Brian Peacock wrote:The thrust of the current 'rubuttal' is that investigating links between "Trump et al and Russia" is not an investigation of Donald J Trump's links with Russia - in effect, the narrative is that Trump's not personally responsible in any eay for the actions of the organisation which got him elected.
In any way? I wouldn't go that far. He's not responsible for everything his organization does. It's no different for other politicians either.
The investigation is, per se, about links. The investigation is, according to Comey, about Russia's meddling in the election. If there are illegal things going on which involve Trump organization personnel, or Trump himself (or Hillary, or Newt, or Obama, or Paul Ryan, or anyone else), then of course that will be explored.
To date, the consistent statement has been that so far there is no evidence of any collusion between Trump organization people and the Russians - no improper links.
Talking to Russians is not illegal. Having business relationships is not illegal. It's not immoral. it's not unethical. It's not illegal or a problem if Russia favors one candidate. It's not even a problem if Russia "meddles" in lawful ways - like if they engage in advertising or propaganda on their own to support one candidate or another.
The thread that seems to exist, at least by way of rumor, is that Russia is thought, by some intelligence folks, to have been the entity that got ahold of the Democrats' emails, and spread them around to favor Trump. The "links" that would be improper here would be if someone in the Trump campaign was involved or communicating with the Russians in order to accomplish that. However, as of today, I think it's fair to say that the evidence of that is a maximum of zero. Isn't it?
What other "links" are a problem? I mean, Nancy Pelosi lied, or misstated, about her interactions with the Russian ambassador. She said she never met with him, but she is shown in photographs meeting with him. So, is that improper? Probably not. And, the fact of the misstatement is not a big deal either. It only becomes a big deal if you have an ax to grind and want to assume the worst in every instance.
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar