If it is allowed to continue unimpeded, then yes. But, if he is found to have obstructed the investigation, then he needs to go obviously.
Please develop this hypothetical further. Name the Great Leaders you have in mind, name the acts of collusion, and describe the end state under which the masses would have benefitted. This should be fun.
The good news is that the goalposts have shifted from “no collusion, you’re all crazy libtards” to “we colluded for your own good”.
Lincoln colludes with Davis to allow secession in return for a significant payoff. Mass bloodshed and tyranny avoided. Slavery concludes as it did in Brazil. Occupation of the South is unnecessary.
Cousins collude in Russia and Austria after the assassination. End of civilization avoided.
List goes on. . .
I never claimed there was no collusion. I favored a Clinton victory once I was made aware of her crony Russian deals. Collusion means peace.
Methinks the circus peanut doth protest too much.
Emoluments. But that doesn’t apply to Trump because his sons are running the businesses in a ‘blind trust’. The only people making decisions about the Trump organization are Eric and Donald, Jr. ”And Dad!
Also much of France and South Korea, Belgium, Sweden, and pretty much the entirity of Africa. He’s essentially a perfect storm of terrible relations with every strategic ally the United States has cultivated relations with in the last seventy years.
I submit that you should change your user name to George Orwell. That kind of deep ironic sarcasm should not go unrecognized. Unless, of course, you are serious as I expect you are, in which case it should be Neville Chamberlin.
Stranger
Right. Because the US was (and is) so much like Brazil. And the South would just have given up on its major economic contributor willingly. Good luck with that.
Funny how life (and civilization) went on. A century and more after that, I’m sitting here writing a response on a computer that would not have existed without civilization.
You should write fantasy novels.
When should we expect this belated realization? Sometime around mid-century?
Hell, I’ve seen conservatives still claiming that Nixon was innocent.
Well, there was that whole pact between Stalin and Hitler over Poland.
I seem to recall it did not end well.
Not to mention the presence of Irakly Kaveladze, an accused money launderer, and Natalia Veselnitskaya, a Kremlin-connected attorney for another accused money launderer, at that infamous meeting about [del]Hillary[/del] [del]sanctions[/del] “adoptions”.
You guys are all wrong. Trump and his minions never colluded with Russia. It was Obama! Or Hillary! Somebody.
Seriously, I saw this on FoxNews.
For moths, the idiots of FoxNews have said that the Obama Administration interfered in the 2016 election by using the FBI to wiretap and otherwise spy on Trump and his associates. Then Mueller’s indictments came out last week.
Now, without missing a beat, FoxNews is saying that, obviously, Obama didn’t interfere ENOUGH! They say that Obama’s FBI knew about Russian interference and told the POTUS, who didn’t do anything about it. Obama even told Trump to stop whining about it. So, Obama wasn’t using the FBI to torpedo Trump’s chances. He was failing to use the FBI to counter the Russians. It is only by the wits of the Stable Genius himself that he was still able to pull out a win in spite of Obama’s inaction.
Somehow, they never acknowledge that this is the exact opposite of what they said a week ago. It is very Orwellian.
I even saw Michelle Milkin (I think that’s her name) say that the Russian meddling was all PRESIDENT CARTER’S fault. I sh*t you not.
Here’s a fun trivia question…
Q: What’s the largest fine eve paid by a casino to the federal government?
A: $10,000,000
Sometime after convincing evidence comes to light. From HMS Irruncible’s link:
While it is true that smoke does not prove fire, if a fog bank rolls into LA that smells like pine trees…its a fire.
More on money laundering…
Maybe Trump is innocent, but there sure does appear to be an awful lot of money laundering going on in buildings with Trump’s name on them.
It’s a long article and worth a read. Here’s a sample paragraph…
Besides that article there’s also this guy who may know what he’s talking about. “You realize where this is going. This is all about money laundering. Mueller chose [senior prosecutor Andrew] Weissmann first and he is a money-laundering guy. Their path to f***ing Trump goes right through Paul Manafort, Don Jr., and Jared Kushner. . . . It’s as plain as a hair on your face,” Wolff quotes Bannon saying.
You mean Obama actually told a Russian diplomat that presidents that don’t have to face reelection can maybe get things done that they couldn’t otherwise? The Horror, the Horror.
What the heck are you smoking?? What “Russian diplomat”?!
Remember, kids - short statements taken out of context and repeated with a new narrative attached are sufficient evidence of wrongdoing if a Democrat is involved. Decades of actual evidence of involvement with Russian criminals and money launderers doesn’t mean anything if a Republican is involved.
With all those qualifiers, this is a pretty meaningless statement. I expect that no evidence will ever be “clear and convincing” enough to satisfy Trump water-carriers. I expect that Trump greenlighting someone else’s greenlighting of stolen data spillage to be insufficient… I expect you’ll look at clear evidence of conspiracy and say “but that’s different from collusion”. You’ll look at Trump implicitly okaying Russian efforts to damage all his opponents, and say “but nobody stole any votes.”
Feel free to correct any part of this that’s wrong.