Are you sure you want to delete this post?
Of course I want to find out. That's why I entered this thread by asking for hard evidence. Do you have any?
What would you consider 'hard evidence' and what investigative sources would be acceptable and unacceptable?
Recordings of conversations. Emails. Texts. GPS coordinates from cell phones that put Trump (or those we can prove were representing him) at the same time and place as representatives of the Russian Federation. Eyewitnesses are suspect in such a politically fraught environment, but even eyewitness testimony would be better than what is currently in the public domain.
Such evidence should be evidence of the allegation, not evidence of something related by a tortuous series of word associations. So if you claim that (1) Trump (2) colluded with the (3) Russian Federation in (4) 2016 to (5) illegally influence the (6) US election, don't back it up by showing that (1) Manafort (2) advised the (3) Ukrainian government in (4) 2006 on how to (5) campaign in the (6) Ukrainian election, but failed to report his income.
You seem to be suggesting Mueller is not the person for the job and\or better FBI investigator\team would have finished up after just a couple of months.
No. I am suggesting that, after this much time and resources have been thrown at this inquiry, without anything concrete to show to the public, people should start being skeptical that there is anything there to be found.
I can agree that Trump *would* conspire with the Russians. However, it's a separate question whether the Russians would conspire with Trump. It seems quite something to claim (as the Steele dossier did) that the Russians groomed Trump, starting several years ago, to be the Manchurian Candidate who would, by infiltrating the very highest level of the government of the world's foremost military power, become the most successful covert operative in history, all while running his mouth on Twitter. You have to ask why the Russians chose Trump, of all people, for this delicate secret mission. Why not choose someone with political experience and pedigree? With connections and an understanding of how DC works? Why choose a real estate tycoon, reality show presenter and beauty contest impressario who once had a cameo in "Home Alone"? Was it because of Trump's famous discretion and self-control, his compulsive and irresponsible outbursts in person and on social media notwithstanding? Or was it merely because Carrot Top was unavailable?
I am open to the idea that Mueller may clear trump of all collusion with the Russians. My basic observation is that trump has no difficulty hiring and\or working with people have no ethical boundaries. Win using all possible tools and methods; rules, laws, truth, honesty, ethics are for losers.
Though, to be fair, that's a charge that could probably be leveled at any politician. Bill Clinton had all kind of unpleasant friends, some of whom he pardoned. Hillary's associations with Henry Kissinger are well known. Her open admiration for former Klan leader Robert Byrd was nauseating. Obama was unusually good in this respect, but still managed to surround himself with a number of dubious individuals from Wall St. It hardly needs to be argued that George W. Bush surrounded himself with the most awful people imaginable. I challenge you to find anyone in the Trump administration as catastrophically ghastly and geopolitically dangerous as Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld.