Yahoo Answers is shutting down on May 4th, 2021 (Eastern Time) and the Yahoo Answers website is now in read-only mode. There will be no changes to other Yahoo properties or services, or your Yahoo account. You can find more information about the Yahoo Answers shutdown and how to download your data on this help page.

So Have we FOUND?

Evidence yet of Russian Collusion???

16 Answers

Relevance
  • 3 years ago

    They have found they have Wasted Millions and Months on investigating no crime and still have nothing in the way of a crime to investigate. Collusion is NOT a crime and this entire Waste of effort and assets demonstrates what a Failure the Demon-rats are.

  • 3 years ago

    Flynn admitted to meeting with the Russians on Trump's behalf. Don Jr. met with a Moscow agent in Trump Tower. Russia funneled money through the NRA into Republican campaigns. Yes, we have proof.

  • ?
    Lv 7
    3 years ago

    I’ll put this as simply as possible since you’re clearly challenged. Nobody will know what Mueller and his team have found until the investigation is finished. The questions leaked by the White House showed Mueller is clearly investigating collusion/conspiracy by Trump. You can keep acting silly or be an adult and learn the lesson of patience. Good luck.

  • Jas B
    Lv 7
    3 years ago

    Of course, what Mueller knows about collusion and what the public knows about collusion are two different things. Even we mere civilians have access to a great deal of information on cooperation between the Trump campaign and Russia. Whether this body of information amounts to proof of collusion is something you could dispute if you took an especially stringent definition of the terms “proof” and “collusion.”

    What do we know about Manafort? We know he ran the campaign of a pro-Russian candidate on behalf of Russia previously; that he had taken on massive debt to a foreign patron, Oleg Deripaska; that Deripaska was working on behalf of the Russian government’s foreign policy; that Manafort accepted his position as Trump’s campaign manager for free; and that he hoped his work for Trump would help him “get whole” with Deripaska.

    Does that prove Trump’s campaign manager was working with Russia? No, but it certainly counts as evidence.

    Want more evidence? Okay. Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos met with a Russian agent who told him he had dirt on Hillary Clinton, later boasted that Russia had obtained damaging Clinton emails, and lied to the FBI about his contacts with Russia. That would also qualify as evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.

    Peter W. Smith, a veteran Republican political operative, attempted to obtain stolen Clinton emails and told the people he contacted in pursuit of these emails he was working on behalf of the Trump campaign. When one of the cybersecurity experts he contacted warned Smith that his work might involve collusion with Russia, it did not dissuade him at all. That also seems like evidence.

    Trump confidant Roger Stone reportedly knew about stolen Clinton emails, emailed with the person who had the stolen material, publicly flaunted his advance knowledge of these emails, and also spoke regularly with Donald Trump during the period when he had this knowledge. It is a virtual certainty Stone colluded with Russia on the email hack, and highly probable he made Trump an accessory after the fact.

    Then of course there is the 2016 Trump Tower meeting. I would argue that the publicly available information pertaining to that episode amounts to proof of Trump campaign collusion with Russia. You have a Russian agent dangling Russian assistance in the election (“part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump”), and the offer of help being accepted (“if it’s what you say I love it”). It doesn’t even matter to what degree or even whether the offer was actually followed through. If you take a meeting to plan a crime, and the crime later happens and you benefit, you are an accessory to the crime whether or not you participated after the meeting.

    The report from Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee reports that, on June 6, 2016, Donald Trump Jr. made two phone calls with Emin Agalarov. In between those two calls — which, based on emails he exchanged around that time with Rob Goldstone, indicate Trump successfully arranged the meeting during the calls — Donald Jr. made another call. Phone records show the call, at 4:27 p.m., was to a blocked phone number. Corey Lewandowski told the House Intelligence Committee that Donald Trump had a blocked phone number. “Despite the [Democratic] Minority’s repeated efforts to obtain home or cell phone records for then-candidate Trump to determine whether the blocked call was Trump Jr.’s father,” Democrats report, “the Majority was unwilling to pursue the matter.”

    But even if you don’t consider the Trump Tower meeting to be absolute proof of collusion, it is certainly evidence of collusion. It was, after all, a meeting held for the express purpose of furthering cooperation — or, as it were, collusion — between the Trump campaign and Russia. And there is no reason to believe that the publicly available evidence of this meeting — which Trump and his family have lied about, repeatedly — contains the entire extent of the information about it.

    Trump’s own rhetoric after the meeting provides more evidence he was briefed on the Russian offer to provide dirt on Clinton. Trump promised to deliver a “major speech” within a few days. Trump promised he would be “discussing all of the things that have taken place with the Clintons. I think you’re going to find it very informative and very, very interesting.”

    I call this evidence and this is only the things we know about.

  • Anonymous
    3 years ago

    Nope

  • Anonymous
    3 years ago

    Yes. get your head out of the sand, and see evidence that shows many unusual contacts between Trump campaign officials and russians, There were meetings between Jared Kushner, Little Trump and a Russian lawyer who Trump says a few days ago works for Putin. The evidence is so strong that Trump's followers are trying to shut down Mueller's inestigation, because they don't want their president to be impeached.

  • Anonymous
    3 years ago

    Dalhousie.

  • Anonymous
    3 years ago

    Yes which is why Paul Manafort is going to prison

  • Anonymous
    3 years ago

    Its all over the place, kid.

    Are you too stupid to realize that ?

  • Anonymous
    3 years ago

    70 more indictments next week ya Russian troll.

    I guess Putin still has skin in the game or he wouldn't be paying you.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.