Individual-1 might claim he just “plays a POTUS” much like he has always played the clown prince of capitalism, especially on The Apprentice.
It really is stretching presumption of innocence when interpreting Trump’s "acting innocent" despite a history of corrupt intent and obvious malevolence.
The question is not what Trumpworld did. The question is: Is it OK?
So here's what happened:
1. “The Russians offered dirt on a Democratic candidate for president as part of what was described as the Russian government’s effort to help the Trump campaign.”
2. “When that was offered to the son of the president, who had a pivotal role in the campaign...the president’s son did not call the FBI, he did not adamantly refuse that foreign help.”
3. “Instead that son said that he would 'love' the help of the Russians.”
4. “Paul Manafort, the campaign chair, someone with great experience in running campaigns, also took that meeting.”
“The president’s son-in-law also took that meeting.”
6. “They concealed it from the public.”
7. “Their only disappointment after that meeting was that the dirt they received on Hillary Clinton wasn’t better.”
8. “When it was discovered a year later, they then lied about that meeting.”
9. “The campaign chairman of a presidential campaign offered information about that campaign to a Russian oligarch in exchange for money or debt forgiveness.”
10. “That campaign chairman offered polling data—campaign polling data—to someone linked to Russian intelligence.”
11. “The president himself called on Russia to hack his opponent’s emails.”
12. “Later that day, the Russians attempted to hack the server affiliated with that campaign.”
13. “The president’s son-in-law sought to establish a secret backchannel of communications with the Russians through a Russian diplomatic facility.”
14. “An associate of the president made direct contact with the GRU through Guccifer 2.0 and Wikileaks, that is considered a hostile intelligence agency.”
15. “A senior campaign official was instructed to reach that associate and find out what that hostile intelligence agency had to say.”
16. “The national security adviser designate secretly conferred with the Russian ambassador about undermining U.S. sanctions.”
17. “And he lied about it to the FBI.”
18. “During a presidential campaign, Mr. Trump sought the Kremlin’s help to consummate a real-estate deal in Moscow that would make him a fortune.”
19. “He advocated a new and more favorable policy toward the Russians even as he was seeking the Russians’ help—the Kremlin’s help—to make money.”
So that's it. No one needs to persuade anyone any more. We have consensus. We have receipts, testimony, court documents, indictments, convictions. This is what happened—unadorned. No cryptic mentions of "the Seychelles" or "sealed indictments." Just a timeline. Kind of a relief.
The Schiff test is NOT: What do you think happened? Is Mueller a galaxy mind? Is the FBI sold out? Is Barr a hack? Are you a Republican, a Russophobe, a Russophile, a redhat, a sore loser from HRC days?
The Schiff Test is just this:
1. Think over what Trump and his circle did.
2. Do you think what they did is OK?