A BOY NOW A MAN CONFESSES: I WATCHED A RAPE

LOCATION: AT A PARTY IN 1969

The man who wrote this article doesn't remember where the rape happened, what time it was, or how he got home. He remembers his first sexual experience -- watching a rape through a window.

From The Washington Post

...At one point, a boy told several of us to go outside and look through a window into the basement because another boy, a football player, had taken a girl there. (There were far more boys than girls at this party.) When we peered through, we saw the girl passed out on a sofa, her feet facing us. As the boy approached her, he waved to us, smiling. He proceeded to remove her jeans and then her underwear. It was the first time I had seen a girl naked. He climbed on top of her and penetrated her. She immediately woke up and tried to fight him off. At this point, we all scattered in the yard. No one said anything. There was just nervous laughter... 

[When I was in college and heard of things

 like this happening to some nameless girl,

the boys, feeling guilty, always talked about how 

"she put herself in that position" 

by drinking too much

...just like Nate Parker told his victim] 

Eventually, we all went back into the house. I don’t remember anyone drinking, other than the girls. I did not drink anything. We must have gone into a bedroom, because the next thing I recall is standing with about 10 other boys around a bed on which a different girl had passed out. Everyone was touching her through her clothing. I placed my hand on her leg and quickly removed it. 

One boy kept turning the lights on and off. When they came on, everyone removed their hands from the girl’s body. In the dark, everyone put their hands back on her. Everyone would laugh. It was some kind of game, and we all seemed to understand the rules. This happened four times, and then we all left the room. I’m glad it didn’t go further... 

My boys are 19, 17 and 11 years old. What I teach them about the treatment of girls is simple: respect, respect, respect. If they witness something like I did, go to the authorities. This is no time to worry about being a snitch. I reminded them that I was the same age when I witnessed the rape; my very first vision of sexual contact was a rape. My sons agree I was a foolish, immature teenager....

~WAPO

Read More:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/i-watched-a-rape-for-five-decades-i-did-nothing/2018/10/05/f28d9cf8-c805-11e8-b2b5-79270f9cce17_story.html?utm_term=.d15da4f1bc12 

I've said it before. I'll say it again. This behavior was common as dirt for men a couple of decades back, and probably now too. And I assure you that upwards of 90% of the young men who did this haven't called themselves "rapist" even once. 

And while there might be some 20 year olds who don't believe that this was common for boys to either do it or witness it, every last one of those old mofo-s in congress (male and female) know perfectly damn well Christine Blasey Ford's memory is working just fine and that Kavanaugh did exactly what she said --- attempted rape.

BLACKCHICKROCKED.BLOGSPOT.COM

MALE SUPREMACISTS MINIMIZE RAPE AND PUSH KAVANAUGH ACROSS THE FINISH LINE

I am not going to spend any time debating whether or not Kavanaugh did what Christine Blasey Ford said he did. We already know he did it. Left, right, black, white, male, female, asian, and brown we all know it's very, very likely Brett Kavanaugh attempted to rape Ford when they were kids.

The only thing that's really up for debate is whether or not to call it "attempted rape."

The reason I know that we all know that there is a lot more than a 50/50 chance Kavanaugh did exactly what Dr. Ford said he did is because the White House made sure the FBI investigators didn't investigate much of anything. 

The FBI didn't interview people Dr. Ford asked them to, or track down timelines based on her statements. The White House didn't even have the FBI interview Kavanaugh under oath, in a  situation where his lies could put him in jeopardy.

You don't have your investigators do that when you think someone is innocent. And the people who are willing to defend someone like Kavanaugh don't cheer when they see an investigation done this badly -- unless they know the person being investigated is likely guilty. 

not the real headline

YE OLDE DRINKING BUDDIES OF BRETT KAVANAUGH SAY HE SHOULD NOT BE CONFIRMED

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/we-were-brett-kavanaughs-drinking-buddies-we-dont-think-he-should-be-confirmed/2018/10/04/923cf6ac-c821-11e8-b2b5-79270f9cce17_story.html?

