General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWhat more evidence of collusion do you need? - By Jennifer Rubin
November 14 at 9:39 AM
Jennifer Rubin writes the Right Turn blog for The Post, offering reported opinion from a conservative perspective
We know President Trump during the campaign publicly encouraged the Russians to hack and release Hillary Clintons emails. We know he referenced the WikiLeaks email dump 145 times in the closing days of the campaign. We also know that Donald Trump Jr., Jared Kushner and then-campaign chairman Paul Manafort met with Russians in June 2016 with the promise of dirt on Hillary Clinton, and we have learned that campaign adviser George Papadopoulos had extensive contacts with Russian officials that included discussion of dirt on Clinton. To say that there is no evidence of collusion, then, would be one more big lie in a series of big lies the administration has deployed to defend itself in the Russia investigation that threatens to sink this presidency. But in case all of that were not enough to constitute collusion (which is not a legal term), The Post reports:
In the messages, WikiLeaks urged Trump Jr. to promote its trove of hacked Democratic emails and suggested that President Trump challenge the election results if he did not win, among other ideas. They were first reported by the Atlantic and later posted by Trump Jr. on Twitter.
Even more directly, Donald Trump Jr. was urged to have his father tweet a link to the leaked email:
Trump may claim that his son was acting foolishly on his own and that he tweeted without knowledge of his sons communication with WikiLeaks. Even if you believe that, it can no longer be said that there was no behind-the-scenes coordination (i.e. collusion) between the top level of the Trump campaign and the most prominent Russian cut-out, WikiLeaks.
So is this the proverbial smoking gun? I wouldnt say its the smoking gun on its own, says Susan Hennessey of the Lawfare blog. However, she says that in the broader context its yet another strand in [the] rope. Every single time these guys are offered dirty materials or illicit contacts their response is to say yes and push further. She argues that it is hard not to think that someone, somewhere crossed the line into criminality.
more
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2017/11/14/what-more-evidence-of-collusion-do-you-need/?utm_term=.05308e10dee5
kentuck
(111,110 posts)to coordinate and to conspire to let Russia interfere in our elections.l
No doubt in my mind. But I'm not on the jury.