(06-08-2017 09:27 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  There really has never been a strong case of collusion against Trump himself. The issue primarily focused on his election/transition team, and the role they played. There are/were so many figures involved that had significant connections to Russia and who were then never upfront about their Russian interactions, leading to suspicion. I mean, you had Flynn repeatedly contacting a senior Russia official, lying about those interactions, and then being forced to resign.
The most likely issue Trump himself may have to deal with is obstructing an investigation or helping to cover up misdeeds.
I think Trump likely has non-collusion related issues he is more worried about (like being in debt to shady characters or laundering money), but that does go into the tin foil hat arena.
The Comey testimony does not really clear up anything outside of the fact that Trump was not under investigation while Comey was in charge of the FBI. Or, as Dershowitz actually points out, Trump TECHNICALLY couldn't obstruct justice by pressuring Comey because he argues that Trump has the Constitutional authority to direct investigations, even ones that may implicate himself.

If Dershowitz is right, there is really no legal case against Trump. But I don't think this has ever been about legal/illegal or right/wrong. I think the left saw an issue that they could make a bunch of allegations and conjectures about, and thus tie up the Trump team to keep them from pursuing their agenda. This has always sounded to me like, "Well, so-and-so talked to so-and-so, and Hillary lost, so there must have been collusion." What I've seen is a lot of dots without any lines to connect them. With the appointment of a special prosecutor, they can tie this up a while longer, I'm guessing probably another six months. Maybe a year, depending on how slowly things move. But Bobby Three Sticks has the reputation for moving in a hurry, and I would expect him to do that here. Unless there is something big that has not shown any signs of existence so far, this is going to unravel at some point. And when it does, I think the democrats will pay a high price in the form of backlash. They went all in on this. Why, I don't know. It never looked like more than a long shot to me. But maybe they were just so blinded by Trump hatred that they made the same mistake that republicans made with Monicagate. Or maybe this is what our political process has become. Nobody has any good ideas, so instead of a campaign of ideas, it is now all about smearing the other guy. I hope we get past that, but I am not optimistic. If anything does get us over it, it may be the realization that they threw everything but the kitchen sink at Trump and unless something comes out of the woodwork on this, it didn't work.

I also doubt that Trump has the kinds of financial worries that are being projected onto him by some. Yes, he has borrowed a lot of money. That's what you do when you are a real estate developer. But he's also got a lot of assets. And with proper legal advice--and that takes only money, which he has--you structure those deals so that you don't have much personal exposure. He's got some risk, to be sure. In the face of total economic meltdown, he probably could get hurt some. But as long as he has been doing the game, and assuming he has followed competent financial advice, he has enough free and clear that he will be comfortable forever. Quite honestly, if he weren't in that position he could never have afforded to run for president. He had made a couple of abortive attempts in the past. My guess is that he realized that he was not in financial position to make a run and pulled back. So he solved that problem before running for real. As far as ideas that he has borrowed from "the Russians" or "shady characters," sometimes that's who's lending. If you structure the deals properly, you are pretty well insulated. I'm going to assume that he did, because that's pretty easy for a prudent person with competent advice to do.