Most of your sources in your “debunking” are shitty youtube videos and tweets from random people that we are just supposed to believe are somehow authorities on the matter.
Links are not the same thing as sources. Americans are really bad at this distinction. The fact that I include a link in an article does not mean I’m citing it as a “source”. I use many primary sources in my arguments.
Your assumption is that if they found something, they would have leaked it to one of the papers already. Why would they do that?
For the same reason they were leaking other Russiagate information to outlets like the New York Times and the Washington Post during that period of time, as outlined int the article you are commenting on. Why would they leak vaguely-sorta-kinda incriminating Russia information but not direct evidence of collusion?
It’s also a fallacy to even assume that he won’t uncover anything more even if the intelligence agencies haven’t found anything solid enough for a court of law yet. The intelligence agencies have certain mandates and certain rules. They can only even LOOK at Americans, if there is already some decent evidence that they are involved with foreigners in a nefarious way. It’s not their jobs to be following money trails, that’s law enforcement’s job. They are not all knowing. It’s also not their job to “make a case”. They gather intelligence, pass it off to law enforcement and it’s law enforcement’s job to make a case.
You’re not making much of an argument here that Mueller would be able to find anything that America’s vast, sprawling Orwellian surveillance systems couldn’t. Anything that could be found by following “money trails” could also be found far more easily via surveillance.
There’s a ton of circumstantial evidence. The huge amount of lies on the subject from people involved that have already been proven false, and all the meetings with Russians that people in the administration were legally required to disclose, but they conveniently forgot to mention. That is not suspicious?
How often do you hear about Trump’s many, many business ties in foreign nations that aren’t Russia? How often is that in the news? Why do they only focus on the few ties in the mix that are Russian? Could it be that they’re ignoring all the other interactions with foreign governments that don’t fit their narrative? They’re certainly doing that with his business ties. Have you personally combed through all of the Trump teams interactions with foreign nationals and noted if any of those meetings weren’t disclosed properly? Do you honestly think it would be front page news if someone on the Trump team failed to properly disclose a meeting with a Saudi ambassador? You’re taking it on their say-so that the Russia stuff is a suspicious phenomenon unique to that country and not something that happens when a large group of people are trying to compile lists of every Tom, Dick and Ludwig they’ve ever interacted with.
Sure, none of this stuff is likely to pass muster in the court of law by itself, because as I said, it’s circumstantial and does not show for sure quid pro quo. But it’s still evidence, and to say there is 0 evidence is an absolute lie,
By your standards of “evidence” there is evidence that 9/11 was an inside job and Seth Rich was murdered for being the real WikiLeaks leaker. You only believe one conspiracy theory over the others because they’re coming from millionaire pundits in expensive suits, not because there’s more evidence.
Number 4 seems to be a basic gripe about the fact that I use the same authoritative tone as MSNBC pundits and a strawman about their tone being my problem with their argument. Not sure how to respond to that.
Number 5 is not an argument.