The Instigator
Krueger515
Con (against)
The Contender
CJBPrewrather
Pro (for)

Donald Trump Colluded with the Russians

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
Krueger515 has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/18/2017 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 months ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 472 times Debate No: 105898
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (12)
Votes (0)

 

Krueger515

Con

Please accept only if you plan to complete the debate. Thanks and good luck!

Please use the first round to acknowledge and accept the scope of argument and challenge respectively. The arguments will begin in round 2.

This is an all-out war of evidence! Show me what you got!

Let's keep this cordial. I understand that this can be a heated topic but let's have a good and thorough look at the available evidence and judge the facts with an open mind. I will maintain an open mind if you will.

For the record, I am arguing that the available evidence does not show that Donald Trump colluded with the Russian Government to throw the 2016 US presidential election. Pro will argue that there is sufficient evidence to support the conclusion that Donald Trump colluded with the Russians.

Also, if the debate includes information about there being evidence about other people doing something nefarious during the election to compare and contrast an opponent's argument and to possibly point out a hypocritical point, that is fair game. We should approach the debate as if we are politicians on opposite sides of the aisle arguing about this issue in a house or senate comity hearing.

I am not suggesting that we settle this national debate right here and now. I am merely suggesting that we get all of the evidence in a centralized location to have a measured look at the available facts, enabling us to judge whether the level of hysteria shown by individuals of both sides of the aisle in DC is justified.

Thanks and good luck! This should be fun!
CJBPrewrather

Pro

So did Hillary when she sold uranium to the Russians, but liberal feminists don't care. If you condemn Trump, you have to condemn Hillary. Both parties have good and bad. You need to prove your claims.
Debate Round No. 1
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by levi_smiles 7 months ago
levi_smiles
I agree w/ @drewsco that collusion is an overly broad question. We have established that Trump had some level of secret interaction with Russia. The question is really how much secret interaction with foreign hostile a amounts to disqualification? The question is not really for me to answer since I am of the opinion that all well informed patriots considered Trump disqualified for POTUS from an early stage. The question is for Krueger- what degree of cooperation is too much Krueger to continue support for Trump? Russia has launched cyber attacks against the US on nearly every front without reply or even apparent interest from our Comnander in Chief. Trump"s intelligence briefers admit that they exclude most reports regarding Russia since Trump"s responses are consistently antithetical to US interest & since Trump has already proved willing to hand top secret info over to Russian intel. Would physical attacks from Russia on US interests force Trump to respond? If Russia invaded Belarus would Trump side with NATO or Putin? The fact that I"m not certain by itself merits impeachment in my eyes. When, Krueger, does Trump cross the line into treason for you?
Posted by drewsco 7 months ago
drewsco
The term collusion is too broad to define, especially if you're asserting that it's illegal. The more accurate definition should be whether Donald Trump violated the Logan Act. This is a single federal statute making it a crime for a citizen to confer with foreign governments against the interests of the United States. Specifically, it prohibits citizens from negotiating with other nations on behalf of the United States without authorization.

So in my view the debate topic should be: Did Donald Trump confer with a foreign government against the interests of the United States, without authorization..
Posted by TheRealBatman117 7 months ago
TheRealBatman117
Has nobody seen anything? The actual question is:
"How much was he colluding with Mother Russia?"
Posted by levi_smiles 7 months ago
levi_smiles
At the very most, he was misleading, and to most people, he was technically telling the truth

Most Republicans, not most Americans. 63 percent of Americans say Mr. Trump has tried to impede or obstruct the investigations into whether his campaign had Russian ties, according to a CBS poll Dec 15.

There really is no set level of proof. I am not suggesting that we settle this national debate right here and now. I am merely suggesting that we get all of the evidence in a centralized location to have a measured look at the available facts, enabling us to judge whether the level of hysteria shown by individuals of both sides of the aisle in DC is justified.

Mueller"s investigation is just that.
Posted by levi_smiles 7 months ago
levi_smiles
I am not sure I agree. Impeachment has no legal standard that needs to be reached. It is purely a political act.

Half right. The will to indict is political. In a Republic, that will depends the willingness of Congress to represent the majority"s demand. PPP polls have support for impeachment at 51% up from 49% Oct 31. Once taxes pass, Congress has little to gain from supporting Trump & Trump gains nothing from appeasing Congress. Next November"s election will certainly be cast as a referendum on Trump"s suitability for office.

The legal standard for indictment is high crimes and misdemeanors: perjury of oath, abuse of authority, bribery, intimidation, misuse of assets, failure to supervise, dereliction of duty, unbecoming conduct, and refusal to obey a lawful order. Trump is certainly guilty of some of these generally but I suspect any real effort to impeach will likely hinge on the specific findings of Mueller"s investigation.

I also do not agree with your definition of collusion. Collusion is "secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy, especially in order to cheat or deceive others." according to the Oxford Dictionary.

Same definition as mine- are you making some fine distinction between cooperation and agreement? I am not.

Just because Donald Trump said that he had no dealings with Russia when referring to a failed branding deal does not imply that he was cooperating with anyone to affect a specific event such as the US election.

At least, we know Trump"s 3 top lieutenants asked for damning evidence against his campaign rival from Russian intelligence. Whether Russia advised Trump regarding hacking, propaganda is probably unknowable but motive and opportunity are established. The cover-up and disinterest in discovering the facts are fairly condemning.

At the very most, he was misleading, and to most people, he was technically telling the truth

Most Republicans, not most Americans. 63 percent of Americans say Mr. Trump has tried t
Posted by SlowDMO 7 months ago
SlowDMO
Good luck finding a challenger... No evidence... I could prove Hillary colluded with russia, but not trump.
Posted by Krueger515 7 months ago
Krueger515
There really is no set level of proof. I am not suggesting that we settle this national debate right here and now. I am merely suggesting that we get all of the evidence in a centralized location to have a measured look at the available facts, enabling us to judge whether the level of hysteria shown by individuals of both sides of the aisle in DC is justified.
Posted by Krueger515 7 months ago
Krueger515
I am not sure I agree. Impeachment has no legal standard that needs to be reached. It is purely a political act. I also do not agree with your definition of collusion. Collusion is "secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy, especially in order to cheat or deceive others." according to the Oxford Dictionary. Just because Donald Trump said that he had no dealings with Russia when referring to a failed branding deal does not imply that he was cooperating with anyone to affect a specific event such as the US election. At the very most, he was misleading, and to most people, he was technically telling the truth.
Posted by levi_smiles 7 months ago
levi_smiles
Collusion applies to any secret agreement,typically with an intention to deceive. Collusion by itself is neither a criminal standard nor a precedent for impeachment. For example, most trade agreements are built out on some formal acts of collusion. Since we have established that Trump has kept some secret agreements with some Russians, collusion is a low bar already hurdled. For example, Congress is in possession of a 17 page agreement in principle pursuing a $4 million dollar branding deal for a Trump Tower in Moscow signed in Oct 2015 at a time when was publicly denying any dealings with Trump. That is collusion- an agreement kept secret by lies and public denials. The contract fell through, so there little chance that this act of collusion is impeachable, however suggestive or concerning the cover-up.

I don"t think instgator"s standard is resolved since collusion has never been tested as impeachable offense- we"ve always just assumed that any President caught making secret deals with foreign enemies would immediately resign. Do Pro have to prove that collusion can succeed as a charge for impeachment?
Posted by Krueger515 7 months ago
Krueger515
David-McDermott, would you like to debate me on this issue?
This debate has 6 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.