The GRAB EM BY THE P*SSY led White House has been able to get away with this, in part, because of how strong a strangle hold male supremacy has on entire country.

And this can be seen in how the main stream media has handled their Kavanaugh coverage.

The main steam media has been saying Kavanaugh is accused of "sexual misconduct."  Ask yourelf what that means. Think about how that phrase might echoing in the back of your mind. 

Does "sexual misconduct" mean a girl pinching a boy on the buttocks as he walks by? 

Does "sexual misconduct" mean a boy looking at a 14 year girls new breasts in an obvious and demeaning way?  

Doesn't "sexual misconduct" almost have to translate as "something sexual happened" but that something is only slightly worse than whatever it is so many Americans willingly fit inside "boys will be boys?"

The words the male dominated press have chosen to describe as "sexual misconduct"

a) a boy shoving a girl into a bedroom and locking the door (false imprisonment?) 

b) throwing her on a bed and getting on top of her so he can grind his crotch into hers, grind his erection into her vagina --that's what happened right? that's what "grinding" on her means right? Kavanaugh was dry humping her as he forced his hands under her clothing, trying to get her clothes off (attempted rape)

What we've been hearing over the last few days is a reassigned, minimized value of the crime of attempted rape. 

Saying Kavanaugh was accused of "sexual misconduct" instead of "sexual assault" or "attempted rape" in the news headlines gets people to think Kavanaugh was a sexual bad boy when he was in high school and college. And I'm wondering if this is not having an almost brain-washing type of an effect.

Calling what Kavanaugh is accused of "sexual misconduct" instead of "attempted rape" is probably why some men have commented that they are disgusted with Kavanaugh's inability to apologize.

Apologize? 

So maybe "sexual misconduct" is being heard as "sexual rudeness" too?

This minimizing of  rape and attempted rape into "he's been a bad boy" is probably one of the reasons why a poll published a few days ago shows that 56% of republicans said they are willing to vote for a candidate that's been accused of "sexual assault."

56% OF REPUBLICANS SAY THEY WOULD VOTE 

FOR A CANDIDATE DESPITE MULTIPLE SEXUAL ASSAULT ACCUSATIONS

https://blackchickrocked.blogspot.com/2018/10/56-of-republicans-say-they-would-vote.html

The minute I read this, I knew Kavanaugh was a done deal

...no matter what the FBI found 

Furthermore, I think #MeToo has kinda shot itself in the foot by cheering as some men have been fired and dragged out of the limelight ...before we figured out what really happened. 

For example, I'm not sure of all the things John Conyers did. I was waiting for an in-depth news story. But then he was  just gone, thrown away before whatever he did do could splatter on nearby democrats.

The accusations against Charlie Rose were vague before he disappeared too, because PBS didn't want it's reputation damaged any further.  

Worse, it sounds like Matt Lauer was actually accused of rape, among a whole host of other things, before he was disappeared by NBC --because NBC didn't want its reputation smeared by being associated with him.

This may look like #MeToo success to some.  And it is a step in the right direction because, let's face it, pre-2017, a Daddy-figure man in the organization you worked for either cared or didn't when you were sexually harassed or assaulted. 

That is, until relatively recently, a woman damn near had to become a little girl complaining about the rough and tumble boys when she complained about sexual harassment or sexual assault in the work place.

At least, this is how humiliating it felt to me 

-- to complain about offensive behavior, about a man repetitively " accidentally" touching me... to another higher level man (Daddy-ish or Slave-owner-ish) when there was no guarantee that this person, who probably does believe you but doesn't care about boys-will-be-boys that much, was going to do anything more than pull Chad aside and say, "Tsk-tsk"

Now, women are being heard in way they weren't before. That's good. Now when a number of women come forward against one assailant, he is fired. That's good too. But these fired men are not being handed over to law enforcement because a lot of hands on sexual-type assault is not against the law. And that's not good at all.

