For Liberals with short memories : Hillary and The Ukraine

Did the Clinton campaign collude with Ukraine?

You posted an article the argues against your stance. :lol2:

So Putin did collude with Trump's group? This article says they did.

Goose. Gander.

Did the Clinton campaign collude with Ukraine?

P.P. ...how about a quote from the article or something more substantial to get some discussion going rather than just dropping a link out into space?

P.P. ...how about a quote from the article or something more substantial to get some discussion going rather than just dropping a link out into space?

How about this one:

It’s important to remember that what’s ultimately concerning about Russiagate is the possibility that the Trump campaign—including staffers now employed in the White House by the president—worked with a hostile government whose leaders attempted to influence and disrupt the election with cyberattacks. The Chalupa story is about officials in an embassy passing along opposition research to a Democratic operative and reporters. The two episodes are not close to being the same, but that fact obviously won’t stop Trump’s supporters from deploying the story for yet another round of Clinton whataboutism.

:jump:

You posted an article the argues against your stance. :lol2:

So Putin did collude with Trump's group? This article says they did.

Goose. Gander.

Whoops. :lol2:

What is collusion? According to definitions I read, it deals mainly with business and illegal agreements. Politico states that collusion is not a federal crime, the type that is being used to try to get dirt on Trump.

According to some guests on the talk shows I listen to, collusion is not a punishable offense.

How does this article implicate Manafort colluding?

He was a paid advisor. The article just alludes to a sinister relationship. There is no firm evidence shown.

While both side have had accusations thrown at them, collusion is not a crime. What it is, is an unseemly effort by an individual or group to collect dirt on their opponent. What I want is a candidate to stick to issues. A candidate can say that they support point A and point B and show how their opponent is weak on these points without name calling or finding dirt on them. The dirt will likely show up on its on.

What is collusion? According to definitions I read, it deals mainly with business and illegal agreements. Politico states that collusion is not a federal crime, the type that is being used to try to get dirt on Trump.

According to some guests on the talk shows I listen to, collusion is not a punishable offense.

 

How does this article implicate Manafort colluding?

 

He was a paid advisor. The article just alludes to a sinister relationship. There is no firm evidence shown.

From that Beastly Google Machine:

secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy, especially in order to cheat or deceive others

AND

From Wikipedia:

Collusion is an agreement between two or more parties, sometimes illegal and therefore secretive, to limit open competition by deceiving, misleading, or defrauding others of their legal rights, or to obtain an objective forbidden by law typically by defrauding or gaining an unfair market advantage. It is an agreement among firms or individuals to divide a market, set prices, limit production or limit opportunities.[1] It can involve "wage fixing, kickbacks, or misrepresenting the independence of the relationship between the colluding parties".[2] In legal terms, all acts effected by collusion are considered void.

AND

From Dictionary.com

1 .a secret agreement, especially for fraudulent or treacherous purposes; conspiracy

2. Law. secret understanding between two or more persons to gain something illegally, to defraud another of his or her rights, or to appear as adversaries though in agreement

From that Beastly Google Machine:

 

secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy, especially in order to cheat or deceive others

 

AND

 

From Wikipedia:

 

Collusion is an agreement between two or more parties, sometimes illegal and therefore secretive, to limit open competition by deceiving, misleading, or defrauding others of their legal rights, or to obtain an objective forbidden by law typically by defrauding or gaining an unfair market advantage. It is an agreement among firms or individuals to divide a market, set prices, limit production or limit opportunities.[1] It can involve "wage fixing, kickbacks, or misrepresenting the independence of the relationship between the colluding parties".[2] In legal terms, all acts effected by collusion are considered void.

 

AND

 

From Dictionary.com

 

1 .a secret agreement, especially for fraudulent or treacherous purposes; conspiracy

 

2. Law. secret understanding between two or more persons to gain something illegally, to defraud another of his or her rights, or to appear as adversaries though in agreement

I read those as well, but they as seem to be in relation to business. The one exception is were one may be attempting to overthrow the government. Plus, from what read and heard is that the collusion that both Trump and Clinton are being accused of, digging up dirt, is not a federal crime.

