Russia, the U.S.A., and the White House Administration

[Dad]

Robert Mueller is currently leading an investigation into the entirety of the current White House Administration seeking answers related to unconfirmed reports of collusion between themselves and foreign Russian entities.

 

Stake your claim and use sources and research to back up your words.  What does or does not prove evidence of collusion between the White House and Russia?

[Phantom Roxas]

Reposting my last post from the Administration Actions here. That way, if anyone wants to respond to me, they can do so here.

[spoiler=Repost]

 

Alright. Since you have an okay enough basis for this, I'm going to dig a bit deeper and tell you what I actually think.
 
I do think there's cause to impeach Trump. My argument doesn't come from what's "right."
 
My argument is that it's not pragmatically justifiable to impeach him.
 
If it wasn't truly about pragmatic justification, the Democrats could've attempted to impeach him over the Emoluments Clause shortly after he entered office, then obstruction of justice, and knowing Trump, he's going to perjure himself if he ever talks to Mueller. They would've failed, but they absolutely had reason to attempt it back then. The problem is that none of those were a strong enough argument to sway the common man because they don't give a sheet about that, and neither is this. The country is so divided that impeaching him over something so nebulous would do far more harm than good, as there's an inconsistent narrative surrounding it that makes it easy for a reasonable person to deny.
 
We need something so huge and critical that it sways every reasonable person, so that it's actually justifiable to said reasonable people to use force to crack down on anyone who tries to retaliate. Trump is absolutely that polarizing. There are a lot of people that support him strongly enough that they place more faith in him than anyone else's interpretation of the law, and even more people that are confused enough to kind of buy those who do. If the confused people aren't swayed, they're more likely to shift in the direction we don't want them to, which could be very, very bad if people are even half as energetic towards him as Fox News loves tell us.
 
If it doesn't get violent (it probably won't), it's still incredibly likely to cause a massive political shift in an even more extreme direction. More and more people are growing sick of the system in general (instead of just the people who run it), so they're much more likely to retaliate against the whole thing.
 
And I don't think America (or the world) is actually ready for either extreme of the political spectrum to be applied to us given our current political and cultural mindset, where we're both immensely divided and don't truly value critical thought or success beyond short term gains.
 
 
I know this is veering into tinfoil hat territory but I think it's the kind of thing that's too likely to risk happening.
 
or maybe i'm vastly overestimating how divided we are lol

 
I don't think you're overestimating how divided we are, I actually agree with you on that point. You're right that they need something truly damning, otherwise people are going to refuse to believe absolutely anything we see. This thread alone has proven that even if there is evidence pointing towards collusion, hacking, perjury, and how those lead to actual crimes, Trump's mindless sycophants will simply dismiss the evidence as a "narrative", believing it all to be some liberal fabrication. As long as they can claim "Someone else is lying", they can refuse to believe this. There are a lot of issues where it's become "boy who cried wolf" territory, such as Hillary Clinton exaggerating the damage done to her campaign, all the while blaming anyone but herself, and refusing to own that she did rig the primary in her favor.
 
I despise Clinton, so on some level, I do get where Trump's supporters are coming from. When Clinton and her camp has been the main force making some claims, she's not someone who I have any faith in, so why should I care what she has to say? So even if, say, Mueller were to uncover something truly damning, it's easy to just claim he's parroting something Clinton's camp said. Not saying that's the only reason to dismiss some evidence, but it is one example of why people would rather just continue believing in Trump than look at anything else.
 
Another reason that you seem to be neglecting is that Democrats are the minority, and Republicans currently represent the majority, which is why the Blue Wave is seen by Democrats as a necessary first step in a larger play to turn the current state of the administration. As long as the GOP is the majority, they can just protect Trump and reject any attempts at impeachment.
 
People are still divided by the 2016 election - especially the Democrats, who are further divided between Clinton or Sanders, while the GOP is largely pro-Trump - that efforts against Trump (The Russia probe, or articles of impeachment) are more likely to reopen those old wounds than do anything to resolve them.
 

Ultimately, I don't think the extremes are going to change regardless of how damning the evidence is. A lot of people only listen to what they want to hear. Mueller could have a hand written note from Trump himself that says "Yup, I colluded with Russia", signed and notarized and everything, and I bet you there will be a lot of people that will refuse to believe. Likewise, if they had damning evidence that he didn't do anything wrong, there will be a lot of people that will refuse to believe it. That's more or less the political climate I've seen; a lot of people jumping to believe first what they want to hear rather than looking into what's actually going on.
 
