From: Dutch <>
Subject: Re: Where Are All Our Wingnuts?
Full headers:
X-Received: by with SMTP id r9mr3042953qke.39.1517731711085;
Sun, 04 Feb 2018 00:08:31 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: Where Are All Our Wingnuts?
References: <p537da$dsm$>
<%CqdC.11559$Cy2.3695@fx44.iad> <>
<P4tdC.4651$qc.1298@fx04.iad> <>
<QhvdC.15227$CZ2.9614@fx39.iad> <p55vsm$kjp$>
<TJwdC.21514$d03.12909@fx37.iad> <p567g6$kqa$>
<qGydC.8842$4_2.6183@fx35.iad> <p56e4u$kaa$>
From: Dutch <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <p56e4u$kaa$>
Lines: 40
Message-ID: <2czdC.2965$fQ7.748@fx13.iad>
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 04 Feb 2018 08:08:30 UTC
Organization: UsenetServer -
Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2018 00:08:29 -0800
X-Received-Bytes: 2858
X-Received-Body-CRC: 2927807332
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Original-Bytes: 2796
Print Article
Forward Article
On 2/3/2018 11:53 PM, Clave wrote:
> On 2/3/2018 11:32 PM, Dutch wrote:
>> On 2/3/2018 10:00 PM, Clave wrote:
>>> On 2/3/2018 9:19 PM, Dutch wrote:
>>>> On 2/3/2018 7:50 PM, Clave wrote:
>>>>>> And yes, I am aware that "collusion" per se, in and of itself is 
>>>>>> not a crime.
>>>>> The obstruction *IS* the collusion.
>>>> I don't follow. The Trump campaign colluded with Russia, i.e. 
>>>> *illegally* exchanged promises to drop sanctions in exchange for the 
>>>> release of *illegally obtained* damaging information about Clinton, 
>>>> then subsequently the Trumpsters have, in a variety of ways, worked 
>>>> to *illegally* obstruct the investigation into it. There appears to 
>>>> me to be separate and independent sets of crimes.
>>> There is no such crime as "collusion."
>> I know, I didn't call it a crime.
> What does "illegally" mean to you then?

The illegality is not simply colluding with a foreign power, but how 
they did it. They promised to lift sanctions before Trump was president 
and accepted help in the form of illegally obtained information.

>>> There currently exists no (public) proof of the quid pro quo you 
>>> allege regarding sanctions.  Correlation is not proof of causation, 
>>> although there are hot bullet shells all over the floor.
>> afaik Flynn admitted it. It also appears that he is admitting that he 
>> cleared it with the Whitehouse.
> "AFAIK" is not proof in any legal sense, and there are no such public 
> admissions.  Yet.

That Fox report appears to suggest that Flynn has already copped to 
promising sanction relief with the approval of the Whitehouse.