You say a ton of evidence has already been revealed. Please provide one shred of evidence of collusion. Anything.
I think the whole point is that there isn't any actual proof and there likely won't ever be any. This was always a political thing and the goals were always entirely political. It's not about what actually happened, it's about having an excuse to bash the president....despite the fact that he bends over backwards giving people legitimate reasons all the time. Apparently the legitimate stuff is too boring.
Quite true. I just wanted him to try to defend his false statement. He mentioned Sessions & Flynn but there has been no evidence of collusion found concerning either one of them thus far.
WSJ (far from liberal) just reported that there is evidence of collusion between Flynn and Russia. That is about as official as evidence is going to get while Mueller is still investigating.
Evidence that a crime was committed, evidence that there was in fact collusion/coordination, or circumstancial evidence that needs to be investigated? There is a big difference in all three levels of course but all three levels carry a significant appropriate level of concern and should be investigated. Circumstacial evidence .... really? That's all over the place and if I need to point out clear circumstancial evidence (like Stones communications with Guccifer 2.0 or Farrage meeting with Assange the day of a Wiki dump) then you are playing a partisan game and nobody here should take you seriously. Evidence of collusion... well if confirmed to be true(meaning it's found that he was talking to Flynn), the Flynn report I just posted from the WSJ is actual evidence. Crimes... well unless you are on the grand jury, or are Mueller himself, there is no indictment that we know of that says indefinitely that a crime was committed. So when you and others say "what evidence do you have that a crime of collusion was committed" you are setting up a straw man argument. Let's be real here and distinguish the three levels of "evidence" and stop saying crime or no crime. We have the evidence that we have. And what we have sure as hell doesnt say "there's NOTHING there". Please dont shame people into thinking that are crazy for having concerns about circumstancial evidence or the appearance on actual evidence that needs to be confirmed. These are serious allegations and we are allowed to take them seriously.
An unconfirmed report is not evidence, so a better way to say what you just did is that there is no evidence, but you really hope that one day there will be some.
So now the WSJ is fake news. Would you be this patient in your judgement of Obama if the same circumstances were applied?
Bobster, go back and read all of his words. Just because you are not a aware of any evidence of wrong doing does not mean there is not evidence.
Oh I read them, and the point is that there is currently no publicly available evidence to base an opinion on. Right now those who wish to believe that there was some kind of Russian collusion are operating on hope that one day some evidence will surface. An unconfirmed report is not that evidence.
Trump has reportedly asked his aides to come up with 'deliverables' he can offer to Putin in their big meeting https://finance.yahoo.com/news/trump-reportedly-asked-aides-come-174946980.html?.tsrc=fauxdal
... and likewise the unconfirmed report may turn out to be correct. We do not know for sure either way. For now, the WSJ story adds to the growing amount of allegations between Russia and the Trump Campaign.
That's just the point though, we don't know, so acting like yet another unconfirmed report is canon is not the best course of action. If any legit evidence comes to light, then we'll have a story, till then we don't.
...so is this Russia/GOP collusion story dead now? It seems to have lost its place in the news cycle, even on the left websites like CNN and Huffpo.
Yep, on to the next one. The new theory is that Trump is mentally ill. A lot of liberal commentators are sure of this diagnosis.