That said, I don't think they could impeach him for obstruction of justice exactly? I think if they could, they would. I'm no expert in law, but I think there's a lot of technicalities and other things going on where, at face value, one just can't call it "obstruction of justice" and toss that person in jail. I think there's more to it than that, but I could be wrong.
 
But yeah, I'm sure there's a lot going on behind those white walls that people aren't seeing. Maybe they can't go through with an impeachment at all. Maybe they're wanting to see if the Republicans can REALLY screw the pooch and dig a hole for themselves. Maybe it's like Jesse said and they're waiting to make the evidence as damning as possible for the least backlash. I don't know.

 
That's exactly what it is. Even if Mueller does have irrefutable evidence, you're going to have someone who argues that this somehow "proves" that Mueller is desperate and making things up just to keep some false narrative alive. And conversely, after how much time has been spent on this particular investigation, people aren't going to walk away from this believing that Trump is innocent.
 
From what I understand, "obstruction of justice" in these cases would be similar to "collusion", in that we're looking at umbrella terms, and would need to be more specific. It's one of the primary concerns with why James Comey was fired, and Andrew McCabe now being fired further contributes to that issue.
 
While Clinton was impeached for perjury, I believe Trump would need to be impeached for significantly more factors, with obstruction of justice and conspiracy to defraud both needing to be connected, building a significant enough of a case. However, the Republicans who control Congress are themselves the kind of people who would refuse to believe Trump did anything wrong. At most, I imagine they'd say "Even if he did do this, it may be unethical, but it's certainly not illegal, and especially not grounds for impeachment." Again, this is where the Blue Wave and Brand New Congress are necessary, because no matter what this investigation uncovers, it's not going to make a difference, because Republicans in the House Intelligence Committee are more interested in forcing the investigation to end.
 
What I think this comes down to is that the evidence isn't going to sway anyone. Republicans have already decided that they won't impeach Trump, and Democrats are dead-set on impeaching him. The problem is that the Democrats, no matter how much they want to impeach him, do not have a sufficient case for impeachment. If the investigation uncovers sufficient evidence, and that evidence is incorporated into a case for impeachment, then at most, you might get the absolute barest minimum necessary to get an impeachment. Maybe.
 
Al Green already tried to submit articles of impeachment, but it was rejected with ease, even by other Democrats. So there's a further uphill climb, in that Democrats now need to know they must do better than that previous attempt.
 

Wrong. Bill Clinton was gutted for getting a blow job in office and then lying about it under oath.
 
Getting head isn't a crime. PERJURY IS. Gen Flynn is paying millions for that very crime.

 
And this is what I'm talking about with the Mueller investigation. It's uncovering how much Trump and his administration have committed perjury, and Flynn is not alone in that. Flynn has become an example that the rest of this administration should be held to.

 

 

Financial dealings on their own do not constitute collusion. I believe that, while this investigation has plenty of merits, an issue is that people are relying on shorthands that we need even the idea of "collusion" to be defined so we have a clear idea of what is being discussed. What's most concerning to me are the hacks and other cyberattacks. The Internet Research Agency was recently indicted by Mueller, and while people can easily say "Trump is Putin's puppet", I believe that, while that may be accurate, it neglects all the other players in this possible collusion, both the Americans and the Russians.

[mido9]

Reposting my last post from the Administration Actions here. That way, if anyone wants to respond to me, they can do so here.

 

[spoiler=Repost]

 

 

 

Financial dealings on their own do not constitute collusion. I believe that, while this investigation has plenty of merits, an issue is that people are relying on shorthands that we need even the idea of "collusion" to be defined so we have a clear idea of what is being discussed. What's most concerning to me are the hacks and other cyberattacks. The Internet Research Agency was recently indicted by Mueller, and while people can easily say "Trump is Putin's puppet", I believe that, while that may be accurate, it neglects all the other players in this possible collusion, both the Americans and the Russians.

Okay, sure, James Comey was fired for leaking information to the media(which he admitted to, very explicitly, in his court hearing/testimony under oath) which is completely illegal. Also, McCabe, according to bosnald glump himself, got fired for knowing about the corruption in the FBI and not doing anything about it, which is textbook conspiracy.