That's unacceptable.

Many women may think #BelieveWomen was effective in the cases I listed above. But I don't want us all to just #BelieveWomen. 

I don't believe women just because they're women. #BelieveWomen means #BelieveWomenToo. And this is something I do believe in. 

Besides, if 94% of women currently won't lie about rape because male dominated courts tend to violate a woman a second time when she reports a rape to the authorities, then 50% of women will START lying about rape if they're always instantly believed.    

We don't want that

We should always want #BelieveWomenAsOftenAsMen to be in effect, which should also mean believing a women enough for a REAL investigation to be done, a public and transparent law enforcement investigation. 

--very much unlike the investigation of Brett Kavanaugh by the FBI

The way it stands now, sans any public, law enforcement based investigation at all, companies and corporations like CBS are catapulting men like Les Moonves out of their organizations and out of the limelight without us ever being crystal clear on everything he got away with for decades. 

To be clear, I'm not saying I can't look up details on Conyers, Rose, Lauer, or Moonves. I'm saying I, as a consistent reader of news, was not left with a clear picture of what each of them did. 

1. I was not left with an firm impression of what the more serious accusations were and what the lesser accusations were for each man. 
2. I don't have a general picture in my head of which accusations had corroborating witnesses and which ones didn't. 
3. I was only left with the vaguest idea what these men were accused of. I know random details but nothing of each individual men's pattern. I mean was there 

• sexual harassment that involved no physical contact?

• sexual harassment that did involve physical contact? (=sexual assault when I become Queen of The World)

• a rape that took place?

• a hostile work environment for women, created due to the man's sexual behavior? (I THINK Tavis Smiley did this by treating his news room like his personal harem. You can't screw your underlings and expect those screwed, those not screwed, and the ex-screwed to feel safe, to feel that promotions etc. are being evaluated fairly.)

I explain all this to say that the republicans may be sexist, rape culture swilling, male supremacist jackasses but #MeToo's focus is off target.

In the here and now we need to focus on putting women in office and removing male supremacists from office. And the first male supremacist we need to remove is Susan Collins. 

https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/05/politics/susan-collins-2020-challenge/index.html

She's said she was committed to voting for Kavanaugh, an obvious partisan -- remember his Clinton conspiracy comment-- who was chosen because of his anti-Roe-v-Wade leanings. And she's said she chose to confirm him because there's no absolute proof he attempted to rape Dr. Ford after a laughably inadequate FBI investigation. 

Somebody should tell Collins that if there's a 50/50 chance a supreme court nominee is guilty of attempted rape, you shouldn't put him on the Supreme Court -- fair or not, we've supposedly got to protect the integrity of the court. 

And the chances he did exactly what he was accused of were likely a lot higher than 50/50. If they weren't, there would have been a real FBI investigation where dozens of witnesses were interviewed. The FBI has the staff do that and do it in a week.    

The rush to judgement tells me everybody knows he did it. And that includes Collins.

Furthermore, this week's hearings were an extended job interview, not a criminal trial. The standard is different. 

In the past, before we lowered ourselves enough to accept a GRAB EM BY THE P*SSY president, we'd have at least made it look like we honor the high standards required to be a Supreme Court Justice. 

To be more specific, pre GRAB EM BY THE P*SSY, we'd have at least made a supreme court nominee pretend he's not a republican operative looking for a black robe to legitimize his right-wing conspiracy theories (that protect the Clinton's comment seemed really off the wall in the moment.)

A retired Supreme Court Justice even came out to say Kavanaugh shouldn't be confirmed --due to the Clinton comment and his hysterical self-defense, I'm sure. A retired justices almost never do that. 

