Collusion...is there any doubt now?

[CitizenD]

Nothing burger

The fact you can say that while the president's own son was gleeful at the prospect of taking Russian information on Clinton,

...is the problem with our country. The GOP has zero morals.

 

[Always in His Presence]

Did you miss the 30 foot tall headlines when this broke?

Russian Dirt on Clinton? ‘I Love It,’ Donald Trump Jr. Said

What law did it break?

How was it different from every other politician finding dirt on their opponents?

 

[Always in His Presence]

You're referring to Manafort.

Two points:

1) Papadoupolos working on behalf of the campaign met with Russians on the promise of, again, the illegally collected emails on Clinton, just like Trump Jr!
2) You really think all the charges have been revealed?

1) Again he is charged with lying to the FBI not breaking any law regarding the campaign or collusion.

2) I can only speak to what is in real life. And there are NO charges against the President or his team in regards to the campaign.

 

[Always in His Presence]

The fact you can say that while the president's own son was gleeful at the prospect of taking Russian information on Clinton,

...is the problem with our country. The GOP has zero morals.

I can say he was gleeful, and I didn’t. I asked if he was gleeful like Mr Burns snickering and strumming his fingers.

Third request, what law was Broken

 

[CitizenD]

What law did it break?

How was it different from every other politician finding dirt on their opponents?

This isn't about laws. It's about right and wrong.

How is taking information that a foreign government stole that is being offered as a part of a coordinated compaign by that foreign government to undermine our election morally wrong? How is it fundamentally different than doing a little detective work on your opponent?

Truly, do you need that explained?

 

[LoAmmi]

This isn't about laws. It's about right and wrong.

How is taking information that a foreign government stole that is being offered as a part of a coordinated compaign by that foreign government to undermine our election morally wrong? How is it fundamentally different than doing a little detective work on your opponent?

Truly, do you need that explained?

I have enjoyed the shift from:

FAKE NEWS MEDIA LYING ABOUT MEETING WITH RUSSIANS

to

It wasn't illegal to meet with Russians.

'course the fake news narrative continues. Trump said it. I believe it. That settles it.

 

[CitizenD]

I can say he was gleeful, and I didn’t. I asked if he was gleeful like Mr Burns snickering and strumming his fingers.

Third request, what law was Broken

If your only defense of your guy is that he didn't break a law, then I'm going to repeat myself: You do not comprehend right and wrong and the GOP voters are morally adrift.

 

[PeachyKeane]

There is evidence there were contacts between trump campaign and russians. And since collusion is not a crime, you need to have evidence of a crime, such as conspiracy to do something that is actually illegal.

Remember way back when, like last week, when we were told in no uncertain terms that there was absolutely no collusion between the Trump Campaign and the Russians? Fun times.

Now, we're told that there was clearly collusion, but we should be okay with it.

 

[AirPo]

Nothing burger

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Simply agreeing to meet with people, is not illegal and or come close to supporting conspiracy charges. But, we dont know what else will be revealed, that could support those charges, who they would include and how far up the chain, does the evidence show trump people directed the activity or had knowledge of the same.

I think the legal aspect has more to do with campaign finance laws - it is illegal for a campaign to accept "something of value" from a foreign government. The question for the courts would then be whether or not information should be considered "something of value," assuming that the Trump campaign did actually receive some.

Conspiracy is a possibility as well, but harder to prove. As of now, it only appears that they knew about the hack, not that they were involved in orchestrating it, which probably isn't illegal - just immoral.

 

[bhsmte]

Remember way back when, like last week, when we were told in no uncertain terms that there was absolutely no collusion between the Trump Campaign and the Russians? Fun times.

Now, we're told that there was clearly collusion, but we should be okay with it.

One more time with feeling; collusion is not a crime and simply meeting with people can be labeled as collusion. Conspiracy is the key term here that has teeth, to determine if the trump campaign, conspired with the russians, to break any laws.

Mueller may eventually get that evidence or he may not, i have no idea. If that evidence does exist, the next step would be to establish, who specifically in the trump campaign knew about and or promoted these illegal activities.

Way too much speculation from both sides on what comes out everyday.

 

[LoAmmi]

One more time with feeling; collusion is not a crime and simply meeting with people can be labeled as collusion. Conspiracy is the key term here that has teeth, to determine if the trump campaign, conspired with the russians, to break any laws.