 

Also, all the indictments by Mueller so far have been for things like posting """""fake news""""" or making multiple twitter accounts to shill or so on which aren't actually punishable under US law because of the first amendment, and the identity theft of people to buy ads and make twitter accounts which is obviously bad, but not very impactful on the election.

 

Also, flynn got caught for not reporting his call to russia to the vice president. The CIA checked his call, and there wasn't anything in the actual call to warrant an arrest.

[Sunshine Jesse]

I don't think you're overestimating how divided we are, I actually agree with you on that point. You're right that they need something truly damning, otherwise people are going to refuse to believe absolutely anything we see. This thread alone has proven that even if there is evidence pointing towards collusion, hacking, perjury, and how those lead to actual crimes, Trump's mindless sycophants will simply dismiss the evidence as a "narrative", believing it all to be some liberal fabrication. As long as they can claim "Someone else is lying", they can refuse to believe this. There are a lot of issues where it's become "boy who cried wolf" territory, such as Hillary Clinton exaggerating the damage done to her campaign, all the while blaming anyone but herself, and refusing to own that she did rig the primary in her favor.

 

I despise Clinton, so on some level, I do get where Trump's supporters are coming from. When Clinton and her camp has been the main force making some claims, she's not someone who I have any faith in, so why should I care what she has to say? So even if, say, Mueller were to uncover something truly damning, it's easy to just claim he's parroting something Clinton's camp said. Not saying that's the only reason to dismiss some evidence, but it is one example of why people would rather just continue believing in Trump than look at anything else.

 

Another reason that you seem to be neglecting is that Democrats are the minority, and Republicans currently represent the majority, which is why the Blue Wave is seen by Democrats as a necessary first step in a larger play to turn the current state of the administration. As long as the GOP is the majority, they can just protect Trump and reject any attempts at impeachment.

 

People are still divided by the 2016 election - especially the Democrats, who are further divided between Clinton or Sanders, while the GOP is largely pro-Trump - that efforts against Trump (The Russia probe, or articles of impeachment) are more likely to reopen those old wounds than do anything to resolve them.

 

I'm going to speak in more abstract terms, so forgive me if I stop making sense somewhere along the way.

 

While whoever makes up the "majority" and the "minority" does make a pretty big difference, the American political system (or Democracy in general I guess) is just a game between x number of groups to convince the uncertain that one side is the correct one. Or, more accurately, it's a game to solidify the abstract into something that the masses can have faith in (for some perspective, this is something that religion has already succeeded at). Anyone who doesn't realize this isn't fit to lead in a Democratic society. The Russia investigation is just another play in that game, and i don't think it's doing the job it needs to do. It's the kind of play that only works from a position of strength, and the Democrats have done nothing but weaken themselves thanks to things like the DACA fiasco. The Democrats need to make moves that work from a position of weakness, and that people can immediately relate to and understand. This is not one of those plays.

 

Impeachment on a figure as strong as Trump is an action that only the truly apathetic can't form an opinion on, and it's an action that doesn't truly affect anything that the common man cares about.  The truth has become muddled, vague, and at times, incoherent, and the Russia investigation, so far, is not clear enough to be a beacon for anyone who wasn't already looking in its direction. It's not an anchor that drags people towards the "correct" decisions. It might win the Democrats a lot of seats, but it still won't make them strong enough (in the abstract sense, not the political one) to properly act without tipping the uncertain over the edge. 

 

Tipping people over the edge is exactly what leads people to political extremism, because it causes them to define truth in absolutes rather than maybes, and extremism is counterproductive in a Democratic society. The masses lack the perspective needed to handle extremism with the care it deserves, because extremism becomes dangerous the moment you don't have the ability to view things from enough differing perspectives.

 

We'll get extremes on one side, extremes on another side, and a bunch of people who don't give a sheet as the only ones left to vote. It's not worth it.

 

Also, for some perspective, Trump's mindless sycophants are only like that because they've lost their faith in America and are desperately looking for someone to restore it, so they've placed their faith in someone who clearly defined truth for them (whether it was the actual truth or not). I'd advise treating them with a little more respect, because people like us have done nothing but shake that faith ever since the last election season started.

