Interesting how you automatically equated "not pro-Trump" with "anti-Trump".

Look, you can read the evidence and draw your own conclusions. For me it's mostly the business dealings before /during the run, but the "mosaic theory" of all of it is really what you should be looking to.

I originally thought there was a significant %age chance that Trump was present for some of the Trump Tower meeting, but I think it would proabably have come out by now, so I think it's low (but non zero).

For reference, here's a timeline of the meeting: https://edition.cnn.com/2018/07/31/p...ine/index.html

It was your claim that the evidence was strong so when asked what that strong evidence is saying "you can read it for yourself" and then telling me that it is the mosaic 'a little bit of everything' that makes it strong--is not really an acceptable answer.

I've read it for myself and there is nothing but a few mostly trumped up or inconsequential charges dealing with taxes and innuendo. Flynn plead guilty to lying to the FBI about his conversation with the Russian ambassador when he had no reason to and when the purpose of the conversation was helping Israel. Cohen involves Stormy Daniels and tax stuff unrelated to Trump. Manafort is tax stuff. These three inviduals don't seem to fit into any sort of mosaic whatsoever in regards to collusion.
You realize the meeting actually undercuts collusion claims? Where was the back channel and why wouldn't they use it to get documents to Trump and why go through Trump Jr? Does the meeting show a willingness of the Trump team to get dirt on Clinton from Russia or whoever? Yes obviously. But as evidence of Trump being a Russian asset it has the opposite effect.

Given that it has now been two years and the best you have is basically nothing, why not admit it is nothing?

*https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...-trump-n819526
https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article...ng-trump-tower
Also this on the meeting. Which should put it to bed.

Probably reread my post

Is luckbox arguing against a conspiracy theory?

I'm arguing against the mainstream media. I'm consistent here.

luckbox, surely you don't still support Trump...


he has elevated(?) the nation's former chief spy to the nation's chief diplomat, a post previously occupied by an oil magnate

and his cabinet is otherwise overbrimming with mega-wealthy elites



remember, you believe Putin to be the USA's great friend, helping break the backs of the globalists in favor of more localized rule

so you would want Putin and Trump to be in cahoots


but they aren't, which works well with you not supporting Trump

What does anything that I've posted have to do with how i feel regarding Trump, Ianaww?

Trump could kill a baby on tv and the russia thing will still be a joke.

*cough*

What is your take on that?

no evidence, though

my take on the guy engaging in an open favor-trade with the person he is allegedly in collusion with?

Why do you think nothing came of it?

maybe, and I'm just spit-balling here, but maybe Putin figured he could get more than just a swanky hotel room out of the relationship once Trump became a decent draw to become commander in chief

things like US draw-down in Syria (where the US had been opposing Putin's ally), or a US trade war with China (Putin's regional, economic competitor)

And what is Trump's part of the deal? Obviously the tower didnt get built.

... yet



Trump has already received election assistance from Putin's army of fake social media accounts and personal ingratiation (to which, as a narcissist, he is hopelessly susceptible) from a world leader.

What additional favors may he be expecting down the line? You may have me there.

My point earlier was to note that, to the extent that Trump has fallen out of your favor, your position on the Trump/Russia scandal is thereby that much more credible.

believing there is no Trump/Putin collusion requires one to ignore that:

(1) Trump and Putin were in the midst of business negotiations when
(2) Trump became a potential actor on Putin's playing field while
(3) Trump and Putin each promoted each other publicly and
(4) Trump frequently/routinely lined about his various connections to Putin as
(5) Trump's advisers (now admittedly) were engaged in international shenanigans favorable to Putin

our boy can become President of the USA and we can engineer it
our boy can become President of the USA and we can engineer it
our boy can become President of the USA and we can engineer it
our boy can become President of the USA and we can engineer it
our boy can become President of the USA and we can engineer it
our boy can become President of the USA and we can engineer it
our boy can become President of the USA and we can engineer it

So you consider that the smoking gun of your otherwise circumstantial case? I think there are issues with every single one of your points except perhaps #2. Can address those later.

having established (a) motive, (b) opportunity, (c) misrepresentation by the accused, (d) co-conspirator admissions, & (e) realized, mutual benefit among the parties to the alleged collusion

I don't see much room for reasonable doubt.

How you are a defense attorney i often wonder

and yes, I do consider a known Russian mobster/oligarch operative's conversation with Trump's lawyer, describing "engineering" Trump's electoral victory, in light of the fake social media accounts & Clinton kompramat, about as close to a "smoking gun" as could be expected

in the vast majority of cases, the person either did it or the case is dropped

we generally "win" by getting evidence suppressed for police over-reach or by exploiting some other procedural shortfall by the prosecution



I do have a trial coming up soon with a legitimate dispute as to whether my client's conduct was "reasonable" in the circumstances, so I should amend the above to account for intentional vagueness in the criminal code, but I don't think that applies in this discussion.

You're setting yourself up too much here but i won't take the shot