(10-30-2017 02:04 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-30-2017 01:51 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I've said this many time, intent matters. Just like how there is a charge for attempted murder, even when the person doesn't actually kill someone.

And again, you can stick a pin into a doll with the intent to kill the person who is represented by the doll with that pin. Legal and factual impossibility intrude into your analogy.

Speaking of which, is it just me or does the DNC/Perkins Coie/Fusion/Russian thing have the same air about it?

Or, as I will assume our Democrat brethren will say that a direct Jr met with lawyer path is bad, but also say that the chain of DNC - Perkins - Fusion - Russian is good.

If so, I guess their answer of 'just have a fkload of cutouts' is a smashing defense....

The only thing that is similar is there was an outside source with information.

The Fusion thing is normal oppo research, right? You hire an investigator to understand if your opponent has skeletons in their closet. They use legal methods to obtain that information and then you use it as necessary. That's what they did right?

For Trump, the BIG issue isn't that they were interested in info on Clinton. The big issue is that the info they were interested in was illegally obtained and it was going to be provided by a foreign government. When you talk about illegality and collusion, the quid pro quo isn't clear, but that's why there is an investigation, to figure out if there was one.

Am I missing something in the Fussion business, where it wasn't a straightforward transaction of basically paying a private eye to obtain information legally?