What Do Trump and Republicans Mean by “Collusion”?

[BSM1]

There is no "legal term for 'collusion'".

Exactly! This is the most blatant witch hunt since the early days of Salem, Mass. Thank you for seeing the light.

 

[Falvlun]

Exactly! This is the most blatant witch hunt since the early days of Salem, Mass. Thank you for seeing the light.

Sigh

Collusion is the the general term the media decided to use to cover a range of illegal activities: aiding and abetting crimes, conspiracy, election fraud, or even treason.

 

[Nous]

Exactly! This is the most blatant witch hunt since the early days of Salem, Mass.

Just because Trump and Republicans have denied the existence of something they cannot define and that Mueller was not charged with investigating does not mean the investigation is a "witch hunt".

Are you just not interested in what links and coordinating the Trump campaign may have engaged in with Russians? Are you afraid to find out?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

So what do Trump and these Republicans mean by “collusion”?

They probably mean illegal activity involving the Russians with regard to the election.

Of course, that's just the tip of the iceberg. Trump has to worry about a lot more than election tampering. Money laundering, tax evasion, and possible FEC violations from the hush money payout. There is also the possibility of indicting for cybercrimes

And it seems like New York's District Attorney Eric Schneiderman is waiting for a shot at Trump for activities related to emolument's violations.

It looks like Kushner may have been doing some influence peddling out of the White House using classified information to secure large bank loans. If that's the case, Trump may be connected

So in reference to the above those that are trying to prove collusion have to prove that voters legal rights were violated.

All that is needed is to show that there was an illegal relationship that is considered collusion. They don't need to show that the voters' rights were violated or that the conclusion had any effect.

This investigation was based on hope and innuendo, and there has been zero evidence found. End of story.

There's actually quite a bit more than that. If you're not following the development of this matter, you wouldn't be expected to know about all of the evidence available to the public that has been accumulating

Here's how the Trump-Russia investigation is said to have been set off - alcohol loosened lips in a London bar in May of 2016.

I say said.to have been because there are also the FISA warrant wiretap transcripts on Manafort and Page that might have tipped off the FBI earlier, the Papadopoulus stuff being named as the starting point to try to keep those taps secret at that time.

But now, the investigation has broadened in scope as indicated above.

 

[Falvlun]

Are you just not interested in what links and coordinating the Trump campaign may have engaged in with Russians? Are you afraid to find out?

This is the part I don’t understand.

I get that Trump’s supporters want to believe he’s innocent.

I don’t get their dismissal of the crimes themselves. It’s not just “Trump didn’t do it.” It’s “Even if Trump did it, so what?”

Why do so many appear to be fine with the idea that a presidential candidate can make deals with a foreign government to get elected?

And if that candidate is elected, how can they not find it problematic that our President would then be beholden to that foreign government?

 

[idav]

Suspicion is what causes an investigation; evidence is what is found as a result of said investigation. This investigation was based on hope and innuendo, and there has been zero evidence found. End of story.

Sigh. Lets start with the word evidence.
""The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.""

Evidence doesnt mean something is true. The evidence tells us if its true or not true. Zero evidence is not possible.

 

[Nous]

This is the part I don’t understand.

I get that Trump’s supporters want to believe he’s innocent.

I don’t get their dismissal of the crimes themselves. It’s not just “Trump didn’t do it.” It’s “Even if Trump did it, so what?”

Why do so many appear to be fine with the idea that a presidential candidate can make deals with a foreign government to get elected?

And if that candidate is elected, how can they not find it problematic that our President would then be beholden to that foreign government?

It is indeed confounding--particularly given that the other participant in the criminal activity was not just "a foreign government" but Russia. But Trump has an "R" behind his name (these days, at least), so for dedicated R-partisans, anything is OK. (Thus, my use of the term "sycophant" in the OP, which upset a couple of people.)

 

[Revoltingest]

It is indeed confounding--particularly given that the other participant in the criminal activity was not just "a foreign government" but Russia. But Trump has an "R" behind his name (these days, at least), so for dedicated R-partisans, anything is OK. (Thus, my use of the term "sycophant" in the OP, which upset a couple of people.)

Not upset.
Just giving friendly advice so that you'd appear less hostile & histrionic.
Take it or not....it's up to you.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Suspicion is what causes an investigation; evidence is what is found as a result of said investigation. This investigation was based on hope and innuendo, and there has been zero evidence found. End of story.

Has the investigation concluded and released its findings? If not, how do you know what they have or haven't found?

 

[metis]

Seeking to acquire something of value from a foreign entity during an election, such as "dirt" on another candidate," would seem to entail "collusion".

I doubt that this would far enough legally though because, by itself, exactly which law(s) is/are broken. I'm certainly no lawyer, but it seems that there would have to be more involved than just acquiring "dirt".

OTOH, how one may acquire "dirt" could be another matter.

 

[metis]

This is the most blatant witch hunt since the early days of Salem, Mass.

It is virtually impossible for you to know that.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

This is the most blatant witch hunt since the early days of Salem, Mass.

I know that you're not keeping up with the news since you keep claiming that there is no evidence to support this investigation, so you will likely reel when the indictments come rolling out.

