(08-07-2018 10:41 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  You're right - which is why I'm not suggesting a crime was committed based on the evidence at hand. Instead, I'm suggesting there is sufficient evidence to warrant an investigation. Why try and make me defend a position I haven't taken?
We know a meeting took place where a conspiracy could very well have been initiated, so reason says that an investigation is warranted, right? We know a situation arose where Trump Jr and other campaign leaders could have very well started a conspiracy, and we know that those members lied about the meeting when it came to light and did not inform the authorities before hand.
So this is my whole point - that the TT meeting alone is enough to warrant the Mueller probe. We deserve an answer as to whether a conspiracy was established that doesn't rely solely on the word of someone who has already lied about the meeting multiple times.
And to your first point, I offered one potential hypothetical as to why an investigation into the Clinton Campaign would be warranted - it wasn't all encompassing. Do you have e

OK, I don't disagree that there is enough to warrant an investigation of that meeting. What I'm not understanding is why investigations in Hillary's campaign are not similarly warranted.

At a minimum there is substantially more actual evidence (not speculation) that Hillary's campaign did in fact conspire with the DNC and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz to fix the democrat primaries.

And there is ample reason to speculate that her campaign somehow was conspiring with "the Russians" to produce dirt on Trump. What you seem to be saying is that it's a no-no if you do it directly, but okay if it is handled through intermediaries.