Not always true.
Randy Withers

Not always true. People can use the 5th to avoid incriminating others, or being dragged into a parallel line of questioning.

As I said, we can all come up with our own determinations, and any single fact I have named is pretty innocent all by itself, it is only when we look at such a long list of these facts that we start to see something at the very least worth talking about.

The fact nobody wants to talk about them is also a fact we should consider.

I will give you this Louis — yours is the most thoughtful and well-developed POV I’ve ever heard coming from the right. I respect it. And I totally concede, again, that shady things are happening. If HRC colluded with Russia, she should be tried for treason and if guilty she should die in prison. How’s that for emphatic!?

I am not saying she is guilty, just that there are enough hard facts on the table to justify serious investigation and consideration, but the media flat refuses while expending massive amounts of time and energy pushing a story of Russian collision that has not a single piece of fact supporting it.

As far as proof with Russian collusion? I don’t have any. But I can cite this article:
It is one of many.

Opinion piece, zero facts. It is a fact emails were exchanged but there is no evidence of any crime, just meeting with a lawyer even with the intent of looking at proposed opposition research is in of itself not a crime.

This is why your link did not quote any actual criminal statutes in their claim of criminal act, because no criminal statute could possibly cover this event. Even if Trump Jr had been given something something of value, it would still not be criminal unless he kept and used it for his or his father’s campaign. let’s say he got something incriminating Hillary Clinton of a crime then turned it over to the FBI, at that point he would be completely inside the law. While the campaign may have still benefitted, there would be nothing illegal about it.

So the “Fact” you offer is a meeting, but there is no possible way to claim it was illegal or even out o-f line considering we now know Hillary Clinton and the DNC were both paying people to work with Russia to build the “Dossier”.

So that we don’t go too many rabbit holes, my original post pointed out that the author offered zero evidence that what he was saying is true. Rhetorically, that is unwise. I get you agree with him. But if you’re trying to make a point, it’s not the people who agree with you who matter. He did a poor job of supporting his opinions, the facts behind which are debatable, and thus it is a lukewarm piece. And I’m sorry, but his characterization of that meeting with Trump jr. is, at best, misleading. Dragged into a meeting. Only spent 5 minutes. Author sounds like he was an eye witness. I doubt he was.

But your original point was wrong, everything said is true, while he may have taken certain liberties on how do define certain facts, all the meat of the story was in fact true and easily verifiable to those who are unaware of those basic facts.

As I pointed out, there is a difference between a fact and how we define it, he did not provide a lot of links because at this point pretty much anyone should always be informed on such basic facts.

I suppose we will have to wait and see about this Russia thing. From my point of view, it’s awfully convenient that the closer this investigation gets to its conclusion, the more the Trump sure is now saying Hillary was the one who colluded. That blame shifting is right out of the Trump playbook. If he ever accepts personal responsibility for anything, I’ll fall dead from a heart attack.

Well again you are applying a double standard, you said earlier:

But to suggest that there is no evidence is to ignore reality.

When I asked you for hard evidence you refused, this is my main point, there is no evidence, maybe one day there will be but today there is zero but that does not stop the media from spamming millions of stories claiming Trump is guilty of collusion with Russia.

So why not coter the Clinton mess when there is at least “some” evidence of fishy business?

I do believe at this point the leaks from the Mueller team seem to be exclusively concentrating on old financial crimes and other people, not Trump, the way the intelligence community and the FBI have been dumping classified material to the media it seems pretty clear that if there was anything of substance against Trump we would know about it by now. Trump can’t even have a private conversation with a world leader without complete transcripts being leaked by our Intelligence community to the media.

Please keep up the good work — I apologize for not addressing every point in your response. I’m at work and I’ll eventually have to go do things I’m actually paid for, much as I’d like to continue!

Well as I said before, my only real point was to point out the corruption with the media in that they are happily attacking Trump for things without even a tiny speck of evidence against him but they flat refuse to cover the Hillary Uranium one story seriously?

Again, any onc of the facts I pointed to mean nothing, but when combined it really looks bad, and at the least should merit serious coverage.

Like what you read? Give Louis Weeks a round of applause.

From a quick cheer to a standing ovation, clap to show how much you enjoyed this story.