Why No Evidence of Collusion With the Russians ?

[Airbrush]

This is a question I haven't heard answered. Can anyone answer it? Fox News often repeats this mantra. Would there be evidence of the Trump campaign's collusion with Russia, available to the general public, considering the investigations have been going on for a year already? I would guess any evidence would have been confiscated by the investigations, and we would not know about it. Or is it a reasonable argument against collusion? Is it reasonable to suppose that such evidence would inevitably leak out?

 

We are told the investigations may take a year or longer. Can nothing be revealed to the public until the investigations reach conclusions?

Edited June 25, 2017 by Airbrush

[HB of CJ]

Or perhaps there is nothing there? An attempted much to do about nothing? Snow Flake frying?

[swansont]

What's your definition of collusion?

 

Because this is something you might find illuminating

https://mobile.twitter.com/SethAbramson/status/877229157280874496

[Ten oz]

- Members of Trump's campaign reportedly reached out to Russian hackers in an attempt to obtain hacked (illegally obtained) emails:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/gop-activist-who-sought-clinton-emails-cited-trump-campaign-officials-1498872923

 

- Members of Trump's campaign knowing distributed Russia propaganda via their social media effort through 3rd party company Cambridge Analytica:

http://time.com/4783932/inside-russia-social-media-war-america/

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/05/23/fec-trump-russia-facebook-238695

https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevenbertoni/2017/05/26/jared-kushner-in-his-own-words-on-the-trump-data-operation-the-fbi-is-reportedly-probing/#262b260fa90f

 

- Then candidate Trump was briefed by U.S. intellignce that Russia was responsible for the hacks yet Trump himself continued to publicly claim otherwise, cite hacked material, andblame China:

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/trump-was-told-russia-was-blame-hacks-long-debate-n663686

 

- Key members of Trump's staff (Kushner and Flynn) omitted meetings with Russia when filling out their Security Clearance forms:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/06/us/politics/jared-kushner-russians-security-clearance.html

 

- There are also many other questions regarding Manafort, Page, and Stone's activities:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2017/05/30/timeline-what-we-know-about-trumps-campaign-russia-and-the-investigation-of-the-two/?utm_term=.4877bd9913df

 

Claiming "No Evidence" is easy. Just dismissing any evidence produced is also easy. For example, what "evidence" is there that OJ killed Nicole? You might cite things link DNA, bloody gloves,and OJ's history of violence but I can dismiss all that by claiming DNA is unreliable (it isn't), the gloves didn't fit (they did), and his history of violence was taken out of context (it's wasn't). Denial is easy when one lacks integrity.

 

We know for a fact, that at the absolute minimum, Trump was personally aware that it was the universal belief of our Intel agencies that Russia was responsible for the hacks and attempting to influence the election (in his favor) and he still publicly provided Russia cover by denying reports, criticizing our intel cummunity publicly, used the hack material in his ad campaigns, and publicly imply it may have been China. Alone those actions are extraordinarily unethical, deeply unpatriotic, and served to provide Russia cover and continues to. The attitude from the right seems to be that so long as Trump lied and obfuscated to the benefit of Russia out of stupidity and greed rather than coordination it is acceptable. As if his campiagn was he on twitter alone and not a staff of thousands strategically managing events.We know Trump's team was aware of what was happening and willfully took advantage of it and since have sought to cover the whole thing up with a series of deflections and denials. The only thingswe don't know for sure is whether or not money of formally exchanged, promises were made, or if specific attacks were by request.

[Ten oz]

"President Trump's eldest son, Donald Trump Jr., admitted Sunday to meeting last summer with a Russian attorney because she "might have information helpful to" his father's campaign.

The meeting was first reported by the New York Times and occurred just weeks after Trump secured the GOP nomination. It was also attended by Trump's then-campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, who would later briefly serve as campaign manager, and Trump's son-in-law, Jared Kushner, who now serves as a White House senior adviser."

 

http://www.npr.org/2017/07/09/536345533/trump-son-admits-to-meeting-russian-lawyer-with-offer-of-helpful-info-for-campai

[Sensei]

What kind of evidences would you like to see.. ?

 

Private e-mails between one side and the other side.. ?

Face-to-face meetings.. ? In hotel or other public place, recorded by camera.. ? Or maybe even recorded voice what they're talking.. ?

Built-in smartphone GPS records (or date/time of logging to cell site) showing they were very close, suspiciously close, to each other.. ?

(that's the most widely used by police in criminal investigations these days (in accidental, not planned, crimes especially) )

Gathering data about the all smartphones from the all people now working for government.. ?

 

Somebody who wants to send message does not need to use above traditional ways of communication.

f.e. can write public tweet, or public forum message instead, with secret message, understandable just for the right people..

Edited July 10, 2017 by Sensei

[Ten oz]

What kind of evidences would you like to see.. ?

 

Private e-mails between one side and the other side.. ?

Face-to-face meetings.. ? In hotel or other public place, recorded by camera.. ? Or maybe even recorded voice what they're talking.. ?

Built-in smartphone GPS records (or date/time of logging to cell site) showing they were very close, suspiciously close, to each other.. ?

(that's the most widely used by police in criminal investigations these days (in accidental, not planned, crimes especially) )

Gathering data about the all smartphones from the all people now working for government.. ?

 

Somebody who wants to send message does not need to use above traditional ways of communication.

f.e. can write public tweet, or public forum message instead, with secret message, understandable just for the right people..

 

 

[Airbrush]

What is a smart one-liner to give in reply to the next Fox News/WH/Trump claim that there is "still no evidence for collusion" with the Russians? Since there is still no evidence for collusion with the Russians, the investigations are witch hunts.

 

Is it possible that there IS solid, documentary, time-stamped evidence for collusion, but that was appropriated by one, or all 3, investigations? Why does nobody reply to "still no evidence for collusion" with a snappy "yeah, but any evidence is confidential until the investigation(s) reach conclusions, and the results are made PUBLIC!"

 

What am I missing?

Edited July 10, 2017 by Airbrush

[swansont]

What is a smart one-liner to give in reply to the next Fox News/WH/Trump claim that there is "still no evidence for collusion" with the Russians? Since there is still no evidence for collusion with the Russians, the investigations are witch hunts.

 

Is it possible that there IS solid, documentary, time-stamped evidence for collusion, but that was appropriated by one, or all 3, investigations? Why does nobody reply to "still no evidence for collusion" with a snappy "yeah, but any evidence is confidential until the investigation(s) reach conclusions, and the results are made PUBLIC!"

 

What am I missing?

What's your definition of collusion? Your question suggests that there is some legal statute defining it.

[Ten oz]

What is a smart one-liner to give in reply to the next Fox News/WH/Trump claim that there is "still no evidence for collusion" with the Russians? Since there is still no evidence for collusion with the Russians, the investigations are witch hunts.

 

Is it possible that there IS solid, documentary, time-stamped evidence for collusion, but that was appropriated by one, or all 3, investigations? Why does nobody reply to "still no evidence for collusion" with a snappy "yeah, but any evidence is confidential until the investigation(s) reach conclusions, and the results are made PUBLIC!"

 

What am I missing?

 

 

"President Trump's eldest son, Donald Trump Jr., admitted Sunday to meeting last summer with a Russian attorney because she "might have information helpful to" his father's campaign.

The meeting was first reported by the New York Times and occurred just weeks after Trump secured the GOP nomination. It was also attended by Trump's then-campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, who would later briefly serve as campaign manager, and Trump's son-in-law, Jared Kushner, who now serves as a White House senior adviser."

 

http://www.npr.org/2017/07/09/536345533/trump-son-admits-to-meeting-russian-lawyer-with-offer-of-helpful-info-for-campai

 

Jr is his own words admits to attending a meeting with Russian agent for the specific purpose of receiving help for his father. Kushner and Manafort were with him. Trump himself continued to use the hacked material, direct his supporters to the material, and "joke" about wishing Russia would hack do more hacking for months after being privately briefed that Russia was behind it and interfering with the election. Alone just based on those 2 things we know Trump's campaign solicted Russia for help and was implicit in distributing Russia's illegally obtained material.

 

What people are really saying when that fain no evidence is that they simply do not care. Saying "no evidence" is equal to saying "so what" at this point.

[Airbrush]

What's your definition of collusion? Your question suggests that there is some legal statute defining it.

 

I have no special definition for "collusion". I am only referring to what I hear over and over on Fox News.

 

According to the now-infamous Russian lawyer, Natalia, Donald Trump Jr wanted information "so badly" about the DNC. How did she know they wanted this info so badly?

 

"It's quite possible that maybe they were longing for such information. They wanted it so badly,” Veselnitskaya said of the June 2016 meeting."

 

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/07/11/russian-lawyer-natalia-veselnitskaya-interview-240393

 

[swansont]

Is "I love it" sufficient?

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/11/us/politics/trump-russia-email-clinton.html?smprod=nytcore-iphone&smid=nytcore-iphone-share

I have no special definition for "collusion". I am only referring to what I hear over and over on Fox News.

Perhaps that's part of the problem. What is Fox news going to say on the issue?

If "collusion" hasn't been defined, it's easy to say there is no evidence of it. Whatever information exists, you just say "That's not evidence of collusion" because collusion is always something else. And, as I noted, there is no legal definition. Collusion is not, in and of itself, a criminal offense.

