islander wrote: 
some folks, and good folks, still believe this is all overblown conjecture by the media/liberals (and a lot of it is...but they seem oblivious as to the source of the material?) and we should still give him a chance...

 Lazy8 wrote: 
I have no doubt that the distance between normal and the line the Republicans in congress are willing to tolerate is measured in light years. But I still have to wonder about the general populace. Seriously, this is everything he was billed as. This is pretty much what I expected from him - boorishness, corruption, nepotism, complete disregard for any standards, actions with no purpose except to flaunt an antagonize... This is what he has always been.  Aren't people getting tired of this? how far down does our global standing have to go?  Will it take a wall street implosion and a real financial crisis to shake the faith?  Are we there yet - is money all that matters?

 Lazy8 wrote: 
Treason or impeachment? No.  But clearly more rot from the core of a wormy apple.

 Lazy8 wrote: 
The long question is, are we talking about treason as explicitly defined in the Constitution, or treason as defined in the dictionary, which is "the action of betraying someone or something (i.e. a country)"?

In the first case, "No" is the correct answer. Note however that Politico found four potentially applicable statutes under which such collusion would be potentially actionable.

The WH is still trying to convince everyone that this wasn't collusion. Come on. Admittedly nothing came of it but, last I checked, the police don't look the other way or treat "attempted" bank robberies less than they do successful ones. Intent is still there.

 Lazy8 wrote:
Certainly not by how treason is defined in The Constitution.

Trump: Putin would prefer Clinton to me - BBC News
President Donald J. Trump tells the Christian Broadcasting Network, "If Hillary (Clinton) had won our military would be decimated ... that's what Putin doesn't like about me."

The long answer is "Do you even know what the word 'treason' means?"

Could Donald Trump Jr. Be Charged With Treason? Short Answer: No

Julian Assange: I told Donald Trump Jr. to release his emails with WikiLeaks

One of Trump’s biggest promises just took another hit

 Proclivities wrote: 
Yeah, such poor writing undermines the credibility of the whole thing.

 Proclivities wrote: 
$750/billable hour, or more...

 kcar wrote:
What is a "white-collar lawyer" or "white-collar attorney"?  Is that like a religious priest or a sudden explosion?  I imagine they mean an attorney who defends people on trial for white-collar crimes, but still, it's a little clumsy.  I'm always a little dubious when an article contains several paragraphs of "quotes" from an anonymous source, but this stuff should see more light soon.

 kcar wrote: 
and has been obvious for sooo long.

 Dragonfly_Launch wrote: 
Yes! Extremely dumb to release those emails and publicly comment on them. I doubt his lawyer/s knew about that beforehand. 


From Politico.com: 
Trump Jr. delivers ‘smoking gun’ to Mueller

A white-collar Washington lawyer who is representing a client mired in the Russia probe said there’s little doubt Mueller’s team welcomes what Trump Jr. just delivered about his Russia meeting via social media — that is, if they didn’t already have the messages through their own investigation.

“They’ve been handed a smoking gun,” the attorney said. “What none of us know is what else he’s got. He may have had all these emails already. He may have reams of paper. There’s no way to know what’s under the water line in terms of this investigation.”

The attorney, who requested anonymity because of the sensitive nature of his work for an individual involved in the case, said Trump Jr. may be most at risk of legal repercussions because of his admission that he was willing to meet with the Russian attorney to obtain dirt on Clinton.

“I think he’s walked himself into a potential criminal offense here,” the lawyer said. But the disclosures could also be trouble for Kushner and Manafort since they are copied on the exchange and Trump Jr. at one point explains he’ll be bringing them along to the meeting at Trump Tower.

“They’re in the soup too,” the attorney said.
...

But Trump Jr.’s decision to post his email chain on Twitter has its own legal ramifications. The president’s son said in his initial message he did it “in order to be totally transparent,” though it was done just before The New York Times published a story detailing the content of the messages.

The white-collar attorney with a client involved in the Russia probe said he was stunned to see Trump Jr. publicize evidence that could incriminate him later on the investigation. “What the hell is he thinking even talking about it?” he said. “You’d think the first thing a lawyer would do is clap a hand over his mouth and take away his devices. He should not be talking. It’s insane.”

 Red_Dragon wrote: 
Actually, the dumb ass aura of the whole exposing his own emails as though the precedence gives him some legitimacy. Some shelter. As Trevor Noah said, the "I thought she just wanted to fuck me honey" excuse for your wife. You know, when she found out. 

but... his emails

consider the source...

 kcar wrote: 
They would be the last people on Planet Earth to think that.