The Trumps have lied like Obama, the Bushes, and the Clintons lied before them.
— Thanatos Sand

That is the biggest lie of all. Trump lies continuously, and all of his trolls applaud. That is how this catastrophe of Trump's presidency is sustained. It will end in disaster for everyone.

No, the biggest lie of all is your saying I'm wrong. Obama straight up lied to us about having the NSA unconstitutionally monitor our phones. Bush shamefully lied about WMD's to push his sending 4000 Americans to die in a war where our forces killed over half a million. And the Clintons are pathological liars lying for years about the Clinton Foundation and the money they made off of it, including money from Putin

So, your saying their lies aren't as bad as the Trumps makes you their troll, and their liar. Congratulations.

I personally wouldn't be surprised if there isn't much more to the 'collusion' story than what has been disclosed already - that Junior and some others went along to a meeting with Russian agents, eager to hear whatever dirt they had on Clinton. But after having done that, Junior and Dad both lied about it for months. Then when they were caught out, Dad goes 'look how honest Junior is! He released all his emails.' Then they shrugged it off, like it's no big deal. Fact is, it was a lot worse than all the things that Trump has accused Clinton of. Because he has no moral compass, he has no sense of what is proper. But, of course, Trump's disregard for propriety is already legendary, it's part of his character.

But I think it is a dead certainty that (1) Russia did try and influence the election and (2) favoured a Trump victory. Putin can obviously play Trump like a violin, and many of his business cronies thought he would be great for business. The tragedy is, Trump doesn't even comprehend any of this. He has no more understanding of it, than he does of health care legislation, which is zero. His comprehension is about that of a fifth-grader. So it can only ever be about him, he has no concept that Russian interference in the US electoral process might be bad thing, it means nothing to him. Doesn't understand what the fuss is about, except for bad people being out to get him.

I personally wouldn't be surprised if there isn't much more to the 'collusion' story than what has been disclosed already - that Junior and some others went along to a meeting with Russian agents, eager to hear whatever dirt they had on Clinton. But after having done that, Junior and Dad both lied about it for months. Then when they were caught out, Dad goes 'look how honest Junior is! He released all his emails.' Then they shrugged it off, like it's no big deal. Fact is, it was a lot worse than all the things that Trump has accused Clinton of. But because he has no moral compass, he has no sense of what is proper. But, of course, Trump's disregard for propriety is already legendary, it's part of his character.

Firstly, don't ever talk about propriety when discussing the Trump's or the Clintons. They are both corrupt families with no regard for human lives other than their own. Ask the Hondurans or Libyans who died in the coups Hillary pushed while she was SOS. And she did it in Honduras because the Honduran leader wanted to raise the minimum wage. And what you said about the Trumps is all conjecture. Could they have done what you said they did, sure; is there any evidence showing they did? Hardly any at all.

But I think it is a dead certainty that (1) Russia did try and influence the election and (2) favoured a Trump victory. Putin can obviously play Trump like a violin, and many of his business cronies thought he would be great for business. The tragedy is, Trump doesn't even comprehend any of this. He has no more understanding of it, than he does of health care legislation, which is zero. His comprehension is about that of a fifth-grader. So it can only ever be about him, he has no concept that Russian interference in the US electoral process might be bad thing, it means nothing to him. Doesn't understand what the fuss is about, except for bad people being out to get him.

You can't think something is a dead certainty; that shows it isn't. Try to avoid speaking in inherent contradictions. Whether Russia tried to influence our election isn't the important question. American and Russia have been trying to influence each other's elections, and have actually succeeded in influencing other countries elections, for decades. The only real issue is did they succeed, and did Trump and his campaign help. Again, we have no real evidence. So, people need to relax until we do. This intense focus on Russia has detracted from his war on public education, his continuing the disastrous war in Syria, and other real issues.

And his being a clueless idiot with no morals doesn't make him a traitor. Actual treason would, so people should let the investigation go and stop with the incessant speculating and obsession on possibilities. It has hampered our country considerably.

To prove this true, or even support it as likely, you have to show what Trump has gotten from the Russians... — Thanatos Sand

A big whack of cash. Follow his sales.

