3 ms·

In fact, the investigation did not establish that there was a “quid pro quo” relationship with Russia. > “Although the investigation established that the Russi

by zaroth 8y ago

In fact, the investigation did not establish that there was a “quid pro quo” relationship with Russia. > “Although the investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts, the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.” It would be more accurate to say that the enemy of my enemy is my friend. This is not quid pro quo, it’s not collusion, and it’s not cooperation. It is benefiting from blood in the water. Trump also benefited significantly from Bernie Sanders’ attacks on Clinton and the fact that many of his voters wouldn’t vote for her. Trump did not collude or cooperate with Sanders either.

SantalBlush 8y ago
The FBI "did not establish" that Al Capone had people killed. The court of law "did not establish" that OJ Simpson murdered his ex wife and her friend. Yet they very clearly did those things. The issue I see with your assertion is that we know from past presidential scandals how enormously difficult it is to elucidate criminal activity; it took years before the Watergate investigations finally uncovered enough evidence to expose Nixon's crimes, and Reagan served a full eight years in spite of his illegal involvement in the Iran-Contra Affair. Yet despite the contents of the Mueller Report, we have a large portion of the citizenry (most of whom haven't even read it) who are already certain that Trump is innocent, after only two years of investigation. The citizenry was certain of Nixon's innocence after two years of Watergate as well; they "did not establish" that he had committed any crimes at that time. But he clearly did.
- zaroth 8y ago
  It appears that you need to be convinced that a crime was not committed. That you have the presumption of guilt and you will stick with that because in your gut you feel like he must have been complicit in the election meddling. I take the opposite approach. I need to see evidence that the Trump Campaign actually conspired or coordinated with Russia before I will believe or assume that they did. I also take the position that this accusation was politically motivated from the very start, and has no evidentiary basis. That illegal warrants, illegal leaks, and slanted and straight up false reporting were used in furtherance of those same political goals. And all this makes me doubly determined not to accept anything but evidence before entertaining the notion that there was collusion or coordination or cooperation.
- colordrops 8y ago
  I am definitely not certain that Trump did not collude with Russia. What I am certain of is that there was never any direct evidence of collusion, the media and the democrats knew this, and still decided to run with it to drum up ratings and political capital. And in the end using lies to push a narrative, no matter how good the intention, usually blows up in your face, with the crazy Trump now shored up even more for the next election. I really do hope a progressive wins the next democratic primary. Otherwise we are in for another 4 years.

by zaroth 8y ago

SantalBlush 8y ago

The FBI "did not establish" that Al Capone had people killed. The court of law "did not establish" that OJ Simpson murdered his ex wife and her friend. Yet they very clearly did those things. The issue I see with your assertion is that we know from past presidential scandals how enormously difficult it is to elucidate criminal activity; it took years before the Watergate investigations finally uncovered enough evidence to expose Nixon's crimes, and Reagan served a full eight years in spite of his illegal involvement in the Iran-Contra Affair. Yet despite the contents of the Mueller Report, we have a large portion of the citizenry (most of whom haven't even read it) who are already certain that Trump is innocent, after only two years of investigation. The citizenry was certain of Nixon's innocence after two years of Watergate as well; they "did not establish" that he had committed any crimes at that time. But he clearly did.

zaroth 8y ago
It appears that you need to be convinced that a crime was not committed. That you have the presumption of guilt and you will stick with that because in your gut you feel like he must have been complicit in the election meddling. I take the opposite approach. I need to see evidence that the Trump Campaign actually conspired or coordinated with Russia before I will believe or assume that they did. I also take the position that this accusation was politically motivated from the very start, and has no evidentiary basis. That illegal warrants, illegal leaks, and slanted and straight up false reporting were used in furtherance of those same political goals. And all this makes me doubly determined not to accept anything but evidence before entertaining the notion that there was collusion or coordination or cooperation.
colordrops 8y ago
I am definitely not certain that Trump did not collude with Russia. What I am certain of is that there was never any direct evidence of collusion, the media and the democrats knew this, and still decided to run with it to drum up ratings and political capital. And in the end using lies to push a narrative, no matter how good the intention, usually blows up in your face, with the crazy Trump now shored up even more for the next election. I really do hope a progressive wins the next democratic primary. Otherwise we are in for another 4 years.