philbo wrote: ↑
Sat Nov 10, 2018 1:09 am
just pointed out that collusion was never used by anyone
I am not sure that the word collusion was only used by Trump and his associates, but I agree it was not used in the letter appointing Mueller as special counsel. But I also noted that you seem to have missed a significant point in the appointment that might make a difference. It says, as the primary purpose of the investigation:
(i) any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump;
Now, I may not be an employee of Merriam-Webster but it seems to me that the term collusion is another way of saying "links and/or coordination". For a very interesting article on what collusion means, I suggest this one from the Columbia Journalism Review: https://www.cjr.org/language_corner/wha ... russia.php
. And this article from Politico magazine is proof that someone other than Trump and his associates use the term collusion for the investigation target: https://www.politico.com/magazine/story ... ion-215366
(and for everyone, this helps explain exactly which laws might have been broken and what other than just talking with the other side is needed).
It also seems to me that your not mentioning the first clause in your denials of the accusation being collusion is very misleading. I do not know if it was a deliberate attempt to mislead or not, and I try to not attribute to evil those actions which are properly attributed to incompetence. But I will point out that incompetence hurts your credibility as much as evil intent would. While admitting my bias based on my belief that the investigation is just more politics as usual, I must say that you do not seem to be winning this debate at this time. You have scored on some points, but you have been scored against on more of them, IMO. Considering the subject of this forum, your having won some points is more surprising to me than your having lost more.