LogFAQs > #889419295

GregShmedley posted...

Only time will tell at this point. I'm just seeing a lot of confidence reminiscent of 11/8/2016 and it'd be a shame if those same crow eaters had a second feast.

If there is collusion with Russia that Trump and his camp had any slight knowledge of, I say throw the book at them. But I find it funny that the only striking evidence of Russian collusion found thus far points towards Clinton. And instead of addressing that, all her supporters can do is say "but Clinton."

collusion in the uranium one case is the wrong word.

corruption is a more accurate word considering it was fundamentally a business deal with a compromised party, not interference in an election

both are kind of illegal but our political corruption laws are so weak that it probably wouldn't even be fully illegal under existing law, barring certain evidence pieces coming to light

it's really not appropriate to compare to this, and the merits of this shouldn't be getting muddied with that. it's a red herring falacy, albeit a worthy discussion topic independently.

but i tend to think that when people bring it up it's so they can keep the subject away from this, when it's much better to discuss merits of this case as they stand

and really where it stands is either manafort knows more or he doesn't; if he doesn't there's not likely to be much to come of this. we can really only speculate on that, though.
---

And when the hourglass has run out, eternity asks you about only one thing: whether you have lived in despair or not.