Russian Collusion

Legal Definitions

Pardon
...to use the executive power of a Governor or President to forgive a person convicted of a crime, thus removing any remaining penalties or punishments and preventing any new prosecution of the person for the crime for which the pardon was given...

Executive Pardon
...the pardon for a crime that has come from the governor or the president of a state.

Just as one does not need to seek immunity if one has done nothing wrong

and again...where is your proof???

or are you stating that the only people that are allowed to voice an opinion on anything are those that agree with the "nut" on the left??

again proof..

Carl Jung once said...thinking is difficult that why most people judge...

Proof of what?

Proof of what Trump has tweeted and stated in interviews, which can be watched even on media sites like FoxNews, and which now one has claimed are doctored for faked? Do I need other proof of Trump's tweets and taped interviews?

You might have noticed in my posts I have not said that Trump colluded. I have repeatedly stated that I believe something has happened that should be investigated. I have repeatedly stated that the Russians probably hacked into U.S. computer systems, which even Putin essentially admitted to.

Based on his tweets, Trump has indicated that he thinks there was collusion with the Russians....though, based on his tweets, the collusion was with Hillary and her followers.

How can we know if there was any collusion, and whether or not it was Hillary, Trump, Podesta, Trump's team, etc unless there is an investigation to sort it out?

Trumps own words (this time regarding Sessions and the Russians): "A new INTELLIGENCE LEAK from the Amazon Washington Post, this time against A.G. Jeff Sessions. These illegal leaks, like Comey's, must stop!"

However, If "it" is a fake story in the media, it is not an "Intelligence leak"...and if it is an "Intelligence leak" it is not a "fake story"...the intelligence could be wrong, but that is not the same as being fake.

Oh, and not as to this at all.

It is my opinion, that I am stating my opinion, that:

People are allowed to voice any opinion on anything regardless of whether or not they are agreeing with either the nuts on the left, nuts on the right, nuts in the middle, and regardless of whether or not their opinion is based on facts, partial facts, lies, propaganda, etc.

A student in my American history class wrote a paper about a deal that President Carter made with the USSR to help in his campaign against Reagan. The material from a book written by one of Reagan's sons.

I suspect that it is fiction, but it could be interesting in a collection of fictional history, like Washington's cherry tree, Marilyn Monroe being the secret Mrs Kennedy, or Gouverneur Morris slapping George Washington on the back during the first day of the Constitutional Convention.

Besides Alan Cranston, Ted Kennedy had a soft spot for Russia, or at least he liked to defend Alger Hiss. He didn't talk about it directly, but he would mention it when he wanted an example of Republican bad behavior.

The first time I read about Russian interference in the election, I thought, well of course they do, and I wondered who might be better at it, us or them.

And I know a lot more about American involvement in elections than anything the Russians might have done.

I know a rather obscure example of how Russia may have tried to influence American politics. In the American history class we listened to audio recordings. One recording starred a local radio host, Eldridge Cleaver, and a Man who had written a book, The Naked Communist. The interview took place after Cleaver had returned from Algeria or Cuba or wherever, and he had become a conservative. He coauthored a book about Communism with the other author.

During the interview, Cleaver said that the Black Panthers had received a check once a month from a Canadian bank. He did not know the source of the money, but I'd guess that in must have been Russian money or from the American Communist Party.

Of course the "real" questions aren't whether they did it or not.

The real questions are...or include...

Were they successful?

Do we U.S. citizens view it as acceptable?

Should we, the USA, respond in kind and/or by imposing sanctions?

What are we, the USA, going to do about it?

Did any U.S. citizens assist the Russians in their efforts?

And my favorites:

Why doesTrump deny it (or at least sometime deny it...he seems to go both ways on the issue?

Why does Trump, apparently, not believe all of the U.S. intelligence agencies regarding this?

Rhetorically I wonder why Trump keeps brining the issue up in the media and on his twitter page, one would think he has more important things to think about...but maybe not.

If a website can persuade a nut-job or two to try and build a bomb and blow something up in the name of ISIS, is it so hard to believe a few absurd ads and articles could persuade people to vote a certain way?

sumilation suggestion is a powerful tool in politic or be should to sway people to be manipulation by candidate or policy or even amendment is still very clever.

people has to want more than they do, Russia, obviously didn't have to hack that much get bozo in office.

American people would probably try to rig the election to get bozo no matter what, and prevent Hillary in the office.

you wonder if a lot of americans that voted bozo, didn't mind that Russia rigged the election?

Sorry...I can't be bothered with news story medley/compilations that typically try to sway the audience by not presenting all of the facts and/or presenting snippets of news out of context....

What's the bottom line of this video?

Just watch it I think you will like it. It goes for less than two minutes.

Tried... couldn't make it through, looked too stupid. My limited view confirmed my opinion of trite YouTube compilations that pretend to be news, but are not.

It does not pretend to be news. It is a song. It's actually quite funny.