All you really need is any kind of cooperation. As my previous link points out, there could have been a criminal conspiracy, which would be one form of collusion. But not all collusion would have to be conspiracy. The Times article renders all this moot, but all you really need is for them to have met (and we know they did, multiple times, and covered up the meetings*) and agreed to anything. And now we know they did, because Fredo put it in an email.

 

*Since covering up the meetings (lying on an SF-86) is likely a criminal act, that probably means that this is officially a criminal conspiracy.

[Airbrush]

Yes, thanks, I just heard the "I love it" reply from DT Jr to the incriminating email.

Edited July 11, 2017 by Airbrush

[CharonY]

Donald Jr. has released some emails (apologies if they were listed earlier already). https://apps.npr.org/documents/document.html?id=3892196-Donald-Trump-Jr-Email-Exchange

[Ten oz]

Now that it is indisputable that the Trump campaign sought Russia's help to get illegally obtained material with the belief that Russia want to help Trump win can we all agree Trump has obstructed justice in the investigation into such matters? Part of the denial of Trump's obstruction of justice was based in the notion that there was no initial violation to obstruct justice with regards to. Seems Don Jr has confirm both the collusion and obstruction of justice simultaneously.

[CharonY]

Now that it is indisputable that the Trump campaign sought Russia's help to get illegally obtained material with the belief that Russia want to help Trump win can we all agree Trump has obstructed justice in the investigation into such matters? Part of the denial of Trump's obstruction of justice was based in the notion that there was no initial violation to obstruct justice with regards to. Seems Don Jr has confirm both the collusion and obstruction of justice simultaneously.

 

I am not so sure. The emails, at least do not indicate that Donald Sr. was actually informed of that event (though it was mentioned that the info was supposed to be given to him). Also, there is the claim that nothing of value was really exchanged. I.e. at this point one can only state with certainty that parties in the Trump campaign (Donald Jr, Kushner, Manafort) were interested in gaining information from the Russians and that Kushner did not disclose this meeting (which could be an offense, depending whether the lawyer has any official position, which Goldstone seemed to imply).

 

So while it does not paint a pretty picture, it is still in the deniable area, I guess.

[Ten oz]

 

I am not so sure. The emails, at least do not indicate that Donald Sr. was actually informed of that event (though it was mentioned that the info was supposed to be given to him). Also, there is the claim that nothing of value was really exchanged. I.e. at this point one can only state with certainty that parties in the Trump campaign (Donald Jr, Kushner, Manafort) were interested in gaining information from the Russians and that Kushner did not disclose this meeting (which could be an offense, depending whether the lawyer has any official position, which Goldstone seemed to imply).

 

So while it does not paint a pretty picture, it is still in the deniable area, I guess.

It is only a crime if something valuable is exchanged? Many of undercover narcotics and prostitution police officers arrest people on solicitation alone. Terrorists have been arrested for planning to commit acts. Intent was there and that is what's necessary to prove a crime.

 

As for whether or not Trump personally knew; it is his campaign, his staff, and his relatives. People he is still leaning on to handle matters for him now. Trump himself is on record saying he fired Comey to make the investigation go away. Back when Watergate went down Nixon legitimately knew nothing about it but was impeached for trying to make it go away once he learned. Additionally Nixon won the popular vote by 18 million in that Election as opposed to lost it by 3 million. So claims that the illegal behavior by the campaign made no difference were more clear.

[CharonY]

If someone offered legally obtained info (we do not know what was offered) it is certainly not illegal. However if it was something of value and from a foreign power, it might be considered as an illegal campaign contribution.

In case of a sting I believe the offender actually has to agree to a deal or actively solicit something.

Edited July 12, 2017 by CharonY

[Bells]

 

I am not so sure. The emails, at least do not indicate that Donald Sr. was actually informed of that event (though it was mentioned that the info was supposed to be given to him). Also, there is the claim that nothing of value was really exchanged. I.e. at this point one can only state with certainty that parties in the Trump campaign (Donald Jr, Kushner, Manafort) were interested in gaining information from the Russians and that Kushner did not disclose this meeting (which could be an offense, depending whether the lawyer has any official position, which Goldstone seemed to imply).

 

So while it does not paint a pretty picture, it is still in the deniable area, I guess.

If nothing of value was exchanged from the meeting, then it stands to reason that the Trump campaign would not have seen Trump tweeting that very day, of an upcoming speech that would discuss Clinton being open to blackmail, a speech that was apparently written by those who attended the meeting with the Russian lawyer, a meeting that was intended to provide them with that information.

 

If the emails did not mention the fact that this information came from the Russian government with the intent expression of helping Trump win the election, then one might claim that meh, perhaps there was nothing really in it. But not only do those emails clearly state they came from the Russian Government who wanted to help Trump win the election, but Trump tweeted that very same day, about having new dirt on Clinton, then within a week, Wikileaks does the document dump of the hacked emails from the DNC, then Trump gives his speech. I think we can all accept that there was something of value exchanged in that meeting. If there was not, Trump would not have been tweeting about new dirt on Clinton that same day.