Collins had more than one good reason to vote "no" on Kavanaugh. She failed do so. She's got to go. I hope the people of Maine are paying attention.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/05/politics/susan-rice-collins-maine-senate-2020/index.html

For the past week I've also been trying to figure out why the republicans are forcing Kavanaugh up America's collective rear end like he's a human suppository. 

To me, it made no sense for the GOP to take a chance on alienating their own white women. 

White supremacy on the right is what glues them together no matter what, but I still thought republicans might be concerned about losing republican voting independents -- despite the rape minimization done by calling what Kavanaugh was accused of "sexual misconduct."

Orange Chump's brain-dead macho attitude aside, it would have made a lot more sense for someone to talk The Orange Genius into simply withdrawing Kavanaugh so he could send up the next conservative judge on the list. 

I mean, Kavanaugh is on the court now anyway. But at what cost? Aren't they going to lose Senators and Congressmen over Kavanaugh come election day? 

(Maybe it's me that's over-estimating the brown-under girded blue wave to come in November?)

I've since read that the supreme court has the Gamble v United States on it's docket already -- and that Kavanaugh's vote will be key.

As you've already noticed, even if you are as unfamiliar with the actual law as I am, in this country you cannot try somebody for the same crime. That's what we mean we say there's no "double jeopardy." However, what you have also noticed is that there's a loop hole that allows different government agencies to go after a criminal for different aspects of the same crime. 

That is, a state government can charge somebody with murder, lose the case and then the feds can have a second bite of the apple. Using different charges, federal prosecutors could get a murderer by doing something like charging them with violation of another person's civil rights (via killing them).  

Something like that.

Apparently, Gamble v the United States seeks to get rid of this exception to double jeopardy. 

And Kavanaugh is supposedly already on board to get that done. Why is this so important you ask? I can think of a number of Civil Rights Cases that might have been negatively impacted by this. And anything that leans into "states rights" is bad for black people. But I'm thinking Mueller has already successfully charged and gotten plea deals and convictions on people like Paul Manafort who may, in turn, be a witness against Trump.

If Flynn, for example, has nothing else he can lose after Gamble v U.S. -- that's bad for the Russia investigation.

Some say it's too late for Gamble v U.S to help Manafort, Flynn, and the rest. But I'm not so sure. 

If Manafort already has a plea bargain on one set of crimes and Gamble goes Trump's way, who is to say how a judge will interpret the outcome of the Gamble case? That is, I think Mueller has charges for Manafort that he hasn't gone to trial on yet. So maybe Gamble really wouldn't hinder the Russia Investigation. But what if a judge decides, based on a new Gamble ruling, that whatever Mueller still has in his back pocket really should have been part of the original case? 

Gamble v U.S. might not be anything. Maybe. But Kavanaugh's stance that a sitting president probably cannot be indicted is everything.

From the White House's perspective, minimizing rape was nothing, is nothing compared to Trump getting out from under the Russia Investigation.

Whatever. For now, we have this half-baked rape investigation to think about. 

We cannot have a rapist or attempted rapist stay on the Supreme Court. And I don't care how long ago it happened, how drunk Kavanaugh was, or how old he was either.

So I hope the democrats really do attempt to have a real investigation done then impeach Brett Kavanaugh after the November election ---because being drunk doesn't turn you into somebody you're completely not. 

I don't believe that. I haven't since I was 9 or 10 year old kid listened to a drunk white neighbor in the hallway verbally attack me with racial insults directed at my father. 

But even if being drunk does warp your true character in some way, even if alcohol does more than just make you less inhibited, when you get drunk and drive, you're held responsible whether you are 15, 25, or 85 years of age.

Similarly, if you get drunk and falsely imprison someone and attempt to rape them, you should be held responsible at 15, 25, or 85 years of age.

When women have half the power in this country there will be varying levels of misdemeanor and felony sexual harassment and sexual assault charges. Men will no longer be able to say "Ooops, I misbehaved. Ooops I wasn't a gentleman" when they've raped someone  

--with the male dominated press half-way providing them cover by calling these "sexual assaults" instances of "sexual misconduct," instances of bad-boyness.  

