Hoping to get a big enough following they can leverage an endorsement to the nominee’s cabinet. I still think Eric Holder will be the nominee in 2020.

What purpose would a public presence serve?  First Ladies are historically nonpartisan. Short of Hillary taking a role in universal healthcare, I can’t think of any First Lady being the face of any major policy position.

What was Jackie Kennedy the face of?  Ladybird Johnson? 

The First Lady became an advocate for separated migrant children. That was pretty bold. I’m not sure what you’re expecting her presence to mean.

55% of our budget goes to the military!??

Let’s break this down by each claim as we know they occurred:

1.)Trump asked Russia to hack Clinton

He asked “Russia” to release Clinton’s 33k emails she removed, with no independent review, from her private server she illegally retained classified information on and performed her duties as Secretary of State. Those 33k emails have never appeared. They were never hacked (that we know of) and were never released.

What was released and “hacked” (Podesta gave his password away through a phishing email) were emails from the DNC and Podesta. Our intelligence agencies agree this was likely Russian behavior.

So the thing the Russians did, isn’t what Trump asked for.

So already at the start, your entire argument is flawed because you’re intentionally misrepresenting what occurred to support your conspiracy based conclusion that Trump collided with Russia.

2.) Don Jr met with someone with connections to (but not part of) Russian intelligence, promising dirt.

Yep. No doubt about it. And no doubt no information was exchanged.  Emails being sent during the meeting to end it because it wasn’t fruitful. No evidence the “Russian lawyer” represented herself as connected to the KGB, or that Jr or Kushner thought she had any connection to Russian intel. And more importantly, nothing illegal being done.  Accusations of loose interpretations of espionage law aren’t comparable to actual convictions of the applicable statutes. The notion that any treason occurred is preposterous, and no one connected to the investigation has even hinted at it. Kushner’s top secret clearance was approved by the FBI, remember?

So you’re trying to suggest that some kind of agreement was discussed or evidenced by this meeting supporting accusations of collusion related to the election. And you’ve provided nothing to support this claim. “Jr did something really stupid and sleazy” isn’t “Jr coordinated collusion with Russian Intelligence to impact the election.”

3.)Manafort shared polling data with “possible” agent

This is just breaking. But what’s this supposed to mean?  This supports the idea that we have actual evidence of sharing information, demonstrating collusion?!?!?

Cause that has to be the takeaway if this means anything more than the flavor of broth I put on my dogs food tonight.

Polling data isn’t secretive, or protected. Maybe it’s a breach of contract if the data given was the algorithm for the actual poll they used. But do you think Podesta didn’t have a conversation with anyone who wasn’t a citizen?  I’m genuinely asking what is this supposed to show?

We don’t even know if the recepient was a Russian operative. So if that isn’t true, the mere appearance of inappropriate behavior is removed. I don’t know why polling data is unique or why that’s supposed to be revealing. I could create reasons why - the polling data gave demographic information the Russian troll farms could tailor their propaganda campaigns toward. If that happened, that’s a problem. But no one has suggested anything like that happened.

You have to explain why this matters - what occurred that is wrong and why. You haven’t done that. And I’ve yet to see an article that explains what we know occurred and what was unethical or illegal. If you have that article, please share.

4.)  this has been debunked. No other outlet ran it besides McClatchy. Not CNN, NBC, Fox. You pick it. Cohen stated it’s inaccurate and nothing in his plea related to this. Mueller wouldn’t miss this since it was falsely reported in the early days of the inauguration.

You don’t have any sources outside of McClatchy supporting this story. Feel free to link me the NYTimes or WaPo articles if I’m mistaken.

5.) Flynn lied to the FBI.

Yep. He plead guilty he lied about having conversations with a Russian ambassador. The call was recorded by the NSA. It was reviewed. Nothing relating to collusion was discussed. Nothing about the election.

No one levied the Logan Act.

If you think this proves or even suggests Flynn was a surrogate for Trump in colluding, you’re gravely mistaken. Please read Mueller’s recommendation for the judge on Sentencing. Cohen was the fixer and he’s going away for 3 years, Flynn isn’t going to serve a day. 

So not a single thing you linked proves remotely that any collusion took place. At no point is collusion even levied against the people in each point.

Yet you’ve created this whole other story, and use these events as the basis for some larger conspiracy.

And this is all I’m going to post on this. It’s been beat to death. No one is going to change their mind. I’m not interested in watching everyone repeat themselves.

If anyone wants to discuss something else, like the shutdown, the increasing amount of 2020 candidates, or anything else in greater depth than “fuck Trump” or “fuck Democrats”, let me know. Otherwise I’m bowing out of this topic.

We’ve had this discussion countless times. I’m going to ask if any of those people are guilty of anything related to the election.

You’re going to ignore that question. Then you’re going to inject a bunch of “what ifs”, and predict you’ll be vindicated a year from now.

Sessions didn’t lie. The FBI came out months ago and acknowledged that. Sessions didn’t do anything wrong, and no one connected to the FBI or Mueller investigation has suggested otherwise. A bunch of very loud, unimportant congressmen have made that claim, but they’re neither on any of the committees connected, nor have provided anything to support their claims.

You want there to be collusion. So you ignore every actual expert or objective article on it. Just like you’re doing with the Russian lawyer. Every article makes it crystal clear her crime had nothing to do with the election or Trump. But you ignore that, and inject some conspiracy.

Can you name one person connected to Trump that has been charged by Mueller for any crime related to Russian collusion?  Just one person. Not your head canon on what might have occurred, just the facts.

The only possible crime that has been uncovered in 2 years is Trump paying off two women who attempted to extort him, took the money, and went public anyway.

There’s a hundred lawyers out there who argue that payment wasn’t illegal. You have Cohen, who was guilty for a shit ton of stuff unrelated to collusion or Russia or Trump, who plead to the campaign finance contribution. He claimed he helped Mueller tons. And what did Mueller give Cohen for all the “cooperation”?  Nothing. Mueller didn’t recommend any time off Cohen’s sentence.

Sounds to me like Mueller didn’t need or get anything from Cohen. He’s not going away for 3 years because of paying off Stormy. He’s going away for all the illegal shit he did that no one has alleged Trump had any involvement with.

Your argument is an inch deep. You think because these people are guilty of random, unconnected crimes, that somehow makes them guilty of collusion. It doesn’t.

You’re free to believe whatever you want.  But your argument isn’t an informed or intelligent one.

So good luck getting 218 congressmen to vote for impeachment because Trump paid off two women who blackmailed him. And even better luck getting 67 Senators to vote guilty.

Your argument is the definition of a conspiracy theory. You have nothing to base your thesis on, so you manufacture events or just inaccurately repeat them (Sessions lied and had to recuse himself).

Think on that last one. Lynch refused to recuse herself after meeting secretly with Bill Clinton. Comey testified he went public because of how that looked. Jeff Sessions did nothing wrong and didn’t lie according to the FBI. Yet recused himself because not doing so looked improper.

That’s the objective truth and reality free from partisan logic. Yet you ignore all of that, all of the pleas that have nothing to do with Trump, Russia or the election, and somehow think you’ve made a compelling argument.

Do you not see how weak your position is?  You’re objectively wrong, but refuse to acknowledge that because you want Trump to be guilty of this heinous thing.