Circumstantial evidence is evidence. And it keeps piling up. People go to prison, and even death row, based entirely on circumstantial evidence all the time. And if you’d pull your head out of the right wing media filter, you’d see it.
But I guess willful blindness is better than openly embracing the Quislings and their conduct.
What evidence? You have no evidence circumstantial or not. What you have is a situation where members of Trump’s team met with a Russian lawyer, who promised them dirt on Hillary Clinton and the dirt was being provided, according to the guy setting up the meeting, by the Russian government. Don Jr agreed to meet, may he should have or maybe he shouldn’t have, either way it was not a crime to meet with her. According to everyone who attended, the meeting last about 20 minutes and was really about adoption policy, nothing was provided and no further contact was ever made.
that is all you have after a year and millions of dollars of investigating. Everything else is speculation based on political bias.
Not anything even a little ironic in that to you, is there?
And didn’t bother to read the statutes I linked to, did you?
Also, don’t take my word for it. Take the word of “Judge” Andrew Napolitano on Fox:
My pleasure! I still receive his regular newsletters. Every one of those includes a poll relating to policies/current events.
As the fates would have it, I have ended up living in Idaho. One of the redder of the ‘red states’. I live in Boise, the state capital, so I have easy access to our state reps here, and my congress critters. But I’m very much on the “wrong side” of the aisle here, as a ‘progressive liberal’. Nevertheless, I make my voice heard. I’m treated with respect here, something I doubt I’d find in most GOP circles… part of that is because, although a very conservative state, it isn’t “evangelical conservatism”. It’s much more about “Constitutional Conservatism” up here, which has a certain kind of appeal. It’s a very independence-minded constituency. I find it refreshing in many ways. I have had numerous political discussions, debates, completely devoid of vitriol and nonsense. As I said, my opinions are given respect, even if they are sometimes disagreed with.
It’s notable that Idaho has one of the most active and engaged refugee programs in the country. Funny how that flies in the face of our perception of the Republican base overall…
btw, Bernie Sanders was super popular up here! I think he would have given Trump a run for his money, had he been the Dem candidate…
My college roommate was from Idaho and her father was, yes, a potato farmer!
I was a Sanders supporter and I really have no take on whether or not he could have won against Trump. But I agree totally that at least he would’ve run hard against him in the rural areas of the country, where Clinton ran poorly.
At one point, late in the primaries, Sanders was even polling ahead of Trump in Utah. Think about that. Sanders brought enough of the anti-establishment populism plus tracking what roughly 70% of Americans want from government; actual health care, affordable college, a sustainable safety net, sane foreign policy and so on and on…
I think he would have blown Trump out completely. Assuming the Russians didn’t have it in the bag for Trump regardless…
But that’s all pure speculation, and I could be a wrong as right. Or as the newly minted Scaramouch is saying, “hey, maybe they did do it, maybe they didn’t do it… fuggedaboudit…!”
Will you pledge right now to come back and talk about it after Mueller finishes his investigations? Of course I don’t personally hold any evidence. But Don Jr’s emails alone provide a window into something very concerning.
“The Russians have damaging information about Clinton. They want to help Trump win.” Response? “I love it! Let’s have a meeting!”
Right now they’re saying, “Hey, if ‘somebody’ has negative oppo research on our opponent, of course we’re going to take a meeting!”
But this isn’t “somebody”. This is a hostile foreign government. A government working 24/7 to destabilize Europe, to increase its now-archaic “sphere of influence”, and has according to ALL of our intelligence agencies, interfered in our presidential election.
I don’t have “proof”. But if you don’t see what’s right in front of you, the deep and dangerous implications of Don Jr, Kuschner and Manafort taking a meeting with 4 Russians who were supposedly going to bring Russian Government dirt on Clinton? Then you are either being willfully ignorant, or a victim of right-wing propaganda (aka Russian propaganda from how things look from here).
That IS proof of “intent to collude”. Undeniable. If they had brought ‘dirt’ (and we don’t know what was handed over in that folder two people have mentioned), and that trio accepted it? Collusion. Beyond intent.
The problem is, they have lied continuously about that meeting. Only admitting to things as they are reported on. Like, "No there was no meeting… oh, yeah, there was a meeting, but it was about adoption… oh, right, well they said they had info, but there wasn’t any… no Kuschner and Manafort had no idea what the meeting was about… oh right, they got my email chain well before the meeting but… so we met a lawyer, ok and an interpreter… oh right, there was a third guy… wait, four??? Oh yeah, ok…
And his “releasing his emails for transparency” was only to get out ahead of the NYT who were about to publish those same emails. Junior posted hit “transparency tweet” minutes before the NYT story broke. Coincidence? Are you really that naive?
Again, when the proof DOES come out… will you return here to discuss it? Maybe rethink how you arrive at your own conclusions? We’re all in the same boat here. No-one is interested in being “in different camps”. One nation, right? We all share the same very real interests… let’s find out what the truth is, and stand together regardless.
Peace.