Jill Stein looped into widening investigation of Russia and Trump Jr. connections

[Jim Lane]

122. I explained the "bogus" nature in #11

What is bogus is the criticism that Stein has communicated with Don, Jr. and that she has refused to comply with the investigators' request for documents about the communication. As far as the public knows at this point, there is no support for either of those criticisms. No one in a position to know anything has even alleged that they are true, much less provided any evidence.

Your post refers to different criticisms of Stein.

It's pretty basic logic that, given a set of criticisms of Stein (or anyone else), it's possible for some to be true while others are false. For example, proving that Stein was at a dinner table with Putin does not establish that she communicated with Don, Jr.

You write, "We have absolutely no reason to give her any benefit of the doubt." That, in a nutshell, is the division in this thread. I have my standards of proof, which I attempt to apply impartially. That's part of my concept of intellectual integrity. You (and, to be fair to you, the majority of those posting in this thread) adhere to a double standard: The sufficiency of evidence is to be assessed according to whether you like or dislike the person involved.