Trump lied about having business dealings in Russia during campaign

[woolfe9998]

Yes, if what appears to be true is in fact true this is orders of magnitude worse than Watergate. While it might not be treason from a legal perspective it is treason in how the word is commonly thought of. It does seem like it is at least in espionage territory now though.

So far as I'm concerned, we're nearly past reasonable doubt, if not past it, that there was a deal to repeal the Magnitsky Act in exchange for help with the election. That Russian lawyer was in the US officially to lobby for its repeal. Don Jr., in an attempt to avoid admitting that they talked about dirt on Clinton, foolishly admitted that they talked about "Russian adoptions" i.e. the Magnitsky Act.

How is it possible you talk about the Russians wanting the Magnitsky Act repealed in the same conservation that you talk about them having dirt on Clinton, and there is no connection between the two? These couldn't have been totally separate topics of conservation, unlinked in every way. The Russians released those DNC e-mails just two weeks later. They made a deal there, whether they're going to admit it or not.

And yes, it's way worse than Watergate. It's the most serious political scandal this country has ever seen, by far.

 

[HomerJS]

How the hell would that put United States security at risk? And no, thats NOT collusion.

The election of Trump answers that question

 

[alien42]

OK. The whole "collusion" thing has been beaten to death around here, but THIS is probably the best article Ive found on the subject.

You know what hasn't been beaten to death around here? Conspiracy, and that is illegal.

 

[blackangst1]

You know what hasn't been beaten to death around here? Conspiracy, and that is illegal.

Yep sure is! And if Trump is guilty of it I hope they find proof and prosecute.

 

[fskimospy]

Yep sure is! And if Trump is guilty of it I hope they find proof and prosecute.

Seems like there is a lot of proof of it, no?

 

[blackangst1]

Seems like there is a lot of proof of it, no?

Where are the charges?

INB4 Republicans blocking it

 

[skooma]

How the hell would that put United States security at risk? And no, thats NOT collusion.

What IS your idea of collusion, anyway? You keep claiming things aren't collusion so if you explain what you believe it to be I'm sure it can be demonstrated that trump is guilty of it

 

[blackangst1]

What IS your idea of collusion, anyway? You keep claiming things aren't collusion so if you explain what you believe it to be I'm sure it can be demonstrated that trump is guilty of it

How about reading the Politico article I posted earlier?

 

[skooma]

How about reading the Politico article I posted earlier?

You can't explain it?

 

[F-5]

To this day I still do not understand how anyone with even a shred of intelligence would have voted for Trump in 2016. I’m not a fan of Hillary either but her experience put her head and shoulders above Donald “shit for brains” Trump. He’s a guy that built and operated casinos in Atlantic City. Then in turn he bankrupted them and got out of paying the workers who built the damned place. If he couldn’t make money running three casinos he has to be the dumbest SOB on the planet. He put so many family owned businesses out of business all the while sleeping like a baby at night. He’s been rotten to the core for years and somehow he gets elected as POTUS? Give me a break. I believe he had Russia’s help in hacking our election systems at the highest levels. Putin has Trump over a barrel and routinely takes a broom handle to his bung hole to keep him line. This madness needs to end and I hope it doesn’t take much longer as my patience is wearing thin.

 

[fskimospy]

Where are the charges?

INB4 Republicans blocking it

It sure looks like they are coming.

Seriously, looking at the evidence available this looks like the worst criminal activity by a president in history, no? Like, he should end up in prison after this.

 

[uclaLabrat]

It sure looks like they are coming.

Seriously, looking at the evidence available this looks like the worst criminal activity by a president in history, no? Like, he should end up in prison after this.

Legit question: how will a secret service detail operate in a federal pen? They have to be considering it.

Only thing saving his attire from being state-sponsored orange is the office.

 

[blackangst1]

You can't explain it?

For the lazy who dont want to read more than a few sentences:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/collusion

 

[outriding]

For the lazy who dont want to read more than a few sentences:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/collusion

From your link.



cooperation for an illegal purpose

Trump asking russia to get Hillary’s emails

I am pretty sure breaking into others computer is a crime. And trump did ask Russia to do it

 

[woolfe9998]

From your link.



cooperation for an illegal purpose

Trump asking russia to get Hillary’s emails

I am pretty sure breaking into others computer is a crime. And trump did ask Russia to do it

Yes but he did not ask in "secret" (because he's an idiot).

Any sort of quid pro quo arrangement between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin would qualify here, if it involved them helping in the election. For example, agreeing to attempt to repeal a sanctions law in exchange for the release of stolen e-mails. Something which I think pretty clearly happened here. It's illegal, and it also satisfies the dictionary definition of that word.