 

You're not arguing in a way that's conductive towards allowing or encouraging people to find the actual truth on their own, which is the only way they can grasp it. You're arguing in a way that forces them to define it before they're truly ready.

 

Bill Clinton was gutted for a blowjob in office. The point is moot.

 

If you wanna discuss impeachment related t Trump, you can keep it here. If it's general, make a thread for it in debates.

 

 

I don't think you view the law in the same way I (or a lot of people in politics) do.

 

It's an abstract concept, not an objective standard. It's something that only works if people have faith in it and its interpretation.  They attach the truth of the law to whoever makes it most clear to them, and attacking that person does more harm than good. The idea of the law has become so weak in the eyes of American citizens that there's no value in enforcing it outside of raw pragmatism anymore.

[Dad]

 

I don't think you view the law in the same way I (or a lot of people in politics) do.

 

It's an abstract concept, not an objective standard. It's something that only works if people have faith in it and its interpretation.  They attach the truth of the law to whoever makes it most clear to them, and attacking that person does more harm than good. The idea of the law has become so weak in the eyes of American citizens that there's no value in enforcing it outside of raw pragmatism anymore.

 

My point was:

 

Clinton was given sheet for a blowjob.

 

Trump is being given sheet for smashing a porn star.

 

This moral high ground sheet needs to stop.  You're (general) not accomplishing anything.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

My point was:

 

Clinton was given sheet for a blowjob.

 

Trump is being given sheet for smashing a porn star.

 

This moral high ground sheet needs to stop.  You're (general) not accomplishing anything.

Again, Bill Clinton was not gutted for a blow job. If Trump lies under oath about banging Davis, and you can prove that. By all means use the same impeachment papers Clinton got hammered with

Gonna post my bit on Russia pretty soon, so hold

[Sunshine Jesse]

My point was:

 

Clinton was given sheet for a blowjob.

 

Trump is being given sheet for smashing a porn star.

 

This moral high ground sheet needs to stop.  You're (general) not accomplishing anything.

 

A lot of people lack confidence in ideas (in general, not just their own) and tether their support to morality as a result. It's important to appeal to these people as long as their opinion matters. Republicans have a natural advantage at that due to how deeply intertwined religion is into the general framework of the party, giving people inherent incentive to follow them- even at the expense of morality in other aspects- so Democrats need to pick up the slack in other areas.

 

It's not actually a losing strategy as long as Democrats can display a consistent morality, but uhhh... they certainly haven't lately, to say the least.

[VCR_CAT]

A lot of people lack confidence in ideas (in general, not just their own) and tether their support to morality as a result. It's important to appeal to these people as long as their opinion matters. Republicans have a natural advantage at that due to how deeply intertwined religion is into the general framework of the party, giving people inherent incentive to follow them- even at the expense of morality in other aspects- so Democrats need to pick up the slack in other areas.

 

It's not actually a losing strategy as long as Democrats can display a consistent morality, but uhhh... they certainly haven't lately, to say the least.

 

On the flip side, a lot of people just use the "morality" card as a means of giving themselves leverage for their goals, even and especially when they aren't actually in the right. For instance, the main people gunning for Bill Clinton's removal being adulterous themselves and so on and so forth. I'm far away from believing that any political party as a whole truly cares about the moral implications of their goals.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

If we compare economic interests

 

The EU has destroyed out manufacturing Industry. And they're nearly at our level for Service. 

 

https://www.ecb.europa.eu/mopo/eaec/html/index.en.html

 

GDP wise, the EU is our only competitor, and they can keep eating away at our GDP edge by increasing exports to here. 

 

They don't have culturally similar goal anymore. A large portion of Europe is Socialist. Merkel has opened the door for Migrants without restraint. 

 

Meanwhile, Russia is quite devote to their religion (Russian Orthodox), they're proudly nationalist. They can't economically compete with us. 

 

The sooner the US realizes that Europe is playing us to bide time till they no longer need us, the better. A pacific style NATO with East Asian Countries and Russia would be more to our interest than dragging funking Montenegro across the finish line for no real reason. 

[Sunshine Jesse]

On the flip side, a lot of people just use the "morality" card as a means of giving themselves leverage for their goals, even and especially when they aren't actually in the right. For instance, the main people gunning for Bill Clinton's removal being adulterous themselves and so on and so forth. I'm far away from believing that any political party as a whole truly cares about the moral implications of their goals.

