Quote Originally Posted by wiggin View Post
Steely, no 'further revelations' can contradict us because our statements are explicitly predicated on what information is publicly available.
We're all looking at the information that is publicly available, it's just that for some reason you and Fuzz seem to insist on looking at each individual piece in isolation, rather than consider the damning picture the totality of what we know paints.

On their own, a semi-innocent explanation for the Trump Jr e-mails becomes at least somewhat plausible, and if that was all there was I might be more inclined to agree with you. But it isn't. It's damn hard to concoct an innocent explanation which fits with everything we know.

I won't speak for LF, but I have serious questions about Trump, the conduct of his campaign, and his relationship with Russia. But I am not willing to convict someone in the court of public opinion based on flimsy evidence.
The evidence isn't flimsy, it's damning. What you're looking for is cast iron proof. Waiting for that before holding political leaders to account is how you end up with a culture of impunity. How you've ended up with, rather. Even the appearance of impropriety should be enough to toss his ass out of office, and would be if you had a functional and healthy political culture.

As more information becomes available, it is entirely possible that the case against him will become overwhelming and unassailable. Yet it is currently largely circumstantial evidence backed by inference and supposition.
When you hear quacking, you don't need to see the ducks to know they are there. And I can hear quacking.

As for the obstruction issue, I do indeed think a strong case could be made that he has obstructed justice, though IANAL nor do I have all of the information.
He admitted it.

He. Admitted. It.

He openly asked Russia to hack the DNC, too. It's like that scene at the end of American Psycho where Bateman is trying to confess his crimes to everyone around him, and they just laugh him off.