View Single Post
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 06-12-2018, 08:28 AM
ShivaTD's Avatar
ShivaTD ShivaTD is offline
Progressive Libertarian
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Immigrant to Arizona
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,011
Thanks: 1,476
Thanked 2,284 Times in 1,820 Posts
Default Re: Trump Campaign Guilty of Collusion (Conspiracy)

Originally Posted by Bat View Post
Here, fixed the thread title for you,
Trump Campaign Accused of Collusion (Conspiracy)

See, last I looked, criminal guilt can only come after a trial that results in a conviction or by admission of guilt from the accused party in a court of law. We have neither of those in this situation.
Try to tone it down Shiva, this ain't India and you ain't the god of destruction.
Being guilty of committing a crime and being convicted of committing a crime are not the same thing. A "Not Guilty" verdict from a jury is not a declaration of innocence under the laws of the United States. We can also note that criminal guilt (conviction) doesn't always reflect that the person is guilty of committing the crime either. There have been enough exonerations of wrongfully convicted persons to establish that as a fact.

The evidence of a conspiracy between members of the Trump campaign and the Russians is substantial but we have yet to see the criminal indictments and the successful prosecution where "admissible evidence" establishes "guilt beyond a reasonable doubt" but most of us are confident that the Mueller investigation has that evidence based upon what we know from outside of the Mueller investigation.

One of the greatest problems currently are people that keep claiming that Mueller's investigation hasn't produced any evidence of "collusion" (conspiracy) between the Trump campaign and the Russians. What the Mueller investigators have found in the way of evidence is a closely guarded secret. There have been no leaks from the investigation so any claims of what Mueller's team has uncovered are inherently wrong. We can make logical deductions based upon Mueller's court filings but those are logical deductions that establish that the evidence exists as opposed to actually being able to prove that the evidence exists.

Just following the Paul Manafort connections with Putin establishes the line of communication between the Trump campaign and Putin and the claims of one of Manafort's top executives (Konstantin Kilimnik), a former Russian intelligence officer that has always been in contact with (Putin's) Russian intelligence services and Putin oligarchs, that he was instrumental in Manafort's changing the Republican Party Platform on Russia provides enough evidence of a conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Putin's Russia even if Trump was completely unaware of it (Trump unaware of it? Doubtful to say the least.).

The Mueller indictment alleging that Manafort conspired with Konstantin Kilimnik in witness tampering in 2018 and Kilimnik's claims he was responsible for the change in the Republican Party Platform on Russia provides grounds to logical conclude that Manafort and Kilimnik did conspire in 2016 for the benefit of Putin to make that change in the party platform. I don't know how any other logical conclusion can be made given what we know.
"I always had a rule, if a restaurant is dirty on the outside, it's dirty on the inside." Donald Trump

"I always had a rule, if the White House is dirty on the inside, it's dirty on the outside." ShivaTD

Based upon the corruption, brutality, inhumanity, immorality, dishonesty, and incompetence of the Trump administration the White House is the dirtiest house in America and there's no known cleanser that with remove the stains of the Trump Administration.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to ShivaTD For This Useful Post: