subgenius wrote:But these services were also rendered well before Trump and after. Coincidence is not evidence my friend.
You are the one insisting there is no possible connection to Trump, subs. The Manafort indictment actually leaves a lot of open questions that may connect directly to the Trump campaign, including why he was receiving funds from Russia while advancing the Trump campaign, that suggest there may be a connection between his work on behalf of international pro-Russian influence and his support of Donald Trump's campaign that Russia supported. The correct response to, "there's obviously no connection there" is you don't know that.
There are no threads of evidence that "suggest" anything.
Except the extensive, repeated lying about contacts with Russia, publicly known attempts to thwart investigation into Russia, deception regarding known Russian attempts election interference, and multiple recorded instances of attempting to collude with Russia. You know, nothing.
Your attempt to retrofit evidence into your narrative is absurd. Try to frame your argument around facts instead of supposition. To date, there is absolutely no evidence that (1) the Russians influenced the election;
Heh. Here you are equivocating two ideas. The first is Russia's attempts to influence the election through online trolling, bot influence, social media advertising, and hacking and releasing of Democrat campaign information all of which is extremely well supported. The second is the extent to which this moved voter behavior and if that was enough to change the presidential election (or other elections) outcome. The latter is harder to measure, though the answer is "probably yes," but totally relevant. Whether you robbed enough money from a bank to buy a car doesn't matter when it comes to establishing if you robbed a bank.
and (2) that Trump was involved with the Russians to influence the election. See these 2 items are actual facts - not suggestions - not suspicions - and not suppositions.
Yeah, there's a lot of circumstantial reason to think Trump may have been involved with Russians to influence the election, starting with him behaving like a parody of a guilty person. Since the investigation is ongoing, we have to withhold judgment on that. That said, there is rock solid evidence his presidential campaign tried to collude with Russia. The best case scenario at this point is that they weren't successful at their attempt to commit a serious offense against the country or if they were, then Trump had his head in the sand about what the most key figures in his campaign were doing.
Not from a legal position, and certainly not with regards to the pipe dream you have for him being impeached/indicted over the Russia boogeyman.
See multiple threads in which I express a great deal of skepticism that Trump would be removed from office for nearly any behavior. I care about wrongdoing. You do not when a Republican is involved. This is a difference between us.
And Hillary Clinton getting debate question(s) ahead of time?
Lol. Improve your whataboutism.