Quote (bogie160 @ May 2 2019 06:18pm)
Neither of those things happened.
That Russia did it to hurt her, and that it benefits Trump that they're released, does not implicate Trump in collusion.
If the Russians were to say "We have evidence Clinton laundered money", it certainly wouldn't be criminal to listen.
Did you see the post I responded to? You asserted that accepting political dirt from a hostile foreign power is not collusion. That's wrong.
It's not criminal to listen... and if you read Mueller's analysis of accepting oppo research from a foreign adversary without promising something in return, it's difficult to prosecute that. But if we're working with this definition of collusion:
Quote
secret agreement or cooperation especially for an illegal or deceitful purpose
It's collusion.
Quote (Goomshill @ May 2 2019 06:52pm)
On that note Icemage, new story is breaking:
https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/441892-ukrainian-embassy-confirms-dnc-contractor-solicited-trump-dirt-in-2016full account from the Ukrainian Embassy claims that they didn't solicit the DNC to pass them the Manafort ledger, but it was the other way around- the DNC actively solicited the ledger from them;
Of course, the fact that the Ukrainian embassy denies any involvement and 'unambiguously refused to get involved in any way', is belied by the fact that the ukrainian Manafort ledger was promptly released by the DNC after that solicitation.
So given that they're obviously lying, it calls into question their denial of who was soliciting who, but hey its a bit of finger-pointing nonetheless, and an admission that there
was an inappropriate relationship between the DNC and Ukraine.
I'm not interested in stories put out in an attempt to play the false equivalence/whataboutism game. It's boring.