Is the meeting enough to prove conspiracy?
The events made public in the past few days are not enough to charge conspiracy, said Renato Mariotti, a former federal prosecutor.
What else is needed?
Evidence of an agreement to violate a specific criminal statute — in other words, a conspiracy to commit a certain crime.
“Anytime you are talking about coordinating or collusion, you are talking about the possibility of conspiracy charges,” said Samuel W. Buell, a former federal prosecutor who teaches criminal law at Duke University. “But conspiracy is not a crime that floats by itself in the air. There has to be an underlying federal offense that is being conspired to be committed.”
So there you have it. Still nothing there........
But what this story guarantees is (at least) 3 more months of non stop Russia....Trump....Trump.....Russia stories.
When it is over there will still be nothing there. But at least you can have fun on the journey.
To me the more interesting story is how did the NY Times end up with this story?
How did the NY Times end up with emails between Trump Jr and a Russian Lawyer?
Are the Russians setting Trump up?
Trump Jr didn't turn his emails over to the NY Times so that leaves the Russians or the CIA.
We know the CIA HATES Trump. But are the Russians trying to sabotage him too?
Trump just came back from the G-20 where he confronted Putin. Is Putin trying to toss a few grenades his way? Did Putin set Trump up from the beginning?
The conspiracy is really between the NY Times and the Russians.
If the main stream story line is to be believed (which I don't personally believe it....but for sh*ts and giggles lets play along) the Russians hacked Hillary and ruined her political career. Now are the Russians also trying to take down Trump? Or is this just the CIA doing what they do?
In either case I find that to be the much more interesting story.
OK don't let my thinking out loud distract you from your Trump Russia obsession. Get back to it.