Welcome Guest

A simple concept for the ignorant among us - that being

Posted on: July 12, 2017 at 07:47:07 CT
GA Tiger MU
Posts:
252580
Member For:
26.45 yrs
Level:
User
M.O.B. Votes:
0
the demlibs of course. To whit: "Receiving information is NOT collusion." You pathetically useless idiots.


THE MEDIA REMAINS ALL SCREWED UP ON COLLUSION

Claims of “collusion” between the Trump campaign and Russia arose in connection with Russian computer hacking. The hacking was the one significant set of acts we knew, or were pretty sure, Russia had committed to interfere with the presidential election.

The question was: did Trump or his team collude with Russia in the hacking? This was the original meaning of “collusion” in the context of the election.

Such collusion would be a serious offense — akin to the Watergate break-in but with the added dimension of involvement by a foreign adversary. We don’t want foreign adversaries breaking into the computer files of one of our political parties. A candidate who helped them accomplish this, or encouraged it, would have committed a serious offense against our democracy (and possibly one or more crimes).

So far, however, no evidence has emerged that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia in the computer hacking. And “so far” now means about a year.

Instead, we are told that President Trump’s son met with a Russian lawyer who is said to have “Kremlin ties.” Allegedly, he met with her after it was suggested to him that she had information damaging to Hillary Clinton and/or the Democrats. This is, as Scott says, the new meaning of collusion.

The problem is that there’s nothing wrong with a campaign operative meeting with a person, Kremlin ties or not, who may have adverse information on the opposing candidate or her party. You can call such a meaning “collusion” for effect if you like, but that’s taking liberties.

Did the Washington Post collude with the source who gave it the Billy Bush-Donald Trump p***y grab tape? If the Clinton campaign had received that tape, would it have colluded with the source?

I don’t think so. Receiving information is not collusion.

Nor does it become collusion if the provider of the information is distasteful or corrupt. If a political campaign received proof from a mobster that the opposing candidate was in bed with the mob, receipt of this information would not be collusion.

Nor, more to the point, there would not be anything wrong with accepting the information, provided the campaign did nothing improper in exchange for obtaining it — e.g. promising to go easy on the mobster who offered the information.

The Trump, Jr. story isn’t about collusion. So far, as Scott says, it’s about collusion comedy.
Report Message

Please explain why this message is being reported.

REPLY

Handle:
Password:
Subject:

MESSAGE THREAD

A simple concept for the ignorant among us - that being - GA Tiger MU - 7/12 07:47:07
     Whit who ?(nm) - raskolnikov MU - 7/12 08:59:46
     who is scott and why should anyone gaf what he says? - gmmm98 MU - 7/12 07:56:15
          If it were not hollow.....what would it have said? - GA Tiger MU - 7/12 08:13:30
               something. anything. - gmmm98 MU - 7/12 09:32:43
     The media expects no one to question Hillary - mu7176grad MU - 7/12 07:49:55
          Why wouldn't that be considered treason. A far more - GA Tiger MU - 7/12 07:52:37
               because the US wasn't at war with Russia - SwampTiger MU - 7/12 07:55:35
                    Meaning apparently, one can only commit treason - GA Tiger MU - 7/12 08:12:48
                         I didn't say "declared war" - SwampTiger MU - 7/12 08:26:07
                              First, tell me what you mean by "war"? I say - GA Tiger MU - 7/12 09:09:08
                                   Goddamn, GAT - pickle MU - 7/12 09:35:10
                              I'd like to know that as well (nm) - pickle MU - 7/12 08:50:12
                    And it's also FAKE NEWS. (nm) - tigerspy MU - 7/12 08:00:11




©2025 Fanboards L.L.C. — Our Privacy Policy   About Tigerboard