Mueller may eventually get that evidence or he may not, i have no idea. If that evidence does exist, the next step would be to establish, who specifically in the trump campaign knew about and or promoted these illegal activities.

Way too much speculation from both sides on what comes out everyday.

Of course, Congress could decide that it's an impeachable offense to collude with a foreign government since they basically hold all the power in any kind of impeachment process.

(Not that I'm saying Trump will be impeached or whatever, just pointing out Congress's power in this)

 

[bhsmte]

Of course, Congress could decide that it's an impeachable offense to collude with a foreign government since they basically hold all the power in any kind of impeachment process.

(Not that I'm saying Trump will be impeached or whatever, just pointing out Congress's power in this)

It would depend what was involved with that collusion and if there is evidence any crimes were committed by trump or he knew about crimes.

Clinton clearly perjured himself when he was impeached and the democratic controlled senate would not convict. With a republican senate, the same majority would apply to trump being impeached and the senate convicting him. That will take much more evidence than what has been revealled to date. Maybe mueller findz the evidence, maybe he doesnt, we shall see.

 

[LoAmmi]

It would depend what was involved with that collusion and if there is evidence any crimes were committed by trump or he knew about crimes.

At some level it wouldn't depend on that at all. Hypothetical: Somehow one party gains a super majority of both houses and despises the current president. Who could stop them from impeaching anybody and everybody they wanted until they got someone they liked?

(I'm aware it's political suicide)

 

[bhsmte]

At some level it wouldn't depend on that at all. Hypothetical: Somehow one party gains a super majority of both houses and despises the current president. Who could stop them from impeaching anybody and everybody they wanted until they got someone they liked?

(I'm aware it's political suicide)

Probably because both parties are somewhat divided amongsnt themselves, much less the other party.

 

[camille70]

He was at the campaign meeting when Papadopoulos announced that he had a Russian contact who could arrange for them to be supplied with the hacked material. He (Papa) suggested an overseas trip for Trump to meet with those people. Sessions argued against it and that idea went no further, but it is clear that they knew about the hacked material long before the American public.

When Junior was later offered a meeting on US soil for similar purposes, he jumped at it (“I love it!”). The actions of he, Kushner and Manafort in attending that meeting provide the intent to collude.

Sessions also lied about this. He said he did not know of any attempt to work with Russians by members of the Trump campaign, but he is the one who shot the idea down.

 

[camille70]

1) Again he is charged with lying to the FBI not breaking any law regarding the campaign or collusion.

2) I can only speak to what is in real life. And there are NO charges against the President or his team in regards to the campaign.

1) What did he lie about?
2) Was he a member of the Trump campaign?

 

[bhsmte]

This isn't about laws. It's about right and wrong.

How is taking information that a foreign government stole that is being offered as a part of a coordinated compaign by that foreign government to undermine our election morally wrong? How is it fundamentally different than doing a little detective work on your opponent?

Truly, do you need that explained?

If politicians were prosecuted for what people thought was; right or wrong, few would last in office. Politics is a dirty business, on both sides of the aisle.

 

[camille70]

One more time with feeling; collusion is not a crime and simply meeting with people can be labeled as collusion. Conspiracy is the key term here that has teeth, to determine if the trump campaign, conspired with the russians, to break any laws.

Mueller may eventually get that evidence or he may not, i have no idea. If that evidence does exist, the next step would be to establish, who specifically in the trump campaign knew about and or promoted these illegal activities.

Way too much speculation from both sides on what comes out everyday.

If I recall correctly, Rudy Giuliani, Roger Stone and Trump all foreshadowed email/information dumps and/or made comments that lined up with the known time line regarding meetings and such. Is it provable? I don't know. I believe there was coordination though.

 

[Always in His Presence]

1) What did he lie about?
2) Was he a member of the Trump campaign?

What formal charges are against Trump

Was what he said he did for the campaign illegal?

 

[bhsmte]

If I recall correctly, Rudy Giuliani, Roger Stone and Trump all foreshadowed email/information dumps and/or made comments that lined up with the known time line regarding meetings and such. Is it provable? I don't know. I believe there was coordination though.

You would need evidence to tie that together though and show they conspired with the same.

Mueller is just getting rolling and he has 20 years in prison hanging over manaforts head and that could motivate him to give up the goods for a deal, if he has goods to give up.