"Did you or anyone in your campaign have any contact with Russia leading up to or during the campaign?"
"No, not at all," Trump responded.
The thing is, it was already public knowledge that there were contacts with Russians. The same can be said of the Hillary Clinton campaign. If she had been elected, would the same people hostile to Trump be as up in arms?
More importantly, the context of the question wasn't whether anyone spoke with any Russian but rather "collusion" to sway the election. Again, the same can be said of the Hillary Clinton campaign. Her campaign funneled money to Russians for fake dirt on Trump in order to sway the election for Clinton.
When Trump answered the question, he was addressing collusion, not mere contact.
How about contact with Israel or Jews in Israel, is that an issue? How about any other nation? Is contact with all foreigners outside or within the US illegal for all campaigns?
Furthermore, please notice that allegations are stated not as allegations but as proven facts in the false-propaganda article.
So, as always, it comes down to the questions of hypocrisy and illegality. Why was contact by Clinton's people okay? Why was Clinton campaign collusion not a problem? Why was Clinton campaign illegality in the primaries okay? Where's the proof that Trump or his campaign did anything illegal vis-a-vis the government of Russia?
Whenever a Russian official suggested aiding the Trump campaign, the Trump campaign never took that official up on the offer. That pretty much says it all. The Clinton-wing of the Democratic Party knows all of this, but the US and other neocon-Democrat-dominated "news" just pretends none of that exists.
Perhaps the Trump campaign allowed corporations to pony up the money to pay off women to stop saying they had extramarital sexual relations with Trump and that such payments amount to undeclared and excessive campaign contributions, but the Clintons have returned campaign donations before and not been held to account for ever having accepted them. Can Trump not do the same if necessary?
Trump repaid Cohen $130,000, perhaps more. Was that really a personal campaign-expense or just a personal expense?
He said he didn't have sex with the women. Maybe he did and maybe he didn't. Where are the "red dresses"? Even if such evidence were to show up, are we removing Presidents for extramarital sex before taking office? We don't remove them for war crimes.
Would he have lost had such proof been revealed before the election? Does that even matter?
He paid them to silence them. What about the issue of blackmail? Blackmail can be hard to prove, but the intent to get paid off can still be there, can still be the reason for starting to talk about something without asking for money to shut up about it. I don't know what's in the women's hearts.
Should he have simply denied their stories and dealt with the never-ending barrage from the Clintonites? It was a personal judgment call.
Did the campaign pay them or did he? Did every personal expenditure during the campaign constitute his personal contribution to his campaign? Hardly.
Is paying hush money, per se, illegal? If it is, that's news to me.
Bill Clinton was impeached for an extramarital affair he said never happened because he wanted to pass off oral sex as not having sexual relations. Bill was not removed from office over it all.
Two wrongs don't make a right, but such blatant, witting hypocrisy is a sin.
Here's the real rub. Would the payments to women have surfaced had there been no false claims of collusion brought by the Clinton-wing?
However, the most important constitutional question is whether it would be legal to bring fraudulently based charges to begin a fishing expedition and then level new claims as if those new claims are brought forth on good faith? The answer has to be no because the establishment could otherwise open a fishing expedition against anyone for anything anytime it wants. That would be a nightmare come true.
Is that what we want?