But they keep finding witches...

[_EAllusion]

While I agree the evidence seems to clearly point to that as the only plausible explanation for Trump's behavior, I do think it's important to make space for the Special Prosecutor to do his job and let the outcome of that investigation determine what actually happened and with what intent. The process is necessary. Those on either side who would shortcut it are not doing the nation any favors.

Sure. I'd add here I'm not even talking about what Trump's behavior implies about his innocence re: the campaign. Trump could be perfectly innocent of anything more untoward, unlikely as that may be, and his systematic efforts on behalf of Russia's attack in the US that are continuing to occur out in the open is itself traitorous. My dude has been running systematic interference on behalf of Russia's attack on the US for a couple of years now right out in the open.

You probably should brace yourself for the possibility that you'll never get to see a completed Mueller investigation outcome.

[_subgenius]

The legal presumption of innocence ....

this is not actually a "law". Being indicted or arrested is actually a blatant presumption of guilt. It's just the States burden to prove guilt, not the accused's burden to prove innocence.

Bail, for example.

[_honorentheos]

You probably should brace yourself for the possibility that you'll never get to see a completed Mueller investigation outcome.

That's certainly possible. And there are a variety of results that would have the same impact even if the investigation isn't blatantly ended by Republican opposition.

That said, treason is a pretty serious claim and while I am baffled at the general Republican response to Trump's behavior and failure to hold him accountable for turning up the temperature on social acceptance of anti-Europe, anti-NATO rhetoric while praising some of the most obvious bad players on the international stage I don't think it should be used lightly. I'm sure you aren't, but I think it's the kind of reactionary use of the term that can have just as negative results.

In the last week we've seen ceebs and Water Dog take positions that reflect two different faces of the damage being done in our nation by not just Trump but the way Trump is being opposed. It's mind blowing to see a vet like Dog justifying Russian interference...except it is also perfectly recognizable as not being about Russia in his mind but about liberals. If the conversation were isolated to just being about Russia damned with us, I have to believe there would be far less division in the views expressed on the board. Likewise with ceebs, it's hard to imagine someone who clearly disliked Trump in 2016 and voiced clear distaste for both parties selections for their nominees letting the outrage against this same person he recognized as severely flawed becoming the bridge too far in US political discourse. Granted, I don't think ceebs has as clear of a history of being open to differing views as he imagines he has but still.

I have no idea what is up with the Republican party right now. I have to imagine the majority of politicians in Washington would be far happier with Pence in the Oval Office rather than being the tie-break vote in the Senate. And I tend to agree with you that there is plenty of cause for them to call Trump to account without needing to wait for the Special Council to finish their investigation. Maybe they honestly fear his constituency and doubt they can win without him and won't risk losing to resist him. That's scary in and of itself. Or maybe its less misaligned with the Mitch McConnell vision of America than I would have thought. Certainly today does not reflect what I would have expected had Paul Ryan's vision been able to assert itself in the Republican dominated last two years. And maybe this is all just prelude to when crap really goes down after the midterms, whatever the results. Perhaps we'll be fortunate at some future date to be able to see this more clearly than it appears now but whatever is at work, there are seismic moves in the political landscape taking place.

[_EAllusion]

I'm not claiming treason in the very narrow sense the Constitution defines it as. We're not at war with Russia.

I'm claiming traitorous behavior. I'm not saying that lightly.

[_MeDotOrg]

The legal presumption of innocence ....

this is not actually a "law". Being indicted or arrested is actually a blatant presumption of guilt. It's just the States burden to prove guilt, not the accused's burden to prove innocence.

Bail, for example.

There is a certain amount of mental gymnastics to not say 'why did the DA pick this person out of everyone else to charge'? The presumption of innocence does not mean that that question should not be asked. The expectation is that the evidence to be presented will be the answer. But before any of the evidence is heard, as the judges gavel calls the court to order, a juror should look at the defendant and say 'there sits an innocent human being'. This goes back to Roman Law: "the burden of proof is on the one who declares, not on one who denies."

And as an ancient principle, it really makes sense. A shepard accuses another shepard of stealing his sheep. Without proof, anyone could accuse anyone of anything. So proof must be offered. Whoever initiates the dispute in court should have the burden of proof. And the same principle carries over, whether the accuser is the state or an individual or the government, they both have the same standing.

[_Water Dog]

Trump and his allies in the administration and Congress are traitors. We should not accept any suggestion to the contrary. In my mind the denial of this fact is like the refusal to see Brigham Young’s culpability in the MMM.

