There will be evidence of illegal financial actions by the president but no effort to indict him. There will be strong circumstantial evidence that he had motives for acting on behalf of Putin and took action in that direction, also members of his campaign will have been shown to have collaborated with the Russians. But there won’t be a smoking gun showing direct involvement of Quid-pro-quo. So anybody who is unbiased and has half a brain will see that he colluded with the Russians, but there will be enough of a fig leaf that Republicans will claim that he is a pure as driven snow.
I’m judging by 15 years ago standards since thats about thd last time I followed politics enough to have formed any definition of what leftist is.
It’s just a guess though, and half joking.
You guys seem so sour… Lighten up 
lol, good one.
But really , staight up dirty hippies, the lot of ya 
Why would we lighten up? This is a serious situation. The topic here is serious, and no joke. The president himself is a serious problem, and not a joke. The rhetoric you used is part of the right wing attempt to move the overton window even more rightward. (It already is rather right wing, with ideas from fascists entering into the Republican mainstream. And, no, that’s not an exaggeration: look up the alt-right.)
We may have what amounts to a Russian infiltrator in our White House. The evidence makes this seem more and more likely. And we know that Russians interfered in our election. This isn’t a place where joking about how left wing we are because we oppose Trump is going to land.
If you want lighter banter, I’d suggest checking out threads about lighter topics. We’re not playing around in these threads.
Is this thread going to decide actual legislation? Or have some serious influence on what happens?
So… Trump is a Russian spy now? And that’s not way left?
Here’s a Washington Post piece on 18 reasons Trump could be a Russian asset.
It’s an opinion piece, but each of those 18 reasons have been well-documented and are matters of public record.
Here’s an opinion piece showing well documented reasons Hillary should have been tried for treason, as a Russian asset no less.
https://www.modbee.com/opinion/letters-to-the-editor/article184639478.html
Doesn’t make it any less radically right wing
I would not call it well-documented, as it starts off with the “Hillary Clinton Gave 20 Percent of United States’ Uranium to Russia in Exchange for Clinton Foundation Donations?” myth. Hint: it’s verifiably, factually untrue
What is factually untrue about the list in my cite above? Be specific, and show your work. 
To be honest I’m not certain here but it looks like at least a few of those claims are just flat out opinions, since they say may have and cite no source whatsoever.
And several appear to have stemmed from the discredited dossier mentioned here. Which Is factually something Hillary’s campaign purchased from Russia but for some reason that’s not collusion.
I just don’t want to be misconstrued as supporting either of these far left or far right points of view , because i dont. They are definitely both far right and far left as far as I’m concerned.
I don’t believe Hillary or dj are Russian spies.
Btw this Snopes article admits connections, just refutes that the allegation was as simple as it was stated. Mostly by saying yeah she did it but it was out of neglect rather than intent.
As others have pointed out, options 1 and 3 are exceedingly unlikely. If there’s anything we’ve learned about the Muller probe over the past two years, it’s that it’s being done very carefully and by the books, and that Muller is very careful about leaks. This isn’t amateur hour; this isn’t a partisan hack job carried out by blatantly partisan politicians; it’s an old-guard republican servant of state taking his job seriously, and the results show. So what can we expect? Well, probably more of that. More by-the-books stuff. I’d guess he’s going to complete his report and submit it to congress (y’know, the thing his job recommends).
That’s not what Snopes says, at all. Please read the article again, take notes, and come back when you can show where Hillary gave uranium to Russia.
For clarity:
“the U.S. government has not authorized any country to re-transfer U.S. uranium to Russia.”
From 2015 (three years AFTER Hilary Clinton was no longer SoS):
“In a June 2015 letter to Rep. Peter Visclosky, the NRC said it granted RSB Logistics Services an amendment to its export license in 2012 to allow the Kentucky shipping company to export uranium to Canada from various sources — including from a Uranium One site in Wyoming. The NRC said that the export license allowed RSB to ship uranium to a conversion plant in Canada and then back to the United States for further processing.”
But please, continue spreading factually incorrect information and posting “Letters to the Editor” as cites. Your opinion will be given due weight.
Speaking of factually incorrect information, nowhere in that Washington Post article I cited references the Steele dossier. All of the references are to publicly available sources.
For that matter, the Steele dossier, while not completely confirmed, has been corroborated on a number of points. I’m not aware of any substantive refutations of any of it, either. In any event, investigations of the Trump campaign began well in advance of the compiling of the dossier.
That’s not an opinion piece, that’s a letter to the editor. No expertise required.
Option 4 is probably closest, although I suspect the headline crimes alleged will be about material obstruction and assorted other lesser infractions rather than collusion. And while a week is too short a period for much action to be taken, a subpoena and House investigation will follow in due course, and thencefore Trump desperately trying to avoid testifying under oath.
Options 1 and 3 aren’t happening. Whatever the outcome, Mueller’s investigation is rock solid.
I’ve read this description before but don’t believe it to be accurate. Hard-core leftists here are definitely outnumbered by moderates who vote Democratic.
Was there a public poll recently where Dopers were asked to identify their political bent?
Just now I clicked on some recent “Who posted” links to make a list of the frequent posters in the Elections forum. About 25% to 30% were obvious right-wingers, regardless of what cut-off I used (5 out of the top 16 posters, or 15 out of the top 48). And those were just posters who’ve presented very right-wing views, and/or who have supported Trump. Among the remaining 70% to 75%, there are some who’ve described themselves with something like “I used to be a moderate Republican but the party moved too far away from me.” (There may even be some less familiar right-wingers I overlooked.)
(Admittedly, right-wing posters may feel a need to post more as compensation for the perceived left-wing bias.)
Yet you can post that the president is a Russian spy and get zero opposition from " moderate Democrats" actually looks like basically everyone agrees with that statement.
That’s a moderate?
And I find myself constantly in defense of moderate left and moderate right ideals i don’t even agree with because the bias is so extremely left.
But it is entertaining, and I’ve learned a lot.
Ok no problem, if I have to make a full case against Hillary to prove it’s a radical right ideal
I don’t support i’ll have to go digging around and do some homework.
Guess I’ll need a day to catch up .
I’m sure it won’t be real difficult.