Whats The Difference Between Collusion Talk And Counterfeit Votes Talk?

It's not much different. Trump seems to have an MO of accusing other people of the stuff he himself is guilty of doing. It gives his sympathizers an opportunity to engage in whataboutism or pretend the truth cannot be known and forget the bad things he's done.

There doesn't seem to be much dispute that Russia had tried to interfere in the election. There was a lot of smoke that was suggestive that Trump might have been involved or at least aware, not least of which was the extraordinary lengths that Trump went to to obstruct the investigation in public. Trump's present accusation of election fraud has no smoke. They've made some assertions about some chicanery but can't manage to produce even one suggestive piece of evidence.

In fact, the paltry offerings Trump has now to undergird this election fraud accusation makes me believe the Russia collusion story more. Apparently, it's pretty difficult to make up fake evidence to present to the public or else Trump would have brought us something by now.

Now I'm with you about staying off the Russia story. I still suspect it's true to some extent. But, it's too early to revisit. It may be awhile before the facts come out, but I do expect to live long enough to hear the end of that story. Which I do eagerly await. Maybe it'll be a conspiracy, maybe it'll be all smoke and no fire. But it will be good to have clarity.

 

-ism and -ists has been a strong card for conservatives since the 1940s. Soon it will be 'Democratism'

 

Collusion was not part of any official investigations. Interference was and it was NOT the Dem who started or sustain those investigations. It was a bipartisan congressional investigation and it was a gop led doj.

Mueller did not clear Trump of crimes, saying he would if he could. He couldn’t. A bunch of Trump inner circles indicted and in jail. We will know after Jan 20 2021 if he himself is indicted. He did it to himself with his behaviors. What you are seeing now is the same behaviors on display.

 

What's the difference between being disingenuous or straight-up stupid?
I know, but let's see if OP can break it down.

 

He was not. He was investigated for abuse of power, obstruction of justice and there were investigations into election interference.

 

There was a press conference yesterday where his attorneys outlined what they intended to prove. It was stated in the conference that they intended to prove it. I'm assuming they would do that in court. Also, I don't think Powell has been to court. Lin Wood went to court in GA but he was representing GA voters, not Trump, although I think he's on Trump's team. This idea of them not proving anything is technically true but I think it's unrealistic to expect them to prove their case through the media.

 

Last post. Not going through this again.


“The president was not exculpated for the acts that he allegedly committed,” Mueller told the House judiciary committee, adding that Trump could theoretically be indicted after he leaves office.

“We did not address ‘collusion,’ which is not a legal term,” Mueller added. “Rather, we focused on whether the evidence was sufficient to charge any member of the campaign with taking part in a criminal conspiracy. It was not.”

 

Let's play a game of whataboutism. Might as well get some practice in, we'll be playing for years.

What if:
Hypothetical President HRC was being possibly investigated for the Benghazi affair. FBI already had one of her suspected cohorts in their sights.

She fires the head of the FBI and then says on national television that it was about the "Benghazi thing." The head of the FBI says he was told to proclaim his loyalty to her and to lay off the suspect.

This action in sum with other suspicious activities launches the investigation by a special counsel.

• HRC refuses to sit and speak with the investigative team. One of her legal team tells a reporter that they can't put her in front of investigators because she can't keep herself from lying.
• Many of her closest allies and campaign team are found guilty of various crimes in connection to the investigation- many of them for lying to investigators about the investigation.
• The former white house chief of staff says, on the record: "Even if you thought that this was not treasonous, or unpatriotic, or bad ****, and I happen to think it's all of that, you should have called the FBI immediately." Yes, Steve Bannon really said this.
• She daily insults, derides, and disrespects the investigative team publicly. The leaders of the team are lifelong democrats but she calls them "angry republicans."
• Despite being constantly denigrated and insulted as partisan witch hunters, the investigators run a thorough investigation with almost zero leaks, the investigator agrees with precedent that he cannot prosecute a sitting president, but he has found evidence of TEN counts of obstruction of justice.
• With the aid of her toady Attorney General, together they frame a narrative of total acquittal when that is precisely NOT what has happened. Their followers gulp it up: "Benghazi hoax!"
• The prosecution of obstruction of justice is of course a cornerstone of justice, because without it, perpetrators can lie/destroy evidence and always get away with crimes. But in the case of a sitting president, the only form of prosecution is through impeachment by congress.
• Republicans impeach, with reams of evidence for obstruction of justice, but HRC is found innocent not because she is innocent, but because of partisanship. The narrative of "Benghazi hoax" and "witch hunt" in the minds of democrats is further strengthened.
• HRC then pardons team members who were found guilty of lying to prosecutors- people who lied about the investigation itself, preventing investigators from getting to the truth.
• From this point on, and for eternity, any time republicans bring up how obviously fishy/criminal all of this is, democrats quip: "hoax! No proof! Get over it!"