To prove this true, or even support it as likely, you have to show what Trump has gotten from the Russians...
— Thanatos Sand

A big whack of cash. Follow his sales.

Sorry, there's no evidence of Trump receiving a huge amount of money from the Kremlin for anything, much less for tampering with the election. The Clintons, however, got 30 million from Putin for uranium. Imagine how the Russia conspiracy theorists would have reacted if Trump did that.

You didn't say "the Kremlin", you said "the Russians". And to my understanding, there is a long history of Trump getting cash from Russians.

Well, you haven't shown Trump has taken a huge "whack" of cash from the Russians either. Feel free to provide the link. And there's nothing illegal about taking money from Russians, only in many cases from the Russian government. Taking money from just Russians certainly doesn't show you helped the Kremlin interfere with the election.

Lord knows the Clintons have taken lots of money from the Russians....and the Saudi Arabians....and the Qatarians.

I wonder, just for shits and giggles, how one who argues in Trump's defense would answer the following question...

What counts as proof of criminal wrongdoing when it comes to knowingly and intentionally colluding with the Russian government for the expressed written objective of influencing the American election, governmental institutions, and/or American politics in ways that are most favorable to Russia and/or her interests?

:D

I wonder, just for shits and giggles, how one who argues in Trump's defense would answer the following question...

I wouldn't know, since I've never defended Trump. So, you better take those shits and giggles back.

What counts as proof of criminal wrongdoing when it comes to knowingly and intentionally colluding with the Russian government for the expressed written objective of influencing the American election, governmental institutions, and/or American politics in ways that are most favorable to Russia and/or her interests?

This would be a question for a specialist in International and Constitutional Law. However, the evidentiary rule of "beyond a reasonable doubt" would still apply. And evidence of that level hasn't come close to being provided. Of course it would have helped if the cowardly DNC had let the FBI investigate their servers. I wonder what they were afraid of revealing.

I wonder - again, just for shits and giggles - how someone can claim "there is no evidence" with utmost certainty simply because none has been provided to him/her.

I wonder - again, just for shits and giggles - how someone can claim "there is no evidence" with utmost certainty simply because none has been provided to him/her.

You're really obsessed with shits and giggles; you should probably talk to someone about that.

And no evidence has been provided, so there is no evidence for anyone to see or use to make their decision. There certainly is no evidence for any conviction. Considering they've been yapping about this and investigating it for over 8 months now and provided nil, the prospect of evidence doesnt' look good.

Could there be evidence somewhere? Sure. There could be evidence John Podesta, who works for the Russians, arranged this all to frame Trump. But until that evidence is provided, it's pointless and useless.

I wonder - again, just for shits and giggles - how someone can claim "there is no evidence" with utmost certainty simply because none has been provided to him/her.

Sigh...I answered you above. So, you should take your shits and giggles and go play with them elsewhere. I will let my last post stand on the matter.

Again - for shits and giggles alone - what, exactly, would count as evidence in your opinion?

...no evidence has been provided, so there is no evidence for anyone to see or use to make their decision. There certainly is no evidence for any conviction.

Perfectly mistaken on several fronts.

Strictly speaking, the claim is not true on it's face, because the public is privy to some testimony, other documents, emails, etc. - all of which may be, and some of which most certainly is being, used as evidence to further the investigation.

That said...

No evidence(in the form of specific Mueller team findings) has been provided to the public. There are legal reasons for that. It does not follow from that that there is no evidence for anyone to see, because Mueller's team are most certainly included in "anyone". So, when some see evidence, it makes no sense to say that there is no evidence for anyone to see. It is equally mistaken to state that "there certainly is no evidence for any conviction", simply because none has been provided to you personally.

Sand wrote:

...no evidence has been provided, so there is no evidence for anyone to see or use to make their decision. There certainly is no evidence for any conviction.

Translation=I've seen no evidence, so I cannot decide. I've certainly not seen enough to convince me of guilt.

I'm fine with that.

Perfectly mistaken on several fronts.

Strictly speaking, the claim is not true on it's face, because the public is privy to some testimony, other documents, emails, etc. - all of which may be, and some of which most certainly is being, used as evidence to further the investigation.

