freeman3 wrote:As for the evidence of willingness to collude, Donald, Jr was told that the Crown Prosecutor met with Emin's father and offered incriminating information on Hillary as part of Russia's effort to help Trump. He was the told he would be meeting with a "Russian government attorney."
And yet, NONE of that was in your opening post that I responded to--nor was it in the indictment. How do I know that? Because Donald Jr. is not mentioned in the indictment.
Here's what you started with:
Instead of reading conservative spin..you might want to want to look at the indictment
Then, you went off the rails and went into speculation. Donald Jr. is not in the indictment. So, you lied. You may not like it, but what I'm saying is factual. If you don't want me to say something is a lie, tell the truth. It's simple. I didn't say you were a liar, which would be an assault on your character. You did, however, lie.
(1) Another indication that the Trump campaign was absolutely willing to collude with the Russians and had no qualms about doing so;
And yet, Papadopoulos repeatedly tried to get the campaign interested in meeting with Russians and was rebuffed. That would seem to be "qualms."
He was nobody, with no particular expertise. This was a campaign staff run on a shoestring budget. He had connections in Greece and volunteered. There is no evidence he was significant or influential.
So...Donald, Jr is told that he will be meeting with a "Russian government attorney" who will bring incriminating information on Hillary as part of Russia's effort to help Trump. That to me indicates willingness to collude. And collude here simply means willingness to work with the Russian government against US interests. So what would be the crime?
What's the relevance of this to Papadopoulos? Did he arrange the meeting with the Russian attorney? Did she represent the Russian government? Did she collude with Don Jr. to fix the election? How?
Was she a "Russian government attorney?" She says she wasn't.
Natalia Veselnitskaya denied any connection to the Russian government in an interview with NBC News. Raising even more questions, she also denied having any damaging information about 2016 Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton.
What evidence do you have that she was who you claim she was?
As for collusion being a crime, if they had accepted dirt on Hillary it would be espionage.
And, did she pay for dirt on Trump re "the dossier?" If so, wouldn't that be espionage?
We know the Clinton Campaign and DNC paid Fusion GPS, who hired a Brit who paid the Russians . . . so, the Campaign and DNC were, by your reasoning, engaged in espionage.
And, they failed to disclose the money they spent on it, which is a violation of campaign finance laws. They filed it as "legal" costs. LOL!
And all I said they were willing to collude. I did not allege that they committed any crimes. You may have a difference of opinion. You're wrong but that's fine. Calling something a lie is trying to be a bully and intimidate. And it's not something I am willing to put up with.
No, it's not bullying and it's not intimidation. It's true. That is a defense.
As for Papadopoulus...he meets with the professor I'm late April who says Russia has emails on Hillary. And he is trying to arrange a meeting with the Trump campaign and Russian officials. And a little over a month it happens. You are not seeing the connection here?
You're acting as if there is evidence that Papadopoulos had any kind of sway with the campaign. I see ONE picture posted all over the internet as if it was determinative.
Since the election, Democrats have been unhinged and determined to impeach Trump. If they had nominated someone less criminal, they might not have had to worry about it.
Now, more speculation:
So we have the inferential chain:
(1) Trump campaign willing to collude with the Russians to win election
(2) The Russians had emails to trade as part of collusion;
(4) The extreme willingness to make sure Russia did not get mad over sanctions is circumstantial evidence of a payback
(5)Trump's attempts to shut down investigation is consciousness of guilt and circumstantial evidence of guilt.
So you have evidence before the crime and after the crime that indicate a crime did occur. Now we just need evidence of the actual crime (number three)
1. There is a chasm between "looking for dirt" and "collusion."
2. Why didn't we get all the emails released?
4. Please. This is your inference. Trump has not been "nice" to Russia since he's been in office.
5. More speculation.
So, your #3 is based on a premise of speculation and a conclusion of speculation.
Good luck selling a judge on that.