Renzatic on 25/7/2018 at 05:32
The funniest thing is, this theory of collusion probably wouldn't have nearly as much steam if Trump himself weren't so furtive about it.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. We've seen no direct evidence that Trump himself colluded with Russia. He could be innocent. It's very possible. But the fact he does everything in his power to steer the conversation away from it, his perpetual soft stance when dealing with Putin, and constant lies on top of contradictions on top of lies regarding the subject, well that's pretty fucking suspicious, Vae. It proves nothing. Looks terrible. Justifies closer looks.
Starker on 25/7/2018 at 05:50
Quote Posted by Vae
Incorrect...the Trump/Russia conspiracy theory has not been "proven beyond any doubt"...The statement in Don Jr's email: “If it's what you say, I love it, especially later in the summer.”...is a vague statement, that's left open for interpretation...certainly not proof beyond a doubt. In addition, one would also need to provide substantial evidence of actionable events that followed this meeting in order to prove criminal collusion.
The fact that he accepted an offer of help on behalf of the Russian government and didn't notify the FBI is proof enough. Also, nobody is talking about criminal collusion (which is not even a thing).
Renzatic on 25/7/2018 at 05:54
Quote Posted by Starker
Also, nobody is talking about criminal collusion (which is not even a thing).
Well, there is, but it's usually called conspiracy.
Vae on 25/7/2018 at 06:03
Quote Posted by Renzatic
Well, there is, but it's usually called conspiracy.
Right...that's why it's a
conspiracy theory.
Collusion is a type of conspiracy, and we only have a theory of what might of happened.
Starker on 25/7/2018 at 06:03
Whether there was something illegal is for Mueller to find out and prove. It doesn't concern the slavish devotion Lord Dampnut has for Putin or any other the myriad of suspicious things that directly contradict Lord Dampnut's BS line that he hasn't had anything to do with Russia and that Russians much prefer Democrats anyways.
Starker on 25/7/2018 at 06:25
There is no conspiracy theory -- there is the now undeniable fact that Russia interfered in US elections for the benefit of one party and a strong suspicion (that has proven to be well-founded) that they may have been helped from within the US and by Lord Dampnut's campaign, some of which might well have been illegal. This doesn't mean that they had to have conspired to commit a crime -- they might well have done it separately for the same goal. And that's what Mueller is investigating, among other things.
And the reason this is a well-founded suspicion is because we have things like Lord Dampnut's campaign and transition members meeting up with Russians and trying to set up secret backchannels, we have Lord Dampnut himself asking Russia to hack his opponent, we have Lord Dampnut's son setting up a meeting with Russians offering help from the Russian government in his father's building while his father was in the building, we have Lord Dampnut firing the director of the FBI who was investing the Russian interference because of "the Russia thing" in an apparent attempt to obstruct justice, and a lot more.
Renzatic on 25/7/2018 at 06:42
Quote Posted by Starker
we have Lord Dampnut himself asking Russia to hack his opponent
I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that, of all the pieces of evidence, this one is the weakest and most circumstantial. Trump was obviously playing to his crowd on that one, riding the hype and excitement surrounding the leaked DNC emails. That another hack was attempted a few hours later could easily be argued as coincidence.
If there's other evidence pointing towards collusion, it can be used against Trump. By itself, it's not much.
Starker on 25/7/2018 at 06:52
Another hack, for the first time targeting the e-mail server, after he asked for e-mails? This was not the DNC server, btw, this was Clinton's personal server. Quite a convenient coincidence, I'd say.
Also, for another thing -- not long after Russians obtained the Democrats' analytics, Lord Dampnut's campaign abruptly changed their strategy, pulling money from where they could to put it into Wisconsin and Michigan, where they ended up winning by a slight margin. That's another mighty convenient coincidence right there.
Renzatic on 25/7/2018 at 07:30
Quote Posted by Starker
Also, for another thing -- not long after Russians obtained the Democrats' analytics, Lord Dampnut's campaign abruptly changed their strategy, pulling money from where they could to put it into Wisconsin and Michigan, where they ended up winning by a slight margin. That's another mighty convenient coincidence right there.
The analytics were already released out into the wild by that point, weren't they?
It shows that Trump and co. aren't above dipping a few fathoms below the morally questionable to get what they want (which shouldn't surprise anyone), but it doesn't mean the Russians were feeding them info directly.
...unless I'm mistaken, and they weren't readily available.
Starker on 25/7/2018 at 08:56
No, they weren't. We only know about it from the last Mueller indictment.
Here's the Rachel Maddow segment on this, again:
[video=youtube;zUApwyJhizQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUApwyJhizQ[/video]