Bombshell: WikiLeaks Corresponded With Don Jr, Asked Him to Push Fake News

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: Sillyolme


He hasn't obstructed justice. Firing Comey was his right as POTUS, along with any other employee of the executive (all federal agencies, basically).

POTUS could dissolve DOJ/FBI along with every other executive federal agency at his sole discretion. I don't believe any of those agencies were created by congress (by law).

It is his right, but it can also lead to potential charges of obstruction of justice. Nixon did something similar and his articles of impeachment specifically stated obstruction of justice was one charge layed against him.

a reply to: olaru12

Right. Comey lied. Perjury.

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: olaru12

Right. Comey lied. Perjury.

Also Jared K. uhoh....

www.rawstory.com...

And Papadopoulos will singing like a bird to save his own skin; very little loyalty in that WH, believe me....

www.rawstory.com...

a reply to: introvert

I'm not saying it can't happen, just that it is highly unlikely.

Do you have any idea how difficult it is to prove intent? Especially when engaging in a lawful activity that he needs only to justify by saying "I fired him because I felt like it."

With so little information to work with (usually just his own official statement), proving any other intention is very unlikely. Especially since there wasn't even a special counsel at that point. The fact that Trump hasn't interfered with Mueller is another very large plus for him.

How are you going to prove intent to obstruct by legally firing Comey, when he hasn't touched a single hair on Mueller's head?

Look guys, if there is real evidence of a crime I'm all for prosecuting him. But trying to scrutinize every detail of his life while looking for something to charge him with is absolutely wrong. Unless you want the same done to Hillary, Obama, Bush, Clinton, etc then only specific allegations backed by credible evidence need apply.

Everything else is speculation on your behalf(s) borne from the simple fact that you dislike Trump. Well too bad. The legal system does not and will not invent charges to suit some weird desire for people to punish their opponents through the justice system.

a reply to: JBurns

There is NOTHING that equals the /Russian agent meeting/Trump Jr. emails and now the leaked wikileaks trump Jr. emails.. on the Clinton side..

They all be specificlly spell out EXACTLY the lefts collusion conspiracy theory..



EVERYTHING on hillary is unsubstantiated AND I REALLY HATE DEFENDING HER, because she is a corporate shill and basiclly a neo-con..


But Imho the allegations against her are status quo institutional problems...


So by pretending she is uniquely corrupt, it implies that the problem is with her, rather than it being an institutional problem..

She will not be convicted, nor even charged, because it is all legal..

We need institutional reform, nor to scape goat one politician..

a reply to: introvert

Obstruction of justice includes you doing things within your rights...


It’s when ever you attempt to impede an investigation using the authority you have..

I'm not understanding the "Bombshell" here, we knew this earlier in the week.

I'm also failing to see the import.

Don jnr put out the full chain of messages for all to see, and I personally didn't see anything that would suggest "collusion" or anything conspiratory with Russia.

It's not illegal to send DM's nor is it illegal to speak with wikileaks/Julian assange....Nothing burger.

a reply to: KJUK78

A) For one both wikileaks and don Jr. repeatedly said they weren’t coordinating and blasted those reporting it as “fake news” when we now know they were bald face lying...

B) it continues to prove they were completely involved in every step of leaking the stolen government documents EXCEPT actually stealing them..

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: KJUK78

A) For one both wikileaks and don Jr. repeatedly said they weren’t coordinating and blasted those reporting it as “fake news” when we now know they were bald face lying...

B) it continues to prove they were completely involved in every step of leaking the stolen government documents EXCEPT actually stealing them..

When did wikileaks or Don jnr repeatedly say they weren't in contact? When were they even asked?

Im pretty sure the "hack" has been debunked, it was an inside leak...regardless wikileaks publically dropped the Emails they had, now had they NOT done that and just sent the Emails to Don, you may have a point...but again no illegalitys here.

So whats the "Bombshell" and what is it's relevance?

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: Sillyolme


He hasn't obstructed justice. Firing Comey was his right as POTUS, along with any other employee of the executive (all federal agencies, basically).

POTUS could dissolve DOJ/FBI along with every other executive federal agency at his sole discretion. I don't believe any of those agencies were created by congress (by law).

It is his right, but it can also lead to potential charges of obstruction of justice. Nixon did something similar and his articles of impeachment specifically stated obstruction of justice was one charge layed against him.

Comey informed Trump that he WAS NOT under investigation 3 times, and he admitted the same under oath.

Nixon WAS under investigation

False equivalence.

a reply to: KJUK78

Why do you believe it was an "inside leak?" Everyone involved thinks it was a hack. And if it was a leak, why did the Russians know that the emails were going to be released on WikiLeaks before they appeared there? Did the "inside leaker" inform them?

Google Seth Rich.

Julian Assange has all but admitted he was his source, even offering a reward to anyone who can get info that's leads to his killer/s.

Google Crowdstrike, and it's ties to Fusion GPS founder.

When the DNC was "hacked" they refused to allow the FBI access to the server.

The DNC instead decided to pay millions to a private firm called crowdstrike to carry out analysis of the server.

The FBI was informed by crowdstrike that "the russians did it" and the FBI accepted that analysis, again without access to the server, so the FBI and The IC are basing their "findings and assessment on crowdstrike.

Why would the DNC not allow the FBI access to the server and instead pay millions to a private firm, who for all intents and purposes could say what Hillary and the DNC wanted and paid them to say?

So when we hear "17 intel agencies all agree that Russia hacked the DNC" its a load of crap...since NONE of them actually saw the server.

Former CIA analyst debunks the claim that russia hacked, and proves it was a leak, a local download

www.thecanary.co...