There's nothing saying you have to believe in the morality you leverage. There's nothing wrong with leveraging it for the sake of victory, because winning is all that matters in the end. Republican politicians do it all the time and built their whole party on it to great success. The problem is when that lack of true belief makes you unable to properly argue for it, rendering you unable to convince anyone on the fence. Why is this so important, you may ask? And why do Republicans get to operate under such a different standard? I'll explain:

 

Republicans have tethered their party to religion (...and abortion), giving them an "easy out," as (both) are things people can believe strongly in. Democrats have no such luxury. Their party has no true moral foundation that's "easy" to believe in strongly like religion is. The party is almost entirely powered by short-sighted compassion and guilt. Religion is tried and true, and has (in broad strokes) withstood the test of time as something people can believe in. As a result, anything a Republican politician fails at is just (supposedly) a failing on the end of the person, not the set of standards they're supposed to adhere to. Anything a Democrat fails at weakens the (nonexistent) Democratic "ideology" in general, because it shows that said ideology offers no real guidance and can't be relied upon.

 

Morality is nothing more than a set of goals and standards one adheres themselves to. It's a kind of "higher power" that gives people guidance. The collective, abstract "America" no longer offers such guidance, so people on the fence will vote for whoever promises that guidance, whether it's right or wrong.

 

To put it as simply as I can:

Religion= Defined, "trustworthy." Offers guidance.

Not-religion= Not defined. No evidence to suggest it offers guidance. Needs to be adhered to in order to convince people it does.

 

Ergo:

Republicans= Strong.

Democrats= Weak.

 

This is why having the moral high ground is important in politics. It's not the only factor, but it's a hell of a lot bigger than people like to give it credit for. It's not more important than winning. It's a useful tool to aid in victory when properly utilized alongside other ones.

[VCR_CAT]

There's nothing saying you have to believe in the morality you leverage. There's nothing wrong with leveraging it for the sake of victory, because winning is all that matters in the end. Republican politicians do it all the time and built their whole party on it to great success. The problem is when that lack of true belief makes you unable to properly argue for it, rendering you unable to convince anyone on the fence. Why is this so important, you may ask? And why do Republicans get to operate under such a different standard? I'll explain:

 

Republicans have tethered their party to religion (...and abortion), giving them an "easy out," as (both) are things people can believe strongly in. Democrats have no such luxury. Their party has no true moral foundation that's "easy" to believe in strongly like religion is. The party is almost entirely powered by short-sighted compassion and guilt. Religion is tried and true, and has (in broad strokes) withstood the test of time as something people can believe in. As a result, anything a Republican politician fails at is just (supposedly) a failing on the end of the person, not the set of standards they're supposed to adhere to. Anything a Democrat fails at weakens the (nonexistent) Democratic "ideology" in general, because it shows that said ideology offers no real guidance and can't be relied upon.

 

Morality is nothing more than a set of goals and standards one adheres themselves to. It's a kind of "higher power" that gives people guidance. The collective, abstract "America" no longer offers such guidance, so people on the fence will vote for whoever promises that guidance, whether it's right or wrong.

 

To put it as simply as I can:

Religion= Defined, "trustworthy." Offers guidance.

Not-religion= Not defined. No evidence to suggest it offers guidance. Needs to be adhered to in order to convince people it does.

 

Ergo:

Republicans= Strong.

Democrats= Weak.

 

This is why having the moral high ground is important in politics. It's not the only factor, but it's a hell of a lot bigger than people like to give it credit for.

 

Morality is useless as anything other than a tool for the people in power. It's important that you recognize this.

 

I know, I'm just saying that the morality card loses all meaning when the pursing using doesn't believe it in enough to practice it themselves, or in many cases uses it in places where they're actually incorrect on what would be the more moral option. A lot of laws and stances that people want to take are done so because they believe them to be "morally correct", but the laws themselves accomplish nothing more than let those people feel good about their nation while people are being unjustly incarcerated for non-problem "crimes" (see: Marijuana, the Prohibition, etc.)