 

How would you define "collusion"? Here is a summary of the Senate intelligence report released in August from the Center for American Progress:

https://www.americanprogress.org/pr...paign-colluded-russia-caps-neera-tanden-says/

This report confirms that President Donald Trump colluded with Russia during the 2016 election. It confirms the worst suspicions about Trump’s relationship with Russia, filling in the holes left in the report from former special counsel Robert Mueller. As Trump excuses Russian President Vladimir Putin placing bounties on U.S. troops and Russia continues to interfere in our democracy to aid Trump’s reelection, this report makes clear that there is no such thing as a coincidence with Trump and Russia.

The report from the Republican-led panel details close political coordination among the Trump campaign, Wikileaks, and Russian intelligence and operatives in 2016. At the most pivotal moment of that campaign, when the Access Hollywood tape revealing President Trump’s confession of a lifetime of sexual assault, Trump’s confidante Roger Stone successfully requested that Russia’s illegally hacked materials be released immediately.

This revelation also explains why President Trump dangled a pardon for Roger Stone for months, why U.S. Attorney General William Barr gave Stone special treatment amidst an open rebellion from U.S. Department of Justice professionals, and why Trump went even further to commute Stone’s sentence as Stone was concealing these facts from federal investigators. Trump lied to law enforcement about his conversations with Stone and needed Stone to keep quiet about it. This raises serious criminal questions for both Trump and Stone to which the next administration should give full scrutiny.

​

From:
https://www.bostonherald.com/2020/08/24/senate-panel-trump-colluded-with-russia-in-2016-election/

For starters, the committee established that the notorious June 2016 meeting hosted at Trump Towers by Trump’s campaign manager, Paul Manafort, Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner and Donald Trump Jr. for the purpose of receiving Russian dirt on Hillary Clinton wasn’t just with any old Russians. It included Russians who had “significant connections to the Russian government, including the Russian intelligence services.” The links between one of them and the Kremlin were, it stated, “far more extensive and concerning than what had been publicly known.” This, of course, was the meeting set up by Trump Jr., who responded to a Russian intermediary’s promise that it would yield information damaging to Clinton with this inspirational, high-minded message: “If it’s what you say it is, I love it.”

Then there are the detailed findings about the close, longtime relationships between Manafort and Konstantin Kilimnik, a Russian intelligence officer, and between Manafort and Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska, a Putin intimate who, according to the Senate, has acted as “a proxy for the Russian state and intelligence services” dating back to 2004, when Manafort met him. Manafort, convicted by a federal jury of tax and bank fraud, shared confidential Trump campaign information, including polling data and campaign strategies, with Kilimnik. Perhaps Kilimnik simply has a fascination with American political campaigns, and put this information on his night stand next to Theodore White’s classic “The Making of the President 1960,” but one may be forgiven for inferring that there are alternative explanations.

The committee found evidence that Kilimnik was personally tied to Russia’s operation, carried out by Russian intelligence, to interfere in our presidential election. And it concluded that Manafort’s relationship with Kilimnik “represented a grave counterintelligence threat” to the United States.

And the committee established that — surprise! — Trump’s sworn denials to the special counsel that he recalled any Trump campaign contacts with Trump adviser Roger Stone, who was a liaison with Russian intelligence operatives about the Democratic emails they had hacked and then released through Wikileaks, were false. “The committee assesses that Trump did, in fact, speak with Stone about Wikileaks and with members of his campaign about Stone’s access to Wikileaks on multiple occasions,” the committee found.
​

​

Evidently people can disagree on whether those activities rise to the level of "collusion" that can be prosecuted in a court of law. But those activities have been documented by a bipartisan, Republican-led intelligence committee report.

Please compare that to the evidence that Trump's legal team has come up with indicating that Trump is the rightful winner of the 2016 election.

 

Steve Bannon, campaign manager of Trump's successful election, and white house chief of staff, on the record in the book Fire and Fury:

 

did you even. read. my post.

 

Where are you seeing collusion in that?

Just when I think you could not show your ignorance any plainer.

 

Yep.