I don't know what you mean when you use the word "proof." The indictment says that these Russian organizations and individuals did various illegal things to help elect Trump.
It says that Russians did things to help promote Trump. It does not say that Trump was involved or not involved. They may very well plan on doing that, and this could be a way to get more information so they can.
So if Clinton had colluded with the Russians, that would mean that an entirely different set of Russian individuals and organizations were working to help Clinton, at cross purposes with the activities of the indicted group.
Not necessarily. If the goal was to disrupt things then they could have been the same group. We have no reason to believe that it actually happened though, because again there is nothing in terms of evidence.
Doesn't seem likely, does it?
No. No evidence so why would I think that?
I think when you say "proof" you don't mean "evidence" but something like absolute proof.
Well there is neither evidence or proof right? I don't think there is which is why I keep saying I lack belief. I see nothing even hinting at this point that she did.
Of course it's still theoretically possible that Clinton worked with the Russians in some way, but what's in the indictment makes it substantially unlikely and hence it is relevant evidence to strongly suggest that she did no such thing.
Why would the indictment make it substantially more or less likely? Again, the indictment also clearly says that pro and anti Trump rallies were run. The reason was to get people angry. It does not say anything about Hillary other than she was a target of things against her. That logically means that they still could have, but it also means that it may not even be on their radar because they feel there is nothing to investigate.
So I disagree that the indictment has anything to do with Hillary working with Russians.
When someone said that this indictment put the notion of Clinton colluding with the Russians to rest, he was essentially correct.
No he was not. The indictment has nothing to do with Hillary being investigated in any way. It just said that anti-Hillary things were done to help Trump. If you believe there is a part that exonerates Hillary for something that so far does not look like it was investigated because there is nothing to investigate then please show me.
Then you basically came in and said, no, it's still theoretically possible she could have. While that is technically true, from what we now know, the chances of it are extremely remote. That's why people call you pedantic.
What do you mean from what we know? We know nothing because there is nothing. Nothing saying she did, nothing saying she did not. To me it seemed like he was saying that because the indictment said Russians were trying to hurt Hillary and Help trump that it must mean Hillary did not work with Russians. That is simply illogical, and that is all I have been saying. I did not say its likely, just that the indictment simply does not say anything about Hillary working with Russians. That is why I said this pretty quickly when he was trying to get clarification.
I just meant that it does not logically follow that this indictment disproves anything about Hillary.
You can find that comment all the way back on page 3, post #53. I get that people find that trivial, but you like others seem to think that because I comment on what they see as trivial that I must be doing it for some diabolical reason. I literally just meant that the indictment does not disprove or prove anything to his question.
Look, I get that others do that here. I think the problem you and others have is that you see some people here try to use technicalities as a way to deflect, so when you see something that looks overly simple, obvious, and mainly technical you think something more is going on. All I can do is tell you that I am being as upfront as possible.
Now, this has gone on and on over something very simple. I think I have said all that can be said on this. There may be more later in terms of the indictment. If someone wants to accuse Hillary then they need to provide evidence. This indictment does not do anything other than say that Trump was supported, Hillary was attacked.