How about this: make the case that there isn't a connection. Between Papadopolous, Manafort, Carter Page, the Trump sons, etc.

We know a lot now, much of it sworn under oath. Make your case. How can you possibly argue there's no connection at this point?

Well don't be so sad, little camper! Your man has all the evidence he needs. You said so yourself!

Oh, but wait. Mueller is waiting for me (little-ole me!) to put pressure on my congressmen so that they will "get to the bottom of this!" Without that step, Mueller's hands are tied...

Now I see why you're sad.

Uh huh. Right.

Because conservatives are fiercely protective of their politicians. We'll do anything to protect our man!

And liberals. My god! They can't wait to get to the truth regarding Hillary! Except for you... You said in an earlier post that chasing Hillary was crazy because she was "out of power" or "that was a waste of time" or something...

You're welcome to explain why it isn't a waste of time. You're also welcome to explain why yesterday's indictments aren't important. OCF first raised the possibility, and a couple of people provided reasons why they felt an investigation isn't warranted.

If you think that's unfair and inconsistent, that's totally fine, but you should provide some support for why you think that that goes beyond identity politics. We're capable of having real, useful conversations here occasionally. You should consider participating.

OK, my mistake. I confused you with another reliable lib:

You could try addressing the point he's making. Why is it not a hail mary? What about this do you think warrants investigation?

I have no case to make. I'm perfectly willing to wait until the facts come out. Your post(s) seem to suggest you have solid evidence that Mueller doesn't have. And if you truly have that I think it's 100% relevant to pass that along. That can get them to the end point sooner versus later. On the other hand if you're merely conjecturing and hypothesizing based on assumptions you think may be facts then that's a different story. Mueller can't jump to conclusions in something this serious based on things that are non-factual at this time.

What do you think happened yesterday? Do you think it didn't clearly show an improper connection between Trump's foreign policy advisor and Russia? Papadopolous plead guilty to exactly that.

I'm not sure why stating what happened is being viewed as some political position and overreach.

Who's the angry one now, Finn?

Well if you're not angry, and you simply talk to people the way you attempt to talk to me (see above), then you've got real problems. So which is it? You're either angry, or you're just an asshole.

Robert,

I think the issue that BLSOS has, and I'd have to agree, is that you seem to come here just to stir the pot and add nothing to the conversation. He may be getting angry at trying to have a conversation with you while you offer little in reply. You may have valid points to make, but instead you fire off missives with veiled insults. For example, I gather your shot that I am just another 'reliable lib' is, to you, an invective. It's fun to come here and debate, to have a rational discussion about these topics. I heartily disagree with many on this thread, but I've enjoyed hearing some of their sides, such as those from OCF and LC. Again, I disagree often with them, but I enjoy reading their posts.

Where I think BLSOS (or maybe DFC) was wrong was to say that conservatives are rushing to defend the administration while attacking the prosecution. I believe he's wrong to say that it is 'conservatives' doing just that. My parents are about as conservative as it comes, but they no longer see themselves in the Republican party as it now governs. I think, instead, the language should be switched to say GOP loyalists are rushing to defend. I believe the true conservatives, such as a select few in congress, are not as quick to defend this administration.

No. You missed it entirely. I didn't say a point wasn't valid. I said that if Mueller had all the facts that he should proceed with his case. That's it. For some reason, BLSOS hates that. Probably because he wants to have an argument about what he considers to be the facts of the case. The point is, if the facts are as unshakable as BLSOS contends, then this is a moot discussion.

And I don't recall ever calling you an asshole. I think I called you pretentious. Maybe I should reconsider.