Is Trump Jr. doing (a few of) the same things Wikileaks suggests—tweeting out the link they gave, for instance—disqualified because of a lack of any message saying “I’ll do that”?
-
-
-
No, it's because the material was public. Trump drawing attention surely increased traffic, but it was there for anyone to see. Wikileaks telling Jr. pre-publication that it had the info, and Jr. asking them to publish on a certain day to help the campaign would be coordination.
-
If I’m understanding you: what would disqualify that example, particularly, is that the only thing possibly coordinated was promotion?
-
*Of something already publicly available, that is
-
Basically, yes. That's not incriminating. And even the coordination is minimal. Meaning, there's no back-and-forth, no discussion of timing or purpose, no request from Jr. for something illicit, etc.
-
I’d agree, but it’s surprisingly hard to avoid compartmentalizing as we get one bit of evidence at a time out of sequence, and he’s testified under oath about activity during the election. Have to be irritating & say for me it’s undecided, in the broader sense of “incriminating.”
-
I place immense value on evidence-based reasoning. Doing so has even more value if our society is moving away from that principle.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
The next morning, about 12 hours later, Trump Jr. responded to WikiLeaks. “Off the record I don’t know who that is, but I’ll ask around,” he wrote on September 21, 2016. “Thanks.”
-
I don't see how a suggestion to research public records, or following that suggestion, is illicit.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
you’re missing the part where every trump surrogate & bots were dropping wl prior to wl publishing it, that’s the “bad” part & coordination
-
That's not in the reported correspondence. I'm commenting on the recently published information.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
what data did the 17 agencies have that made them release the statements?
-
Which statements? Nothing from US intelligence agencies in the article I linked to.
-
I love you. are you single?
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
You are joking right?
-
No. The correspondence doesn't show any transfer of stolen information, nor coordination of strategy. It's mostly Wikileaks giving a tip and then trying to get favors in return, which didn't work.
-
In which Jr. knew they were trying to coordinate and Hope Hicks knew and Kellyanne knew. But who am I. I’ll let the legal eagles interpret.
-
All are now saying it’s a BFD. And just another maybe circumstantial piece of the puzzle that the campaign knew Ru was meddling.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
You know what else I didn't see Nicholas? I didn't see Don Jr write "Mr Assange, I could never assist or cooperate with a criminal fugitive, who runs an organization that has been deemed by the Pentagon as guilty of espionage".
#resist@IndivisibleTeam - 1 more reply
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.