He went on to say that collusion is not a crime.
Of course nearly immediately they found a slew of times when he said there was no collusion.
But this is the natural evolution of the narrative.
There was no contact with Russians.
OK, there was contact with multiple Russians, but it was innocent.
OK, some of those Russians were from their intel services, but there was no collusion.
OK, there was collusion, but collusion is not a crime.
OK, there was collusion, and it’s criminal, but Trump knew nothing about it.
(no message)
Senator Edward Kennedy sent his emissary former Senator John Tunney to Moscow to “collude” — with the head of the KGB about how they might cooperate with each other to beat President Ronald Reagan in 1984.
President Obama was caught on a live mike colluding with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev that “I’ll have more flexibility after the election” to handle contentious issues such as missile defense.
They did nothing criminal.
What about Obama and Kennedy? I'm sure they got Putin to rig there elections.
If Kennedy did that it was collusion and not surprising.
Neither involved influencing an American election by a major party candidate with a hostile foreign power. That is traitorous, criminal or not. But yeah.....what about.
You are negotiating on behalf of a client, and you lean over to the other party, and you say, "My client pays me at the end of the month. Once they pay, I can have more flexibility."
You don't think your client or the bar association would think that was a problem, even though you are merely making a "truthful unilateral statement?"
Next what about excuse.
(no message)
were having problems getting paid. How would that benefit either the client or me?
What he was saying was simply the truth, in that such negotiations with foreign powers normally don’t take place before contested elections because political opponents can twist what happens there for their ends.
He could have used the election as a reason to close a deal: "Better make a deal with me now. The next guy is going to be far worse." But, he didn't. He used the election to explain why he couldn't be more pro-Russia right then at that point. "If you can wait a little, I can give you more."
You, of all people, giving the benefit of the doubt to someone who was promising, surreptitiously, to help Putie.
Why do you give the benefit of the doubt for Obama's confirmed pro-Putie behavior, but not for giving the benefit of the doubt for Trump's alleged pro-Putie behavior?
You seem to recognize that in my client negotiation example, you would never make that "truthful unilateral statement" because it would not help your client's interest, and indeed it would actually harm your client's interests because it would give the impression that you were going to cave in after you were paid. Merely stating a "truthful unilateral statement" is harmful when so stating it gives the impression that you plan on weakening your negotiating position.
Seriously, take off your anti-Trump hat for a moment, and see if you can make an objective judgement on this limited point.
The benefit to himself and the nation is obvious. He was trying to leave open the door of talking to them in the future. He simply told them, look can’t do it now, but hit me up after the election, when I have more flexibility. Much better than saying, no, fuck you we aren’t talking to you when it’s only a temporary situation.
Entirely different from your hypothetical where the statement had zero benefit to lawyer or client.
Why you can’t see this is puzzling. One of the few times the guy was actually a straight shooter.
(no message)
Not promising them anything.
Not collusion.
The former is potentially collusion, but it went nowhere. The latter is diplomacy.
If there is collusion, and Trump knew, he will be impeached. Go ahead and tell yourself it is not a crime if it makes you feel better.
(no message)
There is no federal law that criminalizes collusion between a political campaign and foreign government. Even though “colluding” with a foreign government, especially one as hostile as the Russian government may be inappropriate or politically damaging, it’s not illegal. In this sense, collusion is viewed as a political term and not a legal term.
Also: it need not be a crime to be impeachable. That is a political decision - the people, through the Congress, get to decide what is unacceptable behavior in a president.
Also, II: You are stuck in an earlier phase. OK, there was collusion, but that is not a crime!
Oh wait, that was "conspiracy theory."
that it’s acceptable for the campaign of a major party candidate to collude with a hostile foreign to govt to influence or interfere with the election? That’s called being traitorous, criminal or not.
You guys are fucking pathetic.
The phrase enough, it becomes a crime.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
Cause he's smart. Lots of schooling and such.
(no message)