 

[spoiler=Separating This Because It's a Different Topic Altogether]

Looking into both parties, the Republican party isn't more morally-grounded than the Democrats by any means, and vice-versa. The people that gravitate to those parties hold different values and have their own reasons for seeing what they do as being "right", whether they're correct or not. Conservatives see upholding a closer adherence to traditional values as being correct, while Liberals see inclusion and progressive empathy as being correct. There are right ways and wrong ways to approach both, and neither is on a higher ground than either.

 

That said, I don't think they're mutually exclusive. I believe that people can adhere to both ideals so long as they keep an open mind, and people can agree on a lot more than they think. But the political division in the US and Canada goes beyond what their ideals are, and there's a lot of bad blood rooted in just... a wide range of reasons, many of them incredibly petty. People have grown to a point where they refuse to spend even a second to listen to the other side because they've spent so much of their time demonizing the opposition and finding reason for themselves to believe that the people who don't agree with them are stupid/evil/etc.

 

 

 

That said, people need to spend more time to learn about morality, look into what they believe and figure out what they believe to be correct. Morality has a place in politics, but simply being used as a tool to be manipulated to gain power is not how it should be used. 

 

 

In other news, more directly related to the Russian investigation, McCabe, who was fired just yesterday, is handing over memos taken during his interactions with the President to Mueller: http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/andrew-mccabe-fired-1.4581315

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

He was fired for lack of candor as recommended by the FBI, so not sure how much worth his Memos will have beyond the Russiagate fanatics

 

---

 

Outside abortion, what moral issue holds weight in current politics anymore?

[Dad]

Stay on topic.

 

If you want a thread on morality in politics, feel free to create one.

[Sunshine Jesse]

Stay on topic.

 

If you want a thread on morality in politics, feel free to create one.

Vla1ne got to it first so I'll try to get the threads merged. I didn't refresh the page lmao

 

I'm not expecting YCM to actually give me a decent discussion on this, but it's worth a shot.

[vla1ne]

Stake your claim and use sources and research to back up your words.  What does or does not prove evidence of collusion between the White House and Russia?

well, i've got no real sources on me right now, and i'm not in the mood to make a new wall of text, but as far as proving collusion, if you want to convince me of such, you the first thing to do is to sharply define your terms. been said before, but collusion can go for just about anything. if we're simply talking support, then yeah, putin wanted trump to win. if we're talking influence, then to what degree becomes the question. yes, russia (putin) wanted trump to win, him saying as much, and trump agreeing to as much, is already an influence. taking this a few steps up though, there's the deal that trump used russia to hack, or to deliberately change something regarding the election numbers after the fact, and that, is a level of collusion that has yet to be proven. we have evidence that russians did peek into a few files, but that means nothing unless you prove at least 1 of 3 things: 1) trump asked for, or told them to do so 2) it was the russian government in the first place 3) trump had access to anything regarding said action before the fact, and did not attempt to prevent it. without that, there's nothing there, and nothing worth going after. same can be said for a couple other events regarding russia/america as well. but like i said, i'm in no mood to make a wall of text, so i'll leave it here.

 

that said, any collusion between trump and russia lower than actually faking/destroying/changing the final ballots is irrelevant to me. during the presidential election, we saw voting machines break in ways that (majority) favored hillary, we saw ballots (primaries) get lost or mixed up, and all manner of other things. the entire election was running on bullshit down to the last second, much of it so visible a child with no knowledge of elections could point it out. somehow though, trumpXrussia is the only target of scrutiny.

 

Vla1ne got to it first so I'll try to get the threads merged. I didn't refresh the page lmao

 

I'm not expecting YCM to actually give me a decent discussion on this, but it's worth a shot.

may have beaten you to it, but mine was clearly a half assed open in comparison. like i said, i'm not in the mood to actually make full responses, but i'll be back in to give your question set a full reply.

[Nathanael D. Striker]

Sorry for the Necro, but this came up recently from the New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/05/us/politics/trump-tower-meeting-donald-jr.html

 

Begs the question of how much President Trump knew about the meeting...

[Phantom Roxas]

Sorry for the Necro, but this came up recently from the New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/05/us/politics/trump-tower-meeting-donald-jr.html

 

Begs the question of how much President Trump knew about the meeting...