When women have the power they should have, any attorney who puts such crimes into a non-disclosure agreement (NDA) will be disbarred. 

NDAs are high on my hit list. 

And once we get the attorneys in line, the NBCs, CBSs, PBSs, etc will no longer be able to fire men and hide what the men they've hired and supported have done and also hide what the network or corporation has done to shield the sexual predator...for decades.

We've got a long way to go. We start by getting out the vote next month and again in 2020. 

The American Bar has re-opened it's Kavanaugh evaluation despite their findings being too late to stop the appointment. Even it there's not an impeachment of Kavanaugh down the road, maybe we'll know exactly how big a crime was committed here.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/american-bar-association-reopens-kavanaugh-evaluation

BLACKCHICKROCKED.BLOGSPOT.COM

WESTERN TOXIC MASCULINITY, WHITE SUPREMACY AND IGNORANCE BASED FOREIGN POLICY COLLIDE IN THE EAST

Kim Jong-Un is threatening to detonate a nuclear weapon in the atmosphere. That hasn't happened on this planet in decades.

Trump has run his ignorant macho mouth to the point that 
North Korea's Kim Jong-Un feels compelled to show 
us that he is not afraid of the threat-issuing white man in west 
who thinks he's in charge of every person in the world 
who is not white, male, and from the United States.

And Jong-Un likely has to respond too because it seems like his authority is built on a combination of charisma and force. Trump's disrespecting North Korea's leader in a personal way was the latest idiotic mistake of many.

TRUMP IGNORED WARNINGS TO NOT PERSONALLY INSULT KIM JONG-UN 

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4536232/donald-trump-ignored-warnings-not-to-personally-insult-egomaniac-kim-jong-un-during-un-speech/

Jong-Un may not be able to reach the U.S. just yet. Maybe. But he can reach our allies in South Korea and Japan. 

Trump doesn't care about our Asian allies, not consistently. 

All Trump cares about at the moment is being King Ding-a-Ling because he's male free, white, and over 21 (times 3 plus most of a decade)

I keep hearing on the news that South Koreans are not alarmed at all. If that's true, then they have not been paying attention to the two threads running through most of Trump's encounters. Those two threads have names: 

1) Toxic Masculinity
2) White Supremacy  

A U.S. Territory, an entire island, just devastated by Hurricane Maria has no electricity or phones and may have no electricity months. But what was Chucklehead McTwitterwit tweeting about yesterday? 

His little mind is locked on "ungrateful," disobedient, lucky to be here descendants of black slaves that are making millions of dollars per year (for white male team owners too) yet have the audacity to be upset enough about white cops killing black people at will to refuse to stand for the National Anthem.  

Trump is worried about black NFL stars disrespecting "our culture" [read: white culture]  at a time when he ought to be worrying about our Puerto Rican citizens after that terrifying hurricane they just experienced.

But why would he be worried about Puerto Ricans? They aren't white either, no matter how pale their skin is according to white supremacy standards.

South Koreans should also be looking at Muslim Ban as a racial issue. Trump's hatred of all things Muslim is 10 times more about the perception that they are not-white than it is about their religion. 

Chucklehead McTwitterwit can't even pronounce books of the bible correctly. He's not a Christian hating people because they are of a different religion. 

And I'm not implying he's a bad Christian either. I'm saying he's literally lying about being a Christian. And he probably did so to get the White Evangelical vote (because he didn't know being a white supremacist was enough to get 90% of that group's vote all by itself.)

Dear South Korea

You in danger, girl 

You ain't white.

This White Supremacist President THINKS he has nothing to lose by acting the tough guy.

He THINKS he has everything to gain by bombing North Korea in that limited White Supremacist mind of his. And he is accurate in assuming that his Toxic Masculinity points are going to go up when he looks like the tough guy that went to war to take care of a problem

...that he created almost entirely with his mouth.