Not that the word "collusion" really matters here. I honestly don't know what he's on about quibbling over the definition of that word. It's always been used in a non-legal sense by the media to describe a number of potential arrangements which could have occurred, many of which fit the definition of one crime or another. Arguing semantics is a distraction at best.

 

[blackangst1]

Yes but he did not ask in "secret" (because he's an idiot).

Any sort of quid pro quo arrangement between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin would qualify here, if it involved them helping in the election. For example, agreeing to attempt to repeal a sanctions law in exchange for the release of stolen e-mails. Something which I think pretty clearly happened here. It's illegal, and it also satisfies the dictionary definition of that word.

Not that the word "collusion" really matters here. I honestly don't know what he's on about quibbling over the definition of that word. It's always been used in a non-legal sense by the media to describe a number of potential arrangements which could have occurred, many of which fit the definition of one crime or another. Arguing semantics is a distraction at best.

Because words matter. Similar to people thinking at least the last 3 presidents were "Hitler". Its ridiculous.

From my Politico link:

The word “collusion” has been a terrible one to use in the Trump-Russia saga, since it doesn’t accurately describe either the criminal or counterintelligence aspects of what we know. On the criminal side, the word that would best describe an agreement between the Trump campaign and Russia to commit any number of crimes (say, election fraud) would be “conspiracy”—something that the recent release of Donald Trump Jr.’s email chain might support.

 

[Jhhnn]

Because words matter. Similar to people thinking at least the last 3 presidents were "Hitler". Its ridiculous.

From my Politico link:

Gawd. Calling it conspiracy rather than collusion doesn't make it any better.

 

[woolfe9998]

Because words matter. Similar to people thinking at least the last 3 presidents were "Hitler". Its ridiculous..

From my Politico link:

The only thing wrong with the word "collusion" in this context is that the media chose a non-legal term to describe something which could be criminal, probably because they didn't want to use a legal term to describe a crime not yet proven. Collusion is a broad concept which involves any sort of secret agreement to do anything inappropriate. Which brings us to the problem with using that word: it has allowed people on the right to say "collusion isn't a crime!"

Otherwise, it's semantics. If you want to know what crimes are or could be involved, there's also been loads written and spoken on that topic. If you want a legal analysis, try 18 USC 1436 for starters.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honest_services_fraud

I don't get your analogy with people comparing POTUSES to Hitler. That is far more than just about semantics and word choice. There's a substantive analogy being drawn there which can be argued as a bad or a good one. It isn't an argument over what a word means.

 

[blackangst1]

The only thing wrong with the word "collusion" in this context is that the media chose a non-legal term to describe something which could be criminal, probably because they didn't want to use a legal term to describe a crime not yet proven. Collusion is a broad concept which involves any sort of secret agreement to do anything inappropriate. Which brings us to the problem with using that word: it has allowed people on the right to say "collusion isn't a crime!"

Otherwise, it's semantics. If you want to know what crimes are or could be involved, there's also been loads written and spoken on that topic. If you want a legal analysis, try 18 USC 1436 for starters.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honest_services_fraud

I don't get your analogy with people comparing POTUSES to Hitler. That is far more than just about semantics and word choice. There's a substantive analogy being drawn there which can be argued as a bad or a good one. It isn't an argument over what a word means.

Thers this: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/11/24/democrats_and_the_nazi_card_132428.html
and this https://theweek.com/articles/568774/why-republicans-are-obsessed-comparing-obama-hitler

 

[ch33zw1z]

Because words matter. Similar to people thinking at least the last 3 presidents were "Hitler". Its ridiculous.

From my Politico link:

Lol, now words matter?

 

[blackangst1]

Lol, now words matter?

They always have

 

[ch33zw1z]

They always have

Not to republicans.

 

[woolfe9998]

Thers this: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/11/24/democrats_and_the_nazi_card_132428.html
and this https://theweek.com/articles/568774/why-republicans-are-obsessed-comparing-obama-hitler

Yes, we have a history of inflammatory political rhetoric in this country. I have no idea how you think that relates to the media's use of the word "collusion" here. Are you trying to say that "collusion" is more inflammatory than a legal term like conspiracy?

 

[shortylickens]

Republicans like buzz words. They like the emotional rush that comes from words such as swamp and wall but they aren't into full sentences or logic.

 

[fskimospy]

Because words matter. Similar to people thinking at least the last 3 presidents were "Hitler". Its ridiculous.

From my Politico link:

So to be clear your issue is that the media’s description of events is not sufficiently describing just how criminal Trump’s behavior is?