What does collusion mean? If it means that Trump found out the Russians had DNC emails through contacts within his campaign and used the contacts to discuss or time releases, then I think it’s possible.
That would be Collusion. Right now it is just a hypothesis. Does the the fact that you and others are making this hypothesis mean that a Scandal currently exist or would there need to be something else for it to qualify as a Scandal (i.e., proof )?
I didn't make a claim of his guilt. Others have proclaimed his innocence, and I am unclear as to what they are basing that on. If you are saying everyone is innocent until proven guilty, explain "lock her up!" for starters.
When he said on tv that he fired Comey while thinking about the Russia investigation, it became a scandal. When the much denied meeting in Trump Tower with the Russian lawyer and others turned out to be true, it matured into a major scandal. When Manafort was charged with a series of crimes, some of which are sealed and unknown, it was cemented as a scandal. Those are just some of the bigger highlights. There's so much that has piled up, I honestly think people forget.
1) Only a scandal if it was done to obstruct justice (not proven). He said, "I want it [the investigation] to be so strong and so good. I also want to have a really competent and capable director. He is not, he is a showboater... I want somebody who is going to do a great job." ... "I want to get to the bottom. If Russia hacked, if Russia did anything having to do with our election, I want to know about it.". Firing an incompetent employee for a more competent employee does not a scandal make. Otherwise there are scandals happening all over the World every day. 2) Meeting with Russian lawyers is not a Scandal; otherwise scandals are taking place all over DC and Wall Street every day. 3) Manifort being charged with crimes related to his work with a Ukrainian official years before Trump does not make a Trump Scandal.
For me, the Trump tower meeting and Trump-guided crafting of the administration’s response moved this to a scandal. It might not be collusion. I don’t know. But it’s a scandal in my mind - in many ways because of how the questions have been handled.
I understand now. I don't like the way you or IP handle questions or who you chose to meet with. You two are involved in Scandals. Am I doing it right?!?
Coverup of a non-crime? Oh you mean the perjury trap where you get a date or some insignificant fact wrong and are forced to plead guilty to avoid bankruptcy. Paying for political dirt is illegal? So the DNC and Hillary need prosecution for the dossier.
If that raises enough questions and I am an elected official then it could absolutely be a political scandal.
You don't give a shit about the law. It's a convenient talking point you think looks good. And after that, let's stick to Trump and keep the personal digs out of it. What do you say, Fanboi?
Where have I advocated to "lock her up"? Here's why some are "proclaiming his innocence"....nothing has been presented that suggests any wrongdoing by him, nor has he been either charged, much less convicted, of anything. The presumption is innocence. It's fun to debate, though. So, if you think he's guilty of something (even with the understanding of preserving his presumption of innocence) - prove it. Prove. It. Don't just repeat bloviations. Prove. It. Put on your proof, belief, etc., and we'll all work together in sorting it out. But just repeating some variant of "he's guilty" may not meet the highest bar, even in casual and friendly conversation of innocence / guilt. I wish that Michael Brown had received this presumption in Ferguson a few years ago, but am ultimately glad that he didn't. And I'm bookmarking this for the next atheist disagreement that erupts, and you start (correctly) blistering people who believe in God to support their belief, rather than attempting to require you to refute it. Why? Because that's exactly what you're doing here. That's why.
And I'm just saying that neither you nor anyone else has proof of either. Let's all just sit around and wonder what happens if Trump is found to be mostly cyborg, instead. That'd be more entertaining, at the very least.
That 10-minute meeting with Don Jr., which that Russian lawyer asked for, and which Don Jr. publicly admitted had occurred? That's scandalous to you? How about the fact that she met with the Hillary / DNC backed Fusion GPS, both before and immediately after their meeting? Does that also prove scandalous for them, too? If so, then moreso? Less so?