* * * * *
When we go to war, most of the country is going to line up behind him because we're pretty much not going to have a choice once our lives are actually at risk

...due to a problem he created almost entirely with his mouth

Not that N Korea wasn't a problem before Trump. It was. And, I hate to admit it, but Trump is right. N Korea is going to get nuclear weapons eventually. Iran will to. He's right.

The only thing negotiations do, like the deal Obama did with Iran, is slow these countries down in getting their nuclear we. But what mental midget fails to understand is that this has legitimate value. And he, and the rest of the white boys running the country, cannot value this delaying of nuclear weapons in Iran and N Korea because they are too busy being outraged at non-white people for being disobedient. 

If Trump hadn't shot his white supremacist mouth off at the UN, Iran and N Korea would have continued moving toward their goal of achieving parity in nuclear weapons capabilities. But they'd have done so slowly because they were doing so on the sneak. And doing so slowly, they'd have gently slid into the position of being a member of the MADC  (Mutually Assured Destruction Club) 

INSTEAD, thanks to Trump's case of macho-mouth, N Korea, Iran, and other countries we probably don't know about yet, are rushing head long into getting nuclear weapons, sooner rather than later, and also thinking about aiming them at the United States

...instead of gently sliding into the MADC

This is worrisome because the head white supremacist in charge who trades in toxic masculinity is quite stupid. Again, he cannot hold two ideas in conscious mind at the very same time. 

As he feels his white supremacy and male supremacy is being thwarted he's trying to start an unwinnable war because the thought of S Korea and Japan suffering untold destruction tanking our economy over here cannot occupy his brain at the same time as "how dare shorter, not-white-man defy me"

This is just a guess but, I'm thinking countries all over the globe became terrified by the U.S. abuse of power in a whole new way when we openly went to war in Iraq and tried to bomb it into a regime change under the cover of spreading our brand of damaged democracy, removing WMDs (weapons of mass destruction) in order to get unrestricted access to the second largest oil reserves in the world.  

We were supposedly "spreading democracy" when we-the-people hadn't even chosen our own president. The Supreme Court chose Bush Jr. the first time. And then we didn't change horses the second time because we were in the middle to two wars he started.

The Iraq war gave us ISIS. Even republicans will admit that sometimes.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/iraq-war-invasion-caused-isis-islamic-state-daesh-saysus-military-adviser-david-kilcullen-a6912236.html 

But the most important thing the Iraq war gave us was decreased standing in the world because The Iraq War gave our enemies and frenemies a whole new level of fear too, a fear that the White-Is-Right, Large-And-In-Charge United States might come in and take over at any time using any old stupid excuse.

 Bush Jr. still wins the worst president of this century, so far. And he might be able to give Trump a run for his money at being the dumbest too. But Trump's toxic masculinity based male supremacy and white supremacy motives are currently fueling emotionally unstable decision making.

I do not understand how anyone, even white men, can fail to notice how out of control Trump is. 

I actually read an article the other day that said Trump uses racism strategically to do X, Y, and Z. 

Nope. That describes Ronald Reagan. He was a white supremacist who used lower-level white supremacy speech to keep the KKK and the like on his side. 

 Donald Trump is an honest-to-goodness low education white supremacist and male supremacist just like the Kluxers and neo-Nazis that love him.  If he went to high priced colleges at all, his father must have purchased his passing grades. What comes out of Trump's mouth shows he doesn't comprehend anything more complicated than the average 5th grader can comprehend. 

And I'm pretty sure that's an insult to 5th graders.

Every white supremacist word that comes out of Trump's mouth comes straight from his cowardly heart. Every slice of macho dumb sh** that flows from his mouth comes from his heart too. 

The only time his white supremacy might seem to be issued forth in a  "strategic" way is when he knows another one is attempts at legislation is about to go belly up. But that's just him going to collect applause when he's looking like "a loser," - not strategy.

