I think there was collusion during the campaign and that he knew about it/was involved. I've thought it since that dossier came out before he actually stepped into the Oval Office. Hell, I thought calling on the hackers to publicly release their stolen material was itself a violation of campaign law at a minimum, even without the collusion with a foreign government aspect. Call it a preponderance of evidence and "where there's smoke there's fire" interpretation. But you keep talking in terms of a specific pieces of evidence or insisting things are beyond doubt. And that means I'm going to point out that whatever specific piece of material you want to hang things on doesn't really work that way or why people might reasonably doubt. Since apparently nothing actually came of the meeting there is no reason to think Trump or any other candidate HAD to have been aware of it. You can claim that the father/son relationship makes it ridiculous to think they wouldn't talk about it but one can claim with equal plausibility that their established familial and working relationship meant Jr. could be a proxy for Trump and act on his own initiative in a wide range of campaign endeavors including a meeting like this. And if/when we're talking in criminal terms, the whole "preponderance of evidence" thing is strictly verboten. That's a civil standard.Originally Posted by Steely Glint
Reply With Quote