Are you aware of the trouble Trump, Don Jr, Ivanka, Kushner, Manafort, and Stone appear to be in? I'm guessing not. You'd need to be following the story closely.

Mueller didn't even want to interview Stone, who Nunberg stated Mueller had convened a grad jury for, which is bad news for Stone. He appears to be too late for a deal. Mueller doesn't even want to hear form him - just indict him, which is consistent with the idea that Mueller doen't interview his targets for information - information he likely already has - but to see what they hold back or change both to charge them with obstruction for so doing, and to identify the areas that his targets consider their own soft underbellies to direct him where else to focus.

Mueller also appears to have the ability to bring down a dozen more people, but may have already given them plea deals, Flynn being the most prominent. Sessions, Bannon, McGahn, Priebus, Gates, Clovis,and Hicks appear to have cut deals.

I'd call that a successful witch hunt. Who knew that there really are witches?

I don’t get their dismissal of the crimes themselves. It’s not just “Trump didn’t do it.” It’s “Even if Trump did it, so what?”

I don't get it either, but those are the values of the people that are trying to shelter Trump rather than support the investigation.

Pick one: country or party/president. When their interests are in conflict, which one matters most to you? Your choice defines your priorities.

Do any conservatives reading this disagree? If you circle around the president and his party when they might be doing damage to the nation, what are your priorities?

Remember Mike Pence's comment, "I'm a Christian, a conservative, and a Republican - in that order"? American didn't even make the list.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

It is virtually impossible for you to know that.

McCarthyism who?

 

[Shaul]

Trump has repeatedly claimed that the Special Counsel investigation has found “no collusion”. This probably convinces many Trump sycophants and fans that Mueller's investigation has failed to find any evidence of any wrongdoing.

Just within the past couple of days, Representative Mike Conaway told Chuck Todd that the House Intelligence Committee found no evidence of any “collusion”. Conaway: No 'conclusion' on collusion, but 'we found no evidence'

So what do Trump and these Republicans mean by “collusion”?

If you can't specify what is meant by the word “collusion,” then is there any rational purpose in claiming the absence of something that you can't specify?

I’m not aware of any Trump supporters that claim that Mueller’s investigation has failed to find any evidence of any wrongdoing. That would be absurd since Mueller hasn’t disclosed all that he has found. What Trump and his supporters have said is that he hasn’t found any evidence of collusion between Trump and Russia. Nor is it any problem of defining what collusion is. It is a standard word in English lexicon which anyone can look up. Are you suggesting that Trump and his followers need to define all the words they ever use? Or do you object to them using a term that merely lacks the specificity you want?

 

[Falvlun]

I’m not aware of any Trump supporters that claim that Mueller’s investigation has failed to find any evidence of any wrongdoing. That would be absurd since Mueller hasn’t disclosed all that he has found. What Trump and his supporters have said is that he hasn’t found any evidence of collusion between Trump and Russia.

That’s a direct contradiction.

If it’s absurd to say that the investigation hasn’t found evidence of wrongdoing because Mueller hasn’t disclosed all he’s found, then it is also absurd to claim that he hasn’t found any evidence of collusion between Russia and Trump.

You said it yourself: Mueller hasn’t disclosed all he’s found. So how can you assume that there’s no evidence of this particular wrongdoing?

Nor is it any problem of defining what collusion is. It is a standard word in English lexicon which anyone can look up. Are you suggesting that Trump and his followers need to define all the words they ever use? Or do you object to them using a term that merely lacks the specificity you want?

I think it’s an attempt to see if conservatives are using the same understanding as liberals. If, for instance, a conservative says that collusion is no big deal, and a liberal says it is, the problem may be that they are talking about two different things rather than an actual disagreement about the same thing.

Kinda like the endless “what god are you talking about” debates.

 

[Shaul]

That’s a direct contradiction.

If it’s absurd to say that the investigation hasn’t found evidence of wrongdoing because Mueller hasn’t disclosed all he’s found, then it is also absurd to claim that he hasn’t found any evidence of collusion between Russia and Trump.

You said it yourself: Mueller hasn’t disclosed all he’s found. So how can you assume that there’s no evidence of this particular wrongdoing?
.

Because Trump is reaffirming that there can’t be any such evidence because he himself knows there isn’t any. Because Trump himself knows no such collusion took place, as he would know.

 

[Falvlun]

Because Trump is reaffirming that there can’t be any such evidence because he himself knows there isn’t any. Because Trump himself knows no such collusion took place, as he would know.

You can’t be serious.

 

[Shaul]

You can’t be serious.

Trump is. Do you have any evidence of Trump colluding with Russia?

 

[Buddha Dharma]

Because Trump is reaffirming that there can’t be any such evidence because he himself knows there isn’t any. Because Trump himself knows no such collusion took place, as he would know.

My you sure seem to have a lot of faith in Trump's trustworthiness

 

[Falvlun]

Trump is. Do you have any evidence of Trump colluding with Russia?

Oh, honey. If someone is being investigated for a crime, you can’t simply take their word that they are innocent. That’s because it is in their best interest to lie.