The morally deficient man now in charge of the United States has the power to turn a lot of this world to dust. 

And we should all be afraid because the three branches of the United States Government and our fourth estate (the press) are not functioning well enough or fast enough to stop him.

RELATED
WHEN IS A TERRORIST ATTACK NOT A TERRORIST ATTACK?
http://blackchickrocked.blogspot.com/2017/06/when-is-terrorist-attack-not-terrorist.html

SO WHAT DOES A RICH WHITE MAN LIKE TRUMP JR HAVE TO DO TO GO TO PRISON FOR TREASON?

This is what ought to be on everybody's political mind today.

Mostly Feeling Rebloggy

On Tuesday, The Times published the email sent to Donald Jr. on June 3, 2016 offering the damaging information about Trump's 2016 opponent. The email specifically says the documents would "incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia" and would be "very useful" to Donald Jr.'s father. It also included a disclaimer that "this is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump."

Donald Jr. replied: "If it’s what you say I love it especially later in the summer."

~Refinery29.com 

Read More: http://www.refinery29.com/2017/07/162828/tim-kaine-russia-investigation-treason 

Trump Jr. response to knowing the NY TIMES article was coming(?)

Donald Trump Jr., in a series of tweets, has released the emails concerning his meeting with a Russian attorney who claimed to have information on Hillary Clinton. They are even more damning than they sounded when the New York Times reported on their existence Monday night: It is now clear that Trump Jr. knew the information on offer came from the Russian government’s efforts to support his father’s campaign, and was thrilled by the prospect. “If it’s what you say I love it,” he replied.

The emails are between Trump Jr. and Rob Goldstone, a British publicist who arranged the meeting between Trump Jr. and lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya on behalf of Azeri oligarchs Emin and Aras Agalarov. The first email shows Trump Jr. was informed that the meeting was “part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump”:

Emin just called and asked me to contact you with something very interesting.

The Crown prosecutor of Russia met with his father Aras this morning and in their meeting offered to provide the Trump campaign with some official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father. 

This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump — helped along by Aras and Emin.

~VOX.COM 

Read More:  https://www.vox.com/world/2017/7/11/15953188/donald-trump-jr-russia-emails 

So what does a rich white man have to do to sweat even one drop of water over a possible prison sentence for treason in the U.S.? 

Hillary Clinton was a high level member of our government when some of this information was stolen by or for Russia, right? There's no way Chump-ette #1 didn't know this information he was being offered had to have been HACKED BY A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT 

The whole thing about "BUT HER E-MAILS..." and the FBI investigation of Clinton was about her having potentially lost sensitive/ top secret information, right? That's what they kept claiming. And Chump-ette #1 deliberately went to go buy it or negotiate (trade presidential favors) for some of it?

So what does your net worth have to be to be safe from being prosecuted for treason?

At least 10 million?
At least 20 million?
At least 100 million? 

I'm pretty sure your Daddy being president wouldn't necessarily have to be a factor if your family's net worth is about the 500 million dollar range  -- for so long as you're a white man OR are rich white man adjacent (Ivanka)

Martha Stewart went to prison in 2004 for insider trading crap I assume rich white men get away with...daily, then and now. She only went for five months and it's the cushiest prison there ever was....but Trump Jr. won't see the inside of it.
http://www.businessinsider.com/take-a-tour-of-americas-cushiest-prison-2012-10

We should also be fairly certain that tons-o-money requires the complexion-of-protection and male genitalia once you start talking treason.

If a son of President Obama had done this, he'd be packing for prison already. Heck President Obama himself would probably be in a cell beside him as a collaborator. 

Women who those old white, male, decision-makers in congress can't imagine sleeping with? They might be disappeared from free society for a good long time too --even Oprah Winfrey, as rich as she is.   

We are about to see just how far down we are in kakistocracy* shaped rabbit hole, I think.

BLACKCHICKROCKED.BLOGSPOT.COM