@InfraBlue,
InfraBlue wrote:
Your opinion is duly noted. However, these directives are further indications of gross impropriety by President Trump, and may be seen as efforts to influence or impede an investigation.
Well, obviously they may be seen as efforts to influence or impede an investigation since you clearly see them that way. Crop circles may also be seen as evidence that earth has been visited by aliens from outer space. The leap from asking officials to state there is no evidence of collusion to an effort to impede an investigation is based on wishful thinking. If one or both of them complied with the request, how would that have influenced or impeded any outstanding investigation? Clearly you believe there was collusion so you are making the assumption that his request involved a lie. On what do you base that assumption?
Quote:Sure, assumptions can be made from these allegations. One thing that is not an assumption about this report is that Trump directly instructed these officials to make statements to the public that they felt were inappropriate. These instuctions raise the obvious question as to why he would instruct these officials to make these public announcements. This leads to the assumption that you've brought up.
Sure assumptions can be made that George Bush ordered the destruction of the Twin Towers on 9/11.
Your logic is terribly twisted.
Requests to state there is no evidence of collusion (You've chosen to convert request to instruct) are not difficult to fathom. He knows he didn't collude and he's not aware of collusion by his campaign staff and he wants the American people to know that there is no evidence to support such charges. Is that really that difficult for you to comprehend? It doesn't at all lead to the assumption that he is lying (unless you've abandoned reason in favor of pronouncing him guilty).
No matter how much you would like to believe otherwise, the report is an allegation not a recitation of fact. When the two officials issue a public statement or testify before congress that Trump asked them to state there was no evidence, then you will have some real meat upon which to chew.
Quote:Ok. Conversely, however, if you were were under a highly publicized investigation that impacted your daily life and were a guilty weasle, you'd probably love for authorities to announce that there was no evidence of your guilt, and you would have no hesitation to ask them to make such an announcement, surely.
Sure, but why do you think it is more likely that he is a
guilty weasel? If you can imagine why someone in his position would request such statements (whether guilty or not) that should be the end of it, and yet you want to stretch it to evidence of obstruction of justice.
Quote:Ok. It it could be seen as an attempt to interfere with or impede the investigation, however.
We've covered this already. A lot can be seen and much of it is nonsense. That something
can be seen is not proof of anything.
Quote:Oh, there's a lot to sink my cuspids into already, seeing as how Trump is like an infant who's been given a razor blade to play with inflicting upon himself a thousand cuts.
Really? And precisely what is there other than unproven allegations and innuendo? Trump's habit of shooting himself in the foot with stupid comments is hardly evidence of his being guilty of anything other than a lack of impulse control. Try finding a prosecutor who is willing to charge him for that.
