Cont: All things Trump + Russia Part 3

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Hope Hicks may testify as soon as Friday

 

[WilliamSeger]

That's what I mean though. If she would have said, "Give me money or I'm telling the press", he didn't pay her, and then I saw it in the news. It really wouldn't bother me all that much. So why even bother going through with the blackmail? Everyone knows he's a creep at this point. Like 12 accusations? Sleeping with a porn star would only make him appeal to his base more. Certainly not all of them, but the core believers.

I was thinking more about the Russians or the mob.

 

[plague311]

I was thinking more about the Russians or the mob.

At this point, I really don't think his base would care, and the GOP certainly isn't going out of their way to make any progress. It's seriously sad to say but I don't think at this point even that would bother his true believers.

Do we even have 1 Trump supporter on this skeptics forum that believes Trump has colluded?

 

[phiwum]

At this point, I really don't think his base would care, and the GOP certainly isn't going out of their way to make any progress. It's seriously sad to say but I don't think at this point even that would bother his true believers.

Do we even have 1 Trump supporter on this skeptics forum that believes Trump has colluded?

Why is that a reasonable test? I am very far from a Trump supporter. I regard him as easily the worst President we have had in my lifetime and probably ever. But I don't have an opinion on whether he has colluded with the Russians. He sure coulda, but it's possible he din't.

 

[Garrette]

Why is that a reasonable test? I am very far from a Trump supporter. I regard him as easily the worst President we have had in my lifetime and probably ever. But I don't have an opinion on whether he has colluded with the Russians. He sure coulda, but it's possible he din't.

This is my position exactly. On a personal level were I to make an informal bet I would wager he did something along those lines or -- at best -- allowed those around him to do it. But that's not proof, and as far as something actionable goes, I'm not only happy to wait but insistent on waiting for the results of the Mueller investigation. (NB: Not the congressional committees; they are slightly better than a joke)

 

[quadraginta]

This is my position exactly. On a personal level were I to make an informal bet I would wager he did something along those lines or -- at best -- allowed those around him to do it. But that's not proof, and as far as something actionable goes, I'm not only happy to wait but insistent on waiting for the results of the Mueller investigation. (NB: Not the congressional committees; they are slightly better than a joke)

They're a great joke. High comedy (or mebbe low comedy). Mel Brooks might balk at a script like that, though. Too implausible even for him.

It's just that they're just a waste of oxygen as investigative bodies.

 

[plague311]

Why is that a reasonable test?

Because I, personally, believe it's a reasonable connection to make given the mountains of evidence, and the few guilty pleas that have come through. You certainly don't have to agree. I wouldn't really say it's unreasonable, but that's the point of a debate forum I guess.

I am very far from a Trump supporter.

I think we can stop touting this line ad nauseum. He's been POTUS for a year. I understand there are some on the fence and some who aren't. It's been clearly established, but thank you for informing me.

I regard him as easily the worst President we have had in my lifetime and probably ever.

Yes, another line that seems to be extremely common.

But I don't have an opinion on whether he has colluded with the Russians. He sure coulda, but it's possible he din't.

Cool. You think he's easily the worst President, you don't support him at all, but with all of the evidence available you still don't think he at least had his people reach out? Awesome. I don't see it, and I really don't need it explained to me, but to each their own.

 

[phiwum]

Because I, personally, believe it's a reasonable connection to make given the mountains of evidence, and the few guilty pleas that have come through. You certainly don't have to agree. I wouldn't really say it's unreasonable, but that's the point of a debate forum I guess.



I think we can stop touting this line ad nauseum. He's been POTUS for a year. I understand there are some on the fence and some who aren't. It's been clearly established, but thank you for informing me.



Yes, another line that seems to be extremely common.



Cool. You think he's easily the worst President, you don't support him at all, but with all of the evidence available you still don't think he at least had his people reach out? Awesome. I don't see it, and I really don't need it explained to me, but to each their own.

First, I reminded you of my opinion because I don't expect you to recall every poster's position. I just wanted to give you context.

Second, the most damning evidence of collusion, far as I'm concerned, is Junior's meeting. Clearly, little Don was happy to collude. Add to that the Papadopoulos bit, and it's pretty clear to me that some in the campaign were eager and willing to work with the Russians.

Trump was likely informed and approved, I guess, but I'll wait for clear evidence before I decide with any certainty.

 

[plague311]

First, I reminded you of my opinion because I don't expect you to recall every poster's position. I just wanted to give you context.

Thanks.

Second, the most damning evidence of collusion, far as I'm concerned, is Junior's meeting. Clearly, little Don was happy to collude. Add to that the Papadopoulos bit, and it's pretty clear to me that some in the campaign were eager and willing to work with the Russians.

