Well then you haven't been paying attention. The "collusion" question has already been answered, and included in a guilty plea. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/30/us/politics/george-papadopoulos-russia.html The "Collusion" crime though is "Conspiracy to Commit Crimes Against the US". If that's a crime you are worried about there are already two indictments that will go to trial. Those were conspiracy crimes tied to financial dealings with other countries that acted against US interests. However a "Conspiracy" guilty verdict that directly ties the Russian hacking to the Trump campaign... that's where the Flynn testimony will be important given that he was the one ordered to discuss sanctions... which is the most important piece in understanding collusion with Russia and Aquid Pro Quo. So if that is what is TRULY important to you... sleep tight, Flynn has agreed to testify and "he has a story to tell"... apparently. We also have questions about coordination with Wikileaks, what was exchanged at the Don Jr. Trump tower meeting, and the data firm that Kushner was overseeing that might have supplied information to Russian hackers to target. If "Collusion is what matters to me" why don't you support getting answers to those questions which already have circumstantial evidence linking the Trump campaign to the Kremlin?
The way to answer this should be "Collusion happened.... the only question is where are the crimes in the official statute "Conspiracy to commit crimes against the US, and how are Trump folks tied to those crimes". We are far beyond discussing the term "Collusion". With Mueller its about the crimes committed, and Trump & co's involvement in them.
First of all... you don't know what Mueller is investigating and what he has already found. What we do know if it appears that so far, obstruction of justice is currently a good bet. Second... if obstruction of justice charges against a sitting president have been charged and proven, *that* doesn't matter to you?
I wasn't arguing that Manafort's indictment was directly tying conspiracy with Russian hacking/election meddling. I was telling you Conspiracy is the statute that will be used in a "collusion" case. If Collusion is what matters to you as you said, then conspiracy is the crime you are naturally focused on. There is no statute for collusion. Papadapolous' plea states collusion, but he only pleaded guilty to perjury in the plea deal. This plea is important because it actually shows that connecting with Russians who know about "Hillary Dirt" and even some coordination might not break any laws. So if you are forgetting just basic American patriotism, and ethics, sure, you might be feeling good about Trump's innocence in a conspiracy case that Mueller is presenting. However the question of "collusion" has already been answered. If its about crimes, you need to start referring to "conspiracy".
Good time to remind people that it took nearly two years for Whitewater to produce a single indictment. Its been what... 6 months.... 2 indictments and 2 guilty pleas.... yeah... nothing burger.
How many months did the Watergate investigation take? The investigation of complex crimes of such importance require time. Funny so many people whining about how long this is taking and wanting it to happen more quickly would also be the first to claim "rush to judgement."
If you think these loose connections are the basis for impeachment for a crime of collusion that probably didn't happen you're in for a disappointment. All these crimes are individual incidents. Because these people are connected to Trump doesn't make it a conspiracy. For instance Papadapolous and Flynn have nothing to do with each other
It's funny because it reminds me that I never believed the initial explanation either. Imo, Flynn was fired because he was becoming a big political and prosecutorial liability for Trump with the media and the congressional ethics committees and the FBI hot on his heels. They wanted to minimize the damage they had inflicted on themselves. Saying he had lied to Pence was the fig leaf they put on it. Pence might have known, but even if he didn't know that was still just a public rationalization. If Trump thinks and thought that it was perfectly fine for Flynn to speak on his behalf to the Russian ambassador and there was no need for him to ever lie about it, a lie to the VP seems to be a pretty severe reaction. If these were my kids, I'd just tell him to say he was sorry and then send them out to play again. That was before the internet.
Didn't John Dowd tell us just YESTERDAY that Mr. Trump didn't know Flynn had lied until "he was charged"? (Answer: yes, see Reuters). WH lawyer told Trump that Flynn misled FBI and Pence http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/04/polit...told-trump-flynn-misled-fbi-pence1243PMVODtop
If Dowd did draft the tweet on his client's behalf that was (a) inaccurate, and (b) that implied his client was guilty of a crime, when does he get fired? I have to say I wouldn't have a lot of confidence in a law firm that drops the ball like that. Every tweet the law firm crafts on my behalf should have several lawyers scrutinize it for its legal implications, given the stakes. It's like Dowd just rattled something off in a huff while sitting on the can without asking anyone to vet it.
IMO, we need no further proof that it was actually Two Scoops that tweeted that. It was careless, rash and defensive, just like Two Scoops. Lawyer tried to cover for him but failed miserably. The only thing that makes me wonder if the lawyer was involved was that the spelling was good, and there were no words in all caps (as far as I recall). LOL.
the tweet used terminology not used by legal professionals... eg. uses the term "pled" instead of "pleaded". I can't speak to Dowd's skill as a litigator but I would think that someone that went through law school, passed a bar somewhere, and practiced law for a number of years would not only use normal accepted legal terminology but would also know that composing and sending a tweet under the name of the POTUS would not be what lawyers do. Then when you consider his evolving version of how he tweeted the tweet... first he said he sent it to the Trump social media person, then when asked for what he sent he changed to he "dictated it orally". Yea... right...
So the conservative position is now apparently akin to: Police raid a man's house after receiving a tip he growing pot, and discover a child slavery ring and torture dungeon in the basement....but it doesn't matter since he was in fact not growing pot.
For that analogy to work, they'd have actually had to discover something. The more appropriate analogy would be that a man's ex wife has a brother who is a cop and after the messy divorce he starts digging for dirt on the ex husband for months and only manages to nail one of the guy's friends for an unpaid parking ticket while the ex wife's friends talk about how the ex husband is growing pot and running a child slavery ring without any evidence to support those fantasies.
Again, remember, these are the same people who lauded Ken Star's case against Big Willy. Remember, the grounds for the investigation originally had nothing to do with Monica. You discover things in pursuit of a case, and might try and get someone on other charges in the process.