 

He keeps trying to deflect to by saying that "There was No Collusion, except by Hillary and the Democrats" and claiming that collusion isn't illegal. It's very much a matter of getting overly defensive to the point of revealing that there's a lot of truth to the accusations. Even just about a half hour ago, he was quoting ramblings from Fox and Friends about how Hillary was colluding to get dirt on Trump. Except, if his issue is that Clinton supposedly colluded with Russians to get dirt on an opponent, and acting as if Clinton should be locked up for having done so, he's admitted that the meeting was a similar collusion to get dirt on Clinton. It's complete projection, and I have to imagine he knew exactly what this meeting entailed. It's just that Trump is a complete moron who cannot keep his own lies consistent. The best way to get him to actually admit the truth is when he steps on his own toes.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

If paying a foreign spy for Kremlin spun "secrets" isn't collusion, I don't see why this meeting is collusion

[Dad]

It's not collusion. It's obstruction. Distinct difference.

[Phantom Roxas]

If paying a foreign spy for Kremlin spun "secrets" isn't collusion, I don't see why this meeting is collusion

 

Except it is. Trump is saying that when his son did it, it's not collusion, except when Clinton did something similar, it is collusion. You can't have it both ways.

 

If Clinton did it, and if it would be collusion, then it's also collusion when Trump Jr. did it.

If it's not collusion when Trump Jr. did it, then it would not be collusion if Clinton did it either.

 

Trump's argument literally hinges on "It's okay when I do it", but he's offering no reason for why it would be.

[cr47t]

we have evidence that russians did peek into a few files, but that means nothing unless you prove at least 1 of 3 things: 1) trump asked for, or told them to do so

 

He did. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/13/us/politics/trump-russia-clinton-emails.html

 

“Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing,” Mr. Trump said, referring to emails Mrs. Clinton had deleted from the private account she had used when she was secretary of state. “I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press.”

 

As it turns out, that same day, the Russians — whether they had tuned in or not — made their first effort to break into the servers used by Mrs. Clinton’s personal office, according to a sweeping 29-page indictment unsealed Friday by the special counsel’s office that charged 12 Russians with election hacking.

 

(Emphasis added)

 

We don't know for sure if the Russians were responding in response to Trump's request. But we do know it's in the realm of possibility, and I think that's what vla1ne was at (if I read his post correctly.)

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

I disagree with trump. It's not collusion. It seems sleazy, but that's poltics

[Phantom Roxas]

He did. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/13/us/politics/trump-russia-clinton-emails.html

 

 

We don't know for sure if the Russians were responding in response to Trump's request. But we do know it's in the realm of possibility, and I think that's what vla1ne was at (if I read his post correctly.)

 

I want to build on your point and rephrase this in a way that will hopefully help people to understand what you're saying better.

 

Whether or not the Russians were specifically answering Trump's request, he still made that request regardless. For them to act on the same day and do exactly as he had asked - I would dare to speculate that he publicly made the request because he knew they were going to be doing this regardless - does lend more evidence that he was guilty.

[vla1ne]

 

He did. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/13/us/politics/trump-russia-clinton-emails.html

 

 

We don't know for sure if the Russians were responding in response to Trump's request. But we do know it's in the realm of possibility, and I think that's what vla1ne was at (if I read his post correctly.)

well that proves he asked for it, but in such a manner, it does not hold enough weight to actually be useful in the current case. it does satisfy the condition, but It's about on the level of making an offhand statement, and finding out somebody actually acted on it. it's about on the level of hillary and obama claiming that our allies would never support trump, and then hearing a statement from our allies soon after, containing veiled threats of abandoning USA if trump wins the election.

 

IMO, the collusion accusations are an even weaker argument for corruption in comparison to to what it actually revealed. Russia did a number on the Clinton campaign, but it was nothing more than pinpointed intelligence attacks, which were arguably coming regardless of trumps statement, though likely sped up because of them, simply out of hatred of the opposing candidate in question.

 

 

 

I want to build on your point and rephrase this in a way that will hopefully help people to understand what you're saying better.

 

Whether or not the Russians were specifically answering Trump's request, he still made that request regardless. For them to act on the same day and do exactly as he had asked - I would dare to speculate that he publicly made the request because he knew they were going to be doing this regardless - does lend more evidence that he was guilty.

 

that is literal conspiracy building.

[Dad]

 

that is literal conspiracy building.

 

So was pizzagate.  But one of these is more plausible than the other.