Frankly, my first guess is they may have presented her that way to Trump’s team because it made it easier to believe she had juicy dirt on Clinton. I haven’t seen any info on who signs her pay cheques so at the moment I have no idea if she really is a Crown Prosecutor/District Attorney/State Prosecutor or not.
Heretic.
I read BBC regularly, and I see no substantive difference between their factual reporting and that of CNN, other than that the scope of CNN’s coverage is a lot wider.
Charles Krauthammer is American, I believe… And actually the NP is not a bad paper - lots of right of center columnists, and they do slant to the right, but they take their reporting seriously, and I read it frequently.
I don’t think that anyone at all has claimed that she was a crown prosecutor, only that she had close ties to a “crown prosecutor”, and the reason that this term is used is not because it was come up with by the media, but because that is the term used in the email to junior. The media has pointed out on a few occasions that russia doesn’t even have crown ministers, but if you are actually wanting them to point this out every single time that they talk about this story, that’s gonna get tiresome very quickly. I think that at this point, more americans probably know that russia does not have crown prosecutors than know who their senator or representative is.
The “government lawyer” phrase is also lifted directly from the email, and while I would agree that using it can make it seem as though she is actually employed directly by the government, she is still there representing the russian govt in this matter, and it is actually important that it was phrased this way, because one of the people who would think that she was actually employed directly by the govt would be the recipient of that email. “I though that she worked for the russian govt, but it turns out that she was just there representing them in this matter” doesn’t really get you off the hook, IMHO.
Yes, born in NY. But he grew up and was educated in Canada, so he is not without taint. 
I haven’t read it in a while but back in it’s early days (it is a relatively young newspaper) it was very much considered a Conrad Black mouthpiece and had a rep for inflating its circulation numbers with a crapload of free subscriptions (and by “free” I mean suddenly it started arriving on your doorstep). But it was always decent for factual reporting, less so its editorial/opinion side.
Ah, Conrad still has a regular column, which is fun to read… If you like reading self-serving bloviating rubbish written by an ex-con.
Yes, Conrad (I mean Lord Black!) loves the wordiest of words strung together in a self serving arrangement.
As I said in the post to which you relied (#264), it seems possible to me that one of the federal anti-conspiracy statues might come into play. But a more immediate consequence for Don Jr. is likely to be the legal jeopardy he will enter the moment he takes the oath to tell the truth before the Senate Judiciary committee–as soon as next week, we’re told.
That he will be found to have perjured himself seems not at all unlikely.
Now that will have been a not unlikely solid basis for a discussion.
You use your method of remembering a post isn’t in the Pit, and I’ll continue to use mine. (What’s wrong with 19th century syntax, anyway?)
What would you consider to be the top 2 or 3 things he’s said that put him at jeopardy of perjury? I’m honestly not clear on what he’s said under oath so far. Or did you mean that he might perjure himself during his upcoming testimony? It’s that 19th century syntax that’s got me confused as to your meaning. 
Seems as though both are possible: that what he’s said under oath already could trip him up, and/or that his upcoming testimony could prove to be a problem for him. I’m no expert on the utterances of Don Jr., either, by the way. Just seems like a safe bet that at least one of his oaths will turn out to have been perjurious.
If he were my client, that wouldn’t be a risk, because I’d tell him forcefully to shut up.
However. . . I think you’re quite possibly on to something.
I’m not aware of any existing statements that seem likely candidates, but I agree that when someone who needs to shut up won’t, perjury is a likely outcome.
Could you stop hinting that I’m making BBQ Pit statements? I have been posting here more than a decade longer than you so I think I got a handle on the rules, thanks.
Judging by Trump’s lawyer documented meltdown this week, I strongly suggest you do not take any of them as clients. No matter how much you need the money. It’s not worth losing your sanity, or license.
Hope still springs eternal. NOW Trump is doomed. Definitely.
Glad you finally agree with us
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk