I very much appreciate your response, though I’m not sure we will agree that these are “known facts.” They absolutely are not, at least some of them.
For example, your first point. I saw articles from Fox and other ultra-right wing sources. But here’s Politico specifically stating that Clinton’s role is unclear: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2017/oct/24/what-you-need-know-about-hillary-clinton-and-urani/
So, if you were me, what would you think?
Here is Snopes addressing your second point. Again, hardly a “known fact.”
That Hillary Clinton opposed sanctions against Russia because of speaking fees her husband received from a Russian bank…www.snopes.com
I’ll cede you number 3. For number 4, I’m not even sure how to research that, as “Clinton loyalists” is kinda vague.
Numbers 5 and 6 seem to be a non-story. First, opposition research is totally normal. Trump is welcome to do it. So is anyone else. Conspiring with a hostile foreign power, though — I suppose that is a matter for debate. I’m not sure anyone has actually confirmed that the Clintons colluded with Russia. Or Trump for that matter.
The Dossier was written by an ex-MI6 operative named Chris Steele. Even if HRC was involved, remind me who is in the Whitehouse? “Because my opponent did it” is not a defense in a court of law.
7 is nonsense.
8 is old news. It cost HRC the election. Perhaps it should have. She’s hardly the only person in DC who has mishandled emails.
9 — pleading the 5th is a right guaranteed by the Constitution. It is not an admission of guilt. I get that Fox perpetuates that narrative, but the Supreme Court disagrees.
10 is wild speculation. Mueller was the head of the FBI then, so I’m not sure what his involvement is scandalous.
So, I will once again return to my original statement about the piece not being supported by documentation. I don’t claim to know if Trump actually colluded, as I am not part of the FBI. But to suggest that there is no evidence is to ignore reality. The FBI is still at the beginning of what will absolutely be a 2–3 year long investigation. Just because they’re not broadcasting information doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.
And I will again dispute the idea that all of these things are “known facts.” They absolutely are not.
You did a fair amount of assuming with me. Here are your words:
“You can’t claim to not have heard about any of this before, it is all true, how to process or look at these facts may be up for debate to a certain degree, but to pretend as if these facts do not exist requires a great deal of intentional avoiding of reality.”
That is nowhere near close to what I was saying. But yes, I am saying that some of these “facts” are not really facts at all. Speculation does not equal fact. If it did, Trump would be making little rocks out of big rocks at a federal penitentiary.
“If you are really completely clueless and uninformed on any of this as you claim (I have a hard time believing that) then you can easily remedy your lack of information with some simple Google searches and a little bit of reading, I will gladly get you started but I can’t do all your research and education for you, you have to at some point take the initiative to educate yourself.”
Never said I was either clueless or uninformed. And I did do some Google searches in preparation for my response. Saw lots of right wing blogs, and Fox. Not a lot of actual facts out there. Lots of dissenting pieces out there as well.
I am doing a fine job of educating myself. Mostly because I avoid Fox and right wing Wordpress blogs, which haze ZERO credibility. I also, for the record, avoid CNN and left wing Wordpress blogs, because they have ZERO credibility as well.
I will agree with you 100% that there is some sketchy things happening in DC, but to suggest that I am somehow uninformed because I don’t buy all the nonsense out there on the Internet is, at best, disingenuous. Thank you for your time and for your detailed responses.