So you are saying that the two choices of "they knew" and "they did not know" are incorrect, and there is a third possibility?
You need to understand some people believe they have been visited by aliens from outer space. There's always a third possibility.
From The Hill article: The first and most obvious theory is the one largely promulgated in the media for the better part of two years. It goes something like this: The sharp, super-sleuth investigative skills of top officials within the Justice Department and our intel community enabled them to identify Donald Trump and his campaign as treacherous conduits to Russian President Vladimir Putin himself. That theory was summarily dismissed by special counsel Robert Mueller’s conclusion that there wasn’t so much as even coordination between Russia and Trump, or any American. So that leaves several other possibilities … and none of them is good: (underlining is mine) From the Mueller report: The investigation also identified numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump Campaign. Although the investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts, the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities. Note that there can be no logical connection between the actual statement in the Mueller report and the underlined statement from the "The Hill" article that was posted in this ET thread. Because one can not prove a negative, Mueller, nor any educated person, would, and could not, "dismiss" ...so much as even coordination between Russia and Trump, or any American. In fact, the Mueller report clearly implicates the Trump campaign as having been involved with Russians during the campaign in activities that may well have been aimed at influencing the election. But the Mueller investigators were unable to gather enough evidence to unequivocally state "...that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities." Thus, the logical conclusion, based on the Mueller Investigation, is that one can not be certain that coordination of the Trump campaign with Russians, in their attempt to influence the election, took place. However, one, most definitely, can not conclude that it did not take place.
Let's see some impeachment, pussies. We asked to see some prosecution, but your lame arse white knight mueller went flaccid on you. Now Jerry Nadler is your love object, and that ain't pretty.
Alan Dershowitz: Are investigations of Trump the new McCarthyism? B https://thehill.com/opinion/judicia...e-investigations-of-trump-the-new-mccarthyism When I came of age during the 1950s, liberals and civil libertarians were deeply concerned about the abuses of congressional investigations to expose communists and “fellow travelers.” Republican Senator Joseph McCarthy was using congressional committees to do his dirty work. The committee leaders would claim that they had legitimate legislative purposes in subpoenaing actors, professors, and government employees to interrogate them about their past political affiliations. The purported purposes were to legislate more effective controls over communist influence in our government and to conduct oversight of the executive branch. Most liberals and civil libertarians saw through this ruse. The obvious purpose was to expose, embarrass, and unemploy left wing individuals associated with the Communist Party during the 1930s. My law professor, mentor, and friend at the time, Telford Taylor, the chief prosecutor at the Nuremberg war crimes trials after World War II, wrote a masterful critique of these bogus congressional hearings entitled “The Grand Inquest.” In it he provided an extensive history of the misuse of hearings for partisan and ideological purposes. He called for reform, including judicial oversight of congressional excesses. A young liberal lawyer named Abner Mikva, who later became a distinguished federal judge, wrote a glowing review of the book, though he criticized Taylor for not going far enough and not being enough of a true civil libertarian. It is quite fair to say that back in the day, virtually all liberals and civil libertarians, led by the American Civil Liberties Union, wanted to impose restrictions on the power of Congress to investigate, subpoena, and question individuals for partisan or ideological purposes. Now the shoe is on the other foot. It is the Democrats who are abusing their congressional investigations for partisan and ideological purposes. It is the Democrats who are putting forward the phony arguments about legislative purposes, such as the need for new laws and congressional oversight. It is the Democrats in the House who are determined to misuse their legislative power to gain advantages in the upcoming elections. Now it is the Republicans who are crying foul and who are claiming that the Democrats are abusing the power of the congressional committees they control. However, no one should be surprised by this shift in attitudes because most people, especially politicians, believe in due process “for me but not for thee.” Very few citizens advocate neutral rights for all. The decision by Judge Amit Mehta to authorize broad congressional investigations of the Trump administration and President Trump himself, going back to well before he was a presidential candidate, could easily have been written by a right wing judge in the 1950s. It swallows, whole hog, the claimed legitimate legislative purposes put forward by those committees now led by the Democrats. It goes even further and suggests that a court has no power to probe the real motives behind legislative investigations, so long as the claimed motives are plausible. Under this decision that goes against civil liberties, Congress could investigate any person for any reason as long as it pretends to be doing so for a legitimate legislative purpose. The decision is an open invitation for abuse of power. During the 1950s, the good old ACLU would be in court challenging abuses of congressional investigatory power, but the current ACLU has one dominant agenda, which is to oppose Trump regardless of the means used and to raise large sums of money based on this agenda. So the ACLU will not side with Trump in court. It will never side with Trump in court, regardless of how abusive congressional committees may become and regardless of how many rights are violated. The ACLU is now part of the problem, not part of the solution, for this rampant abuse of civil liberties. Among the most important roles of the federal courts is to serve as a check and balance on the excesses of other branches of government, including the legislature. The courts should look beneath the claimed justifications for investigations of individuals and decide whether these justifications represent the real reasons behind the issuance of subpoenas and other exercises of congressional power. There should be a balancing test to weigh the legitimate interests of Congress against the rights of those targeted by its investigations. Congress should not be given carte blanche, as the decision by Judge Mehta gives it, to investigate anyone and anything for any purpose as long as the committee chairmen can recite the correct words as purported justifications for their actions. All civil libertarians, whether Democrat, Republican, or independent, should indeed be concerned about abuses of power by congressional committees. Today, Donald Trump and his administration are the targets. Tomorrow, it may be Democrats. The next day, you could be the target. Alan M. Dershowitz is the Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law, Emeritus, at Harvard Law School.
Dershowitz never fails to astound in one way or another. He is expert at finding nuances to which he can launch an objection. Here he proves, once again, his reasoning is not perfect by invoking an inept, false analogy between the McCarthy hearings and current congressional hearings. He points out that in both the McCarthy hearings and our present congressional hearings the leaders claimed/claim that the hearings had/have a legitimate legislative purpose. That is, however, about as far as this strained Dershowitz analogy can be taken. He fails to note, or remember, that the Constitution gives Congress oversight authority over the Executive Branch! So not only do the current hearings serve a legislative purpose, they have another equally important purpose as well, that of Congressional oversight of the Executive Branch of Government. Dershowitz's real purpose is to point out the too easy acceptance by Judge Mehta of the Committee's claim to have a legitimate purpose beyond a purely political one, and the dangerous precedent that could set -- the error will undoubtedly be corrected in appeals. He thinks Judge Mehta should have gone more deeply into the question of whether the Committee's investigation was a legitimate exercise of its authority under the Constitution. I agree with Dershowitz on this point. Had Mehta taken time to properly question the legitimacy of the House Committee's investigation, the Committee would have had no difficulty convincing the Court of the legitimacy of its oversight role. As a consequence, the Court's ruling would have acquired greater probity, helping it withstand the appeals that will follow. I had a brother-in-law, an assistant San Francisco DA, who never lost a case. If you said it was cold outside he would argue that it was too hot. No matter what anyone's opinion, seemingly on any issue whatsoever, he would take an opposing point of view and argue it until you gave in due to physical and mental exhaustion. Was he related to Dershowitz?, in temperament at least, undoubtedly so.