I know that people on both sides would like to find something to implicate their opponent, but a number of people have stated their is nothing to make a charge against Clinton or Trump.

I know that people on both sides would like to find something to implicate their opponent, but a number of people have stated their is nothing to make a charge against Clinton or Trump.

Comey went on the record and told us there is plenty to Charge Hillary Clinton with. Like, gobs and gobs of felonies.

I read those as well, but they as seem to be in relation to business. The one exception is were one may be attempting to overthrow the government. Plus, from what read and heard is that the collusion that both Trump and Clinton are being accused of, digging up dirt, is not a federal crime.

I agree the term Collusion is thrown around haphazardly.

You posted an article the argues against your stance. :lol2:

I don't think he did. Read on...

How about this one:

 

It’s important to remember that what’s ultimately concerning about Russiagate is the possibility that the Trump campaign—including staffers now employed in the White House by the president—worked with a hostile government whose leaders attempted to influence and disrupt the election with cyberattacks. The Chalupa story is about officials in an embassy passing along opposition research to a Democratic operative and reporters. The two episodes are not close to being the same, but that fact obviously won’t stop Trump’s supporters from deploying the story for yet another round of Clinton whataboutism.

 

:jump:

The article states that the DNC actively sought information from the Ukrainian government to find dirt on Trump's people. Even doing follow up to solicit a meeting with the Ukrainian President to ask about Manafort's ties to the region.

A veteran DNC operative who previously worked in the Clinton White House, Alexandra Chalupa, worked with Ukrainian government officials and journalists from both Ukraine and America to dig up Russia-related opposition research on Trump and Manafort. She also shared her anti-Trump research with both the DNC and the Clinton campaign, according to the Politico report.

[T]he former DNC staffer and the operative familiar with the situation agreed that with the DNC’s encouragement, Chalupa asked embassy staff to try to arrange an interview in which Poroshenko might discuss Manafort’s ties to [ousted Ukranian President Viktor] Yanukovych.

While the embassy declined that request, officials there became “helpful” in Chalupa’s efforts, she said, explaining that she traded information and leads with them. “If I asked a question, they would provide guidance, or if there was someone I needed to follow up with.” But she stressed, “There were no documents given, nothing like that.”

The story goes on to quote embassy official Andrii Telizhenko as saying that the embassy was additionally working with “the Hillary team” itself, but the allegation isn’t elaborated upon in the piece.

So the article posted by @Pioneer.Pride shows that the DNC colluded with a foreign government to get dirt on a Trump player and perhaps Hillary's team was involved.

What the article did not do is show that this is parallel to what Trump did. All the evidence so far is that Trump did not collude with Putin or any Russian government official in trying to get dirt on Hillary. The quotation from the article shared by @Oldbird is a complete misrepresentation of what we know has happened. That quotation, btw, is an expressed opinion and not a factual statement. It claims "the Trump campaign worked with a hostile government" to influence the election. Every investigation into the myriad of allegations regarding that have shown there is no truth to it. Trump did no such thing.

This latest bit with Don Jr. does not approach that characterization at all. He was contacted and asked to meet with a person who claimed to have information--opposition research, if you will. The person with the info was not a Russian government representative. The meeting lasted 20 minutes. No info was exchanged. That was the end of it.

On the other hand, the DNC and possibly Hillary's people, actively solicited information from a foreign government and made follow up inquiries to meet with that government's President to ask him directly for dirt! This goes beyond what Don Jr. did.

To summarize what I think P.P is saying is that while there is ZERO evidence that Trump colluded with Putin and the Russian government there is actually factual evidence, as reported by Politico and quoted in the article, to show that the DNC colluded with Ukrainian government officials and Hillary was given the info to use to help her campaign. The person who did the research admitted these facts.

IMO, this goes far beyond the Don Jr. fiasco.