 

The information was gathered illegally. Had the Trump campaign been open about that meeting, those emails and the repeated contacts from the outset, then perhaps we could say there was nothing really to this, that this just looks dodgy. But the repeated denials, the outright lying.. People do not lie like that unless they have something to hide and in the last 24 hours, Trump Jnr just revealed that they were hiding a doozy. Assange is now tweeting about how he reached out to Trump Jnr to advised him to release the emails, to "get ahead of his enemies", who in this instance happens to be the free press.

 

Those emails show a lengthy negotiation to set up this meeting, knowing full well and from the outset that the information to be presented at that meeting came from the Russian government. Not only that, even when it became clear that the Wikileaks dump of those emails were the result of Russian hacking, had the Trump campaign come out and said that they were contacted by the Russians and told that the Russian government had info on Clinton that could help them and that they had walked out of the meeting, there may have been something to salvage. Instead we have an exchange of emails, at least 3 senior members of his campaign attending a meeting they knew would have information from the Russian government and then lying about it for months.

[swansont]

Also, there is the claim that nothing of value was really exchanged. I.e. at this point one can only state with certainty that parties in the Trump campaign (Donald Jr, Kushner, Manafort) were interested in gaining information from the Russians and that Kushner did not disclose this meeting (which could be an offense, depending whether the lawyer has any official position, which Goldstone seemed to imply).

 

Doesn't matter, AFAIK. The fact that they met to discuss it establishes a conspiracy.

 

It strains credulity to think that Senior didn't know.

[Ten oz]

If someone offered legally obtained info (we do not know what was offered) it is certainly not illegal. However if it was something of value and from a foreign power, it might be considered as an illegal campaign contribution.

In case of a sting I believe the offender actually has to agree to a deal or actively solicit something.

We know they believed they were meeting with people who represented the Russian Gov't and that Russia was interested in helping them. Does it matter what info actually changed hands?

 

Also, Trump and his people have repeatedly denied such things ever happened at all. Only when caught red handed did Flynn fess up, did Sessions fess up, and etc. At that they downplay events while confessing despite months worth of denial and lies. It is safe to assume this lone meeting of Don Jr, Kushner, and Manafort wasn't the only contact. Just as it was safe to assume Flynns phone call wasn't the only contact or that Sessions meeting during the RNC wasn't the only meeting. We now have a clear pattern where several bouts of vehement denials have been proven to be lies.

 

As for what Trump himselfs knows vs what his team knows, he refuses to say. Trump still refuses to say whether or not he accepts that Russia interfered in the election. Even as his Sec of Defense, U.N. Ambassador, Sec. of State, VP, and etc make public statement after public statement that it was absolutely Russia Trump continues hedge and play stupid. The man is the President of the United States of America for goodness sakes. Plausible deniability via omission really shouldn't apply; not when the actions of his people are public. He is either in charge and capable of managing his team or too incompetent and as such totally compromised.

 

Doesn't matter, AFAIK. The fact that they met to discuss it establishes a conspiracy.

 

It strains credulity to think that Senior didn't know.

We know for 100% he knows now and what is he doing about it? Kushner is still in the WH and his wife just sat in for Trump at the G20 for meetings with world leaders. As for Don Jr. he is receiving tweets of support from POTUS.

 

If somehow or someway Trump wasn't aware at the time his current actions show that he wouldn't have cared. He is implicit to his teams actions. Jeff Sessions was caught on tape lying to the Senate still is Trump's Attorney General. Kushner falsifying his clearance formhas been know for a couple month now and nothing has been done. It is absurd to offer Trump the alibi of not knowing things at the time when he does absolutely nothing in realtime when those things come to light.

[CharonY]

 

Doesn't matter, AFAIK. The fact that they met to discuss it establishes a conspiracy.

 

It strains credulity to think that Senior didn't know.

 

Hmm is that sufficient cause for persecution? If so, I stand corrected.

[swansont]

 

Hmm is that sufficient cause for persecution? If so, I stand corrected.

 

 

Persecution or prosecution? Nobody is being prosecuted at the moment, and arguably nobody is being persecuted about this, either.

 

It's certainly enough to warrant further investigation.

[Phi for All]

It strains credulity to think that Senior didn't know.

 

Huff Post put together some tweets and speeches from last year about the time Don Jr set his meeting with the Russians, and it sure looks like senior knew.

[CharonY]

Persecution or prosecution? Nobody is being prosecuted at the moment, and arguably nobody is being persecuted about this, either.

 

It's certainly enough to warrant further investigation.

Foiled by autocorrect. Yes I was referring to the likelihood of an eventual prosecution which would lead more credence than there was an intent for obstruction of justice. But I fully agree that at minimum it warrants further investigation.