A strange comparison given that a massacre has not occurred in the case of Trump. Your argument is that BY should have been hung based merely on accusations of a massacre. Not just unsubstantiated accusations of his involvement in said massacre, but unsubstantiated accusations that the massacre occurred. Where are the dead bodies? Where are the crying relatives testifying that their family members are missing? Where are the wagons they were traveling with? Not one shred of evidence that a massacre has occurred.

[_Water Dog]

Indictments aren't equivalent to guilt and an indictment shouldn't be taken that way. But we have lots of evidence available to us.

Finally a somewhat sensible comment in this thread. Now that we are in agreement that an indictment isn't evidence and shouldn't be treated as such, perhaps you'd care to take a crack at presenting the actual (supposedly it exists somewhere) evidence.

[_Water Dog]

Can you provide me with any information from any Presidential candidate in history who had unregistered foreign agents working for them? You can't group former lobbyists and unregistered foreign agents under the same umbrella. Lobbyists are normal. Unregistered foreign agents are not. Saying there were unregistered foreign lobbyists on the Clinton Campaign is like saying 3 to 5 million people voted illegally. Both want for documentation.

Your request makes no sense. No such information exists, and you very well know that.

Same difference. If you lookup the relevant law, the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA), we're talking about same thing. The words "agent" and "lobbyist" mean the same thing in this context. The word "agent" is used to describe someone who is engaged in lobbying on behalf of a foreign government. The following link does a good job of explaining the situation. In the case of Manafort he is not being accused of even engaging in lobbying activities w/r Trump campaign. To do so also wouldn't have been illegal. Nonetheless, he is merely being accused of failing to fill out a FARA registration form.

Did Clinton have any FARA-registered people working for her campaign? Almost certainly. Did Clinton have any people working for her campaign who, upon investigation, could be argued to have failed to register with FARA when they should have? Almost certainly. Not because of any malice on their part either, but because it's one of those "laws" that just isn't very well known or understood and goes virtually unenforced. It's a voluntary registration type thing that relies on subjectivity and the honor system. Lots of people engage in "lobbying" without realizing their activities cross some invisible line defined by this nebulous law. Lobbying is nothing more than promoting a position on behalf of a third party. According to the article, there are a grand total of 400 people registered with FARA right now. With the size of the world, you think there are only 400 people engaged in "lobbying" for a foreign government? No. More like tens of thousands, at least. It's a silly thing. One could argue that virtually every member of Congress should register with FARA. How often does someone like John McCain argue that we should defend this country, or that country, against another country? He picks sides all the time, flies overseas and meets with their leaders. He was promoting rebels in Syria that turned out to be a faction of ISIS. That's called damned lobbying. And he's a member of Congress, one of a select few, with direct power over the decision making. Bring him up on charges for failing to register with FARA.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/mana ... eign-agent

[_Chap]

Indictments aren't equivalent to guilt and an indictment shouldn't be taken that way. But we have lots of evidence available to us.

Finally a somewhat sensible comment in this thread. Now that we are in agreement that an indictment isn't evidence and shouldn't be treated as such, perhaps you'd care to take a crack at presenting the actual (supposedly it exists somewhere) evidence.

Getting silly again ...

The issuing of indictment by a grand jury is a sign that the known evidence in the direction of possible guilt has been carefully evaluated, and that it has been concluded, based on that evaluation of evidence, that a prosecution is justified.

That does not of course mean that it can be assumed that any subsequent trial will result in conviction. But it does suggest that there is a non-zero chance, and possibly a considerable chance, of that outcome.

Trivial point of usage: the issuance of an indictment is a consequence of the fact that evidence is thought to exist. So arguing about whether an indictment is evidence is almost as stupid as arguing whether a divorce petition is adultery.

[_Water Dog]

Suppose Trump had taken office in 2017 and let the world know he was supporting the US intelligence community in their efforts to protect the American electoral system. Of course there would be dumb idiots on the liberal side who would have demanded that Trump step down just on the suggestion of Russian interference because that's just how crap is. There is a wide spectrum of views on every issue represented in our nation. But on the whole, it would be hard to argue that the investigation alone would serve to delegitimize Trump's presidency in and of itself had he simply acted in the most minimal way as one would expect the President to act when told Russia was actively meddling in our elections.

So why then is it a divisive issue if it is not inherently due to the FBI doing it's job in investigating Russian aggression on our shores through electronic warfare? Seriously, Dog. Explain to me how the FBI doing their job is bad for America if we subtract out the resistance the Trump admin has shown towards it.

In my view Trump effectively did exactly as you suggest, but the process was very quickly shown to be political, toss in ignorance and incompetence, and it's been a crap show since then. Trump has done a very poor job of dealing with the situation, one blunder after another. In his shoes I don't think many would have done better, though.