Thanks for supporting my point since none of this "some testimony, other documents, emails, etc" proves, or even substantially points to, Russia hacking the election or the Trump campaign helping it.

No evidence(in the form of specific Mueller team findings) has been provided to the public. There are legal reasons for that

Thanks again for supporting my point that no evidence has been provided by the public. And you have no idea what legal reasons there are for not releasing what they have, just as you don't know what they have or if they have anything at all. The fact you claim you do shows how poor your reasoning has been on this thread. And you really read my post poorly, as I said they could have evidence in my earlier post, just as someone could have evidence that Obama conspired with the banks to not prosecute them for the 08 crash. But what they could have could be nothing and is useless until its provided:

"Could there be evidence somewhere? Sure. There could be evidence John Podesta, who works for the Russians, arranged this all to frame Trump. But until that evidence is provided, it's pointless and useless."

Unless you know what counts as proof of Russian collusion, you cannot know what does not.

Unless you know what counts as proof of Russian collusion, you cannot know what does not.

That is so nonsensical and fallacious, it's sweet. Using that logic, if someone said someone's eating Ice cream was proof of Russian collusion, only those who knew exactly what that is could say it's not.

Try again, and be logical next time.

So, Sand doesn't know what counts as proving Russian collusion, which means s/he doesn't know what kind of evidence would be considered relevant or what amount would be sufficient.

And yet such unshakable conviction...

:-*

Read my last post. The only one with unshakable, and nonsensical, conviction is you.

And your first sentence of your last tweet is as nonsensical as your last few posts. Logic has been tough for you, today.

You're being trolled.

The only one who's been trolled is me by Creative, unless his logic is really that bad, and by you.

And if you can't show how one post of mine has been a troll post, and we both know you can't, you're definitely trolling me.

I know. Sad thing is that it seems that s/he actually believes what s/he says...

Sand admittedly doesn't know what counts as proving Russian collusion, which means s/he cannot know what kind(s) of evidence would be considered relevant and/or what amount would be sufficient/adequate. And yet, all this certainty about evidence...

No, Creative, it's tragic you actually believe what you say. I already showed everything you just said is ridiculous in my earlier post I'm re-posting below. So, I'll leave it there and move on, as I will never respond to any of your nonsense again:

↪creativesoul
"Unless you know what counts as proof of Russian collusion, you cannot know what does not."

That is so nonsensical and fallacious, it's sweet. Using that logic, if someone said someone's eating Ice cream was proof of Russian collusion, only those who knew exactly what that is could say it's not.

Try again, and be logical next time.

You clearly couldn't be logical "next time." Ciao, Creative...you do have my sympathies.

Sigh...

Saying and knowing are two different things. What you've said doesn't follow from what I said... aka non sequitur/strawman. What you said was "using that logic, if someone said someone's eating Ice cream was proof of Russian collusion, only those who knew exactly what that is could say it's not."

What you should've said is... using that logic, if someone said someone's eating ice cream was proof of Russian collusion, only those who knew what counts as proof could know that it's not.

We know the Russian operatives' objective. We know that Paul Manafort entered into a contract which clearly expressed that same objective. We know that Manafort performed actions that counted as satisfying that objective. There is hard evidence that is both relevant and sufficient for proving that Manfort acted on the behalf of Russia and her best interests by virtue of successfully meeting the objective criterion that Russian operatives live by.

Roll over Beethoven...

X-)

The investigation, it seems to me, will be much shorter than one might think. That's because of the sheer number of people who have already been under investigation and/or were already once under investigation. You see, when there have already been multiple investigations into matters involving Russian operatives and Russian actors and these same individuals show up in current investigations, then the prosecution already has a head-start so to speak.

For example, lets say - for shits and giggles - that the prosecution has a lead regarding a suspect having a meeting. It turns out that someone else attended that meeting, and that that person was already quite familiar to the intelligence community by virtue of investigations from years gone by.

This is all pure conjecture...

:D

And then there's one Michael Flynn...

He has a story to tell, and he's more than willing to tell it, if he's granted immunity.

Where is Michael Flynn???