Sure. I see so much more than that, but again, to each their own. Kushner wanting to set a back channel, the "odd" network connections (and now a cyber security prosecutor), the fact that daddy wrote juniors text for him, the fact he made up both a doctors statement (with the wrong name) and signed it, the fact he made up a statement from a porn star, and then signed it with the porn name. The man NEEDS to be involved, and have his word in everything. Again, to each their own, and that list isn't comprehensive. There are so many connections at this point I don't have the time to list them.

Trump was likely informed and approved, I guess, but I'll wait for clear evidence before I decide with any certainty.

Would that really be certainty? People are wrongly convicted all of the time. Are we ever really sure? Can we be positive? *deep thoughts*

 

[jond]

First, I reminded you of my opinion because I don't expect you to recall every poster's position. I just wanted to give you context.

Second, the most damning evidence of collusion, far as I'm concerned, is Junior's meeting. Clearly, little Don was happy to collude. Add to that the Papadopoulos bit, and it's pretty clear to me that some in the campaign were eager and willing to work with the Russians.

Trump was likely informed and approved, I guess, but I'll wait for clear evidence before I decide with any certainty.

The fact that hours after the meeting was set, Trump tweeted that he'd have a major announcement the following week with dirt on Hillary doesn't seem like clear evidence he was informed of exactly what was going on?

 

[Crossbow]

The fact that hours after the meeting was set, Trump tweeted that he'd have a major announcement the following week with dirt on Hillary doesn't seem like clear evidence he was informed of exactly what was going on?

Well, ...

That is just about what 'phiwum' did say in the post that you quoted.

 

[Minoosh]

Latest nothing burger: The Steele dossier claim that Trump uses Cohen as a fixer is now confirmed by the $130K payment to Stormy Daniels. And since Trump apparently isn't as careful as he claims to be (shocking!) perhaps Mueller will find that Trump's pro-Putin agenda is the result of blackmail instead of collusion after all.

How do you blackmail someone that shameless? What would Putin have on him? Unless it's juicier than a video of prostitutes pissing on a bed, I don't think it would matter.

 

[Hellbound]

Hmm.

I kinda have to agree with both.

To the standard of a civil trial (preponderance of evidence), I'd say Trump colluded.

For criminal standards (beyond reasonable doubt), I'm not sure enough to convict yet.

I think the differing standards of evidence may be part of the disagreement here.

Or, I could be wrong. I always like to have that option open.

 

[Civet]

Hmm.

I kinda have to agree with both.

To the standard of a civil trial (preponderance of evidence), I'd say Trump colluded.

For criminal standards (beyond reasonable doubt), I'm not sure enough to convict yet.

I think the differing standards of evidence may be part of the disagreement here.

Or, I could be wrong. I always like to have that option open.

I think a lot of it will come down to what people like Kushner and Trump Jr. are willing to say under oath. If they're willing to swear to a (presumably coached) version of events that exonerates Trump Sr. (Papa Don maybe? still not sure what nickname I want to use for him) of anything illegal I doubt there's going to be a smoking gun recording or email to prove them liars.

 

[phiwum]

The fact that hours after the meeting was set, Trump tweeted that he'd have a major announcement the following week with dirt on Hillary doesn't seem like clear evidence he was informed of exactly what was going on?

That's pretty good evidence, but I'll wait and see what happens from the investigation.

That said, that's a good point.

 

[Darat]

I doubt that Trump will ever be directly linked to collusion with Russia, remember he doesn't do anything himself, he would not have the slightest clue how to set up a meeting.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

How do you blackmail someone that shameless? What would Putin have on him? Unless it's juicier than a video of prostitutes pissing on a bed, I don't think it would matter.

Perhaps extortion is a better word choice. You threaten to ruin him financially. Or the blackmail could be exposing him for the fraud he is, not worth billions at all as it's all debt and no assets. Trump is sensitive to anything that threatens his ego.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I doubt that Trump will ever be directly linked to collusion with Russia, remember he doesn't do anything himself, he would not have the slightest clue how to set up a meeting.

But there are other ways to collude, such as the quo part of the quid pro quo.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

How do you blackmail someone that shameless? What would Putin have on him? Unless it's juicier than a video of prostitutes pissing on a bed, I don't think it would matter.

Well, he made Ivana sign a gag order - she's not allowed to say anything about their marriage without his prior explicit approval. He's also alleged to have paid off at least 2 porn stars about their relationships. So there evidently can be stuff that he doesn't want in the public domain.

 

[Childlike Empress]

An excellent German youtube channel I'm subscribed to has interviewed Aaron Maté (the guy who made Luke Harding look like what he is) about Russiagate in their "know your stuff" series. Part 1 just published: