a reply to: Bluntone22
"Direct Evidence" is when a witness says he saw Joe shoot Bill.
Anything short of that is indirect evidence.
There has never been a presidential campaign in American History that had so many illicit contacts with Russian Officials and Agents where virtually
everyone involved lied about it.
Trump and His Associates Had More Than 100 Contacts With Russians Before the Inauguration
November 11, 2016: Trump spokeswoman Hope Hicks “It never happened. There was no communication between the campaign and any foreign entity during
December 18, 2016: Kellyanne Conway went on “Face the Nation,” and John Dickerson asked her, “Did anyone involved … in the Trump campaign have
any contact with Russians trying to meddle with the election?”
Conway responded, “Absolutely not. And I discussed that with the president-elect just last night. Those conversations never happened.
January 15, 2017: Vice President-elect Mike Pence went on “Fox News Sunday,”and Chris Wallace asked him, “So, I’m asking a direct question:
was there any contact in any way between Trump or his associates and the Kremlin or cutouts they had?”
Pence replied, “Of course not. Why would there be any contacts between the campaign?
February 16, 2017: Trump held a press conference and told reporters, "I have nothing to do with Russia. To the best of my knowledge no person that I
deal with does.”
February 20, 2017: White House spokeswoman Sarah Huckabee Sanders denied contacts between Russia and the Trump campaign, stating,
“This is a nonstory because to the best of our knowledge, no contacts took place, so it’s hard to make a comment on something that never
This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump - helped along by Aras
if it's what you say I love it especially later in the summer.
Collusion is not a legal term, it is an adjective.
Conspiracy is a legal term, "An agreement between two or more people to commit an illegal act, along with an intent to achieve the agreement's
There is a tonnage of "indirect" evidence of a conspiracy known to the public.
There is no "direct evidence" (e.g. signed contract or testimony under oath of a verbal greement) of a "conspiracy" which would need to demonstrate
and agreement by both parties to work together to achieve a mutual goal.
In my opinion the evidence is damning, but that is opinion since there is no direct evidence known to the public of technical "conspiracy".
Also my opinion that if there is direct evidence to be had it will be with Roger Stone, what senior member of the Trump Campaign directed him to work
with Wikileaks and why? Or Paul Manafort, when he handed over internal polling data to the Russians to assist in thier interference campaign
targeting, did he also promise to move the needle on Russian Sanctions and strip language from the GOP platform condemning the invasion of Ukraine
etc.? Was it done solely for Manafort's personal interests or was the President aware?
Either way, "Collusion", "Conspiracy"? As long as all the facts come out the SC will have accomplished it's mission and the American People can come
to their own conclusions. Sitting Presidents don't get indicted, they get impeached, but never successfully so far in our history. They have resigned
though or lost re-election, that is quite common.
Looking forward to the Senate report and the Special Counsel's report. Both should be an interesting read.