess getting a b.j. in the WH is a high crime or a misdemeanor. My take, a misdemeanor which we all know is a minor crime. Impeachment is a political weapon not a form of law enforcement. Andrew Johnson would agree with me.

#65 | Posted by danni at 2017-11-15 06:21 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"... then I guess getting a b.j. in the WH is a high crime or a misdemeanor." - #65 | Posted by danni at 2017-11-15 06:21 AM

Indeed, Danni. Or, as a well-known conservative put it:

"Our impeachment of President Clinton was another example of placing the wrong political emphasis on personal matters. We impeached Clinton for lying to the government. To our surprise the electorate gave us cold comfort. Lying to the government: It's called April 15th. And we accused Clinton of lying about sex, which all men spend their lives doing, starting at 15 bragging about things we haven't done yet, then on to fibbing about things we are doing, and winding up with prevarications about things we no longer can do." - P.J. O'Rourke

#66 | Posted by Hans at 2017-11-15 06:57 AM | Reply

They could literally impeach a President because they don't like his hair style." - #27 | Posted by danni at 2017-11-14 08:23 PM
In that case, Trump would have no defense.

#28 | POSTED BY HANS AT 2017-11-14 08:25 PM | FLAG:

But the tribble on his head could plead insanity.

#67 | Posted by 726 at 2017-11-15 10:03 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

"So he still gets a pass from you...how 1990s of you."

Why are you loonies still obsessed with the Bill Clinton's penis???

Neither Clinton are even running for office.

You really need to focus on the problems at hand and quit trying to deflect to the past.

Anyway, NEW RULES!

After 18 months we are not expected to remember any thing anymore. The Attorney General of the United States can't remember things from 18 months ago.

So why should we have to?

It's the "The Jeff Sessions Defense".

#68 | Posted by donnerboy at 2017-11-15 01:37 PM | Reply

#59
So he still gets a pass from you...how 1990s of you.
Coddling at its finest.

#60 | POSTED BY RIGHTOCENTER

Remember that time he got impeached.

Remember that time President Bush didn't get impeached for lying us into a war in Iraq that cost trillions of dollars and thousands of American lives?

Lots of things to remember. Shall we keep going?

#69 | Posted by Sycophant at 2017-11-15 06:48 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Because as the Atlantic article points out, it's time to recognize that Bill, like Trump, committed sex crimes.

But you all keep giving him a pass because he is this guy.

link credit-Sitz

#70 | Posted by Rightocenter

Bill is out of office and out of power. His sexcapades came out during his second term. Trump was elected AFTER everyone already knew he was a sex predator. Everyone who was SOOOOO offended by clinton's adultery was just fine with electing an even worse one if he had the magic (R) by his name.

Al Gore didn't even do anything wrong, but he was punished for clinton's sex crap. Dems not only punish their perverts, they punish their pervert's co workers.

Repubs elect their perverts even after discovering they're perverts. Their minds are so warped that they think someone who believes in climate change and health care is worse for america than someone who molests teenagers or brags about sexual assualt.

#72 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-11-15 07:44 PM | Reply

I'm sure Bill Clinton has something to do with TrumpJr and Wikileaks.

I mean. Why else would RoC keep bringing him up.

Cause he's a troll?

Oh yea. Good point.

#73 | Posted by ClownShack at 2017-11-15 08:12 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

I understand where you are coming from but that is still all conjecture, barely rising to the level of circumstantial evidence. If Mueller is going to bring down a POTUS, he needs direct evidence of a conspiracy to commit a crime, circumstantial evidence is not going to cut it. None of this shows a causal connection, much less concrete acts in furtherance of a criminal conspiracy.

The indictment against Manafort contains 12 counts: conspiracy against the United States, conspiracy to launder money, unregistered agent of a foreign principal, false and misleading FARA statements, false statements, and seven counts of failure to file reports of foreign bank and financial accounts.

It's a good thing Mueller isn't pursuing conspiracy then, whew!

#75 | Posted by chuffy at 2017-11-16 11:08 AM | Reply

Godwin's Law v.2 officially invoked.

#76 | Posted by chuffy at 2017-11-16 11:13 AM | Reply

High Crimes and Misdemeanors means anything the House decides it means, not necessarily an actual crime. Andrew Johnson was impeached primarily for two things: firing his Secretary of War, and bad-mouthing Congress.

ARTICLE 10.That said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, unmindful of the high duties of his high office and the dignity and proprieties thereof, and of the harmony and courtesies which ought to exist and be maintained between the executive and legislative branches of the Government of the United States, designing and intending to set aside the rightful authorities and powers of Congress, did attempt to bring into disgrace, ridicule, hatred, contempt and reproach, the Congress of the United States, and the several branches thereof, to impair and destroy the regard and respect of all the good people of the United States for the Congress and the legislative power thereof, which all officers of the government ought inviolably to preserve and maintain, and to excite the odium and resentment of all good people of the United States against Congress and the laws by it duly and constitutionally enacted; and in pursuance of his said design and intent, openly and publicly and before divers assemblages of citizens of the United States, convened in divers parts thereof, to meet and receive said Andrew Johnson as the Chief Magistrate of the United States, did, on the eighteenth day of August, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-six, and on divers other days and times, as well before as afterwards, make and declare, with a loud voice, certain intemperate, inflammatory and scandalous harangues, and therein utter loud threats and bitter menaces, as well against Congress as the laws of the United States duly enacted thereby, amid the cries, jeers and laughter of the multitudes then assembled in hearing, which are set forth in the several specifications hereinafter written...www.senate.gov

Sounds a lot like our current POTUS. This looks like a clear precedent to me.

#77 | Posted by WhoDaMan at 2017-11-16 12:03 PM | Reply

Wow. Righto really owned some fools.

#78 | Posted by Sully at 2017-11-16 01:46 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2017 World Readable

Drudge Retort