It's a throwaway article meant to grab headlines. Don't fall for this. It does nothing to imply guilt, as the liberals hope.
Just for the record, this is Andy Borowitz satire, and is not real news. I assumed everyone knew about his New Yorker articles. He has been killing it for years.
Simply drawing arrows between items on a slide does not 'connect the dots'. NONE of the above, in any way, indicates any proof of collusion between Trump and Russia during the election, which is the only relevant dot to connect.
Actually drawing arrows to all the relationships born out by evidence does connect the dots, literally. Until you know all the evidence they're connecting it's impossible for you to say "NONE of the above, in any way, indicates any proof of collusion between Trump and Russia during the election" but somehow you said it.Why would you say that without any evidence? I'm curious how many lies the Trump team have to tell to make you suspicious of their behavior. Or is that okay as long as he throws out enough racist dog whistles and childish, idiotic tweets attacking your collective political enemies to encourage you not to care about what he's doing to the country.
I know we're on different sides politically here, but who are we to decide exclusively "the only relevant" issue in all this? It doesn't pass the sniff test. If the president colluded, that is bad, yes. If he is indebted to Russian financial interests, that's also a problem. If he lied, that's another matter. (But he lies daily so I honestly don't think anyone cares at this point, sad to say.) Then, if close advisers colluded with Russia, some people (not just "liberals") will think that's a very big deal. If he has close advisers indebted to Russian interests, that will be a big deal to some people (not just "liberals"). And if these people lied under oath, that is clearly a big deal for their futures. When you try to paint a very narrow path for "what matters," it strains credibility. This is not a fishing expedition. People on both sides of the aisle in Congress think this issue and all the weirdness warranted a significant investigation (or multiple investigations), so let's wait to see what is found. I know it's not very fun for anyone, especially the hyperventilating talking heads on both sides. But we have to hold our horses and see what Mueller turns up.
Exclusive: US government wiretapped former Trump campaign chairman http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/18/politics/paul-manafort-government-wiretapped-fisa-russians/index.html
B-bob, I would like to say that while, yes, we probably are on different sides politically (although perhaps not so far as you might think), that I always enjoy and respect your responses. They are always reasonable and objective, something sorely lacking on the internet, and elsewhere. You are one of the few where I think we could sit down and have an objective discussion of things--something also sorely lacking these days. I picked that point because that is what is supposedly being investigated. Close advisors would fall into that category, and it does keep expanding in scope, so the other points you mention are also valid. My point still stands, though....drawing arrows on a diagram doesn't indicate that any of these things happened (d money's LOLOLOL not withstanding, because LOLOLOL doesn't constitute evidence either. Quite the opposite, in fact). It is very much a fishing expedition, though, as so many of these things are. The Dems, without any evidence, decided that attacking Trump on his business ties to Russia made good politics. Maybe they'll catch something in their fishing trip, although even liberal commentators have noted that so far, it is a big nothing burger. It makes a good fishing expedition because IF it were true, it would indeed be very big news. But they had nothing indicating it actually was true (and there is a lot more evidence indicating improprieties on the Clinton side through their trust fund, which was NOT investigated). If anything conclusive is ever found (which I don't think will be the case, simply because Trump had no reason to collude with Putin, nor Putin with Trump--if indeed Putin were trying to sway the election, he could, and perhaps did, that without any need to contact Trump at all), I'll be right with those castigating that, because I do agree, that would be a very big and important issue. But that's a big 'IF', which so far has nothing behind it. Which is what happens with fishing expeditions...often, you don't catch anything. I do agree with you on the lying, but in regards to Russia, I don't think he's actually been shown to have lied about anything yet. A bit remarkable by itself.
Junior and his campaign manager meeting with a Putin surrogate to obtain Hillary dirt some how does not count. Junior and Manafort appear to have conspired to commit treason with Senior as an accomplice, right?
Even if a large space were needed for the investigation, that alone does not imply guilt. Be careful with "logic leaps" to fit your desired narrative... lazy and immature thinking.
If people are still saying that there aren't connections between the Trump campaign and Russians in an effort to sway the election, then they are purposefully ignoring it. The evidence has been presented on this website, almost every media outlet worth it's weight in salt, and first and foremost from Trump Jr.'s own emails. Add to that intercepted communication which has Putin ordering the interference in the 2016 presidential election, and either people are purposefully ignoring it, or have been on total media blackout for months.
