If Trump is found to have commited crimes in office how will Dems react?

[Thebobo]

There is plenty of proof of Hillary colluding with Russians to gain control of American uranium, military secrets and all other sorts of crimes.

Look it up. Then lock her up.

You make claim you provide proof. Otherwise claim = jack poop

 

[brycejones]

You make claim you provide proof. Otherwise claim = jack poop

www.foxnews.com, www.cns.com, www.brietbart.com, www.thedailycaller.com

If it is on enough conservative websites it must be true right? So true in fact, that despite controlling all the levers of power no Republican with actual authority has bothered to schedule additional hearings, continue investigations, impanel a grand jury, etc. Its almost as if those with actual knowledge know its all bull shit.

 

[fskimospy]

They had to get people on process crimes. Nothing related to collusion.

On the other hand Hillary and Bill are as dirty as the day is long, collecting billions in pay for play from those seeking influence in Washington, Obama and the Secretary of State.

Billions of dollars from Russians, Arabs, Americans, etc. Yet did she or anyone else get charged? Fuck no. Its Hillary. And Democrats always "get away with it."

Such bullchit.

lol.

https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Kaveladze 1 Exhibits_redacted.pdf

My favorite email was the internal discussion where Ike Kaveladze (a guy in the Trump Tower meeting) says about Trump Jr. and that meeting: 'Why did he release this email admitting to collusion?' (very last email)

So now that the people who actually attended the meeting say it was collusion do you care to revise your position?

 

[brandonbull]

Banana republics prosecute previous administrations. So far, we aren't a Banana republic yet. Our currently un-politicized Justice Department cannot be used as a tool of political punishment. Our democracy would quickly evaporate. As it is now, the SCOTUS is composed of politicians in robes. How much further down this road do we want to go?

Banana republics and totalitarian regimes sure do love to use government agencies, resources, and kangaroo courts to remove political opponents.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Even more interesting is if say, the New York State AG decides to prosecute.

That's pretty much the plan isn't it?

 

[fskimospy]

That's pretty much the plan isn't it?

That would make the most sense to me, that way Trump can't pardon his way out of things.

 

[hal2kilo]

Banana republics and totalitarian regimes sure do love to use government agencies, resources, and kangaroo courts to remove political opponents.

So you are agreeing with me.

 

[soundforbjt]

Mueller tells Trump team he will follow DOJ guidance that a President cannot be indicted.

 

[Jhhnn]

Mueller tells Trump team he will follow DOJ guidance that a President cannot be indicted.

Mr 9/11 states the obvious, attributes it to Mueller. More at 11.

 

[FelixDeCat]

lol.

https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Kaveladze 1 Exhibits_redacted.pdf

My favorite email was the internal discussion where Ike Kaveladze (a guy in the Trump Tower meeting) says about Trump Jr. and that meeting: 'Why did he release this email admitting to collusion?' (very last email)

So now that the people who actually attended the meeting say it was collusion do you care to revise your position?

There was no collusion. One person, a nobody asked a question that was not answered. His opinion is not evidence. Further, Mueller looked at his and thought it was nothing.

Hillary, on the other hand, destroyed 30,000 emails that detailed her collusion and shakedown of companies and persons to gain influence from Bronco Bama and the State Department.

 

[pcgeek11]

Stop projecting your failures on others.

Your inability to correctly use the English language in your old age is your own problem. No matter how much you want to name call and stamp your feet like a child you're wrong.

Be a man and own it.

My English Language is just fine.

 

[ivwshane]

My English Language is just fine.

Oh? You own the English language now?

I can't wait till you start using terms like, "China people", "China family", and "west Virginia people".

Lol, your English language is so good! /eye roll

 

[Younigue]

Oh? You own the English language now?

I can't wait till you start using terms like, "China people", "China family", and "west Virginia people".

Lol, your English language is so good! /eye roll

wait! If it's up for grabs... I should probably own it!

 

[fskimospy]

There was no collusion. One person, a nobody asked a question that was not answered. His opinion is not evidence. Further, Mueller looked at his and thought it was nothing.

Hillary, on the other hand, destroyed 30,000 emails that detailed her collusion and shakedown of companies and persons to gain influence from Bronco Bama and the State Department.

A nobody except for someone who was actually in the meeting, and now you’re making up what Mueller thinks.

The people who were actually there are calling it collusion and you’re still denying it. Dude, you’re losing it.

 

[FelixDeCat]

A nobody except for someone who was actually in the meeting, and now you’re making up what Mueller thinks.

The people who were actually there are calling it collusion and you’re still denying it. Dude, you’re losing it.

Again, his opinion is not evidence. Just admit your witch hunt is fruitless. Your life will be so much better.

 

[fskimospy]

Again, his opinion is not evidence. Just admit your witch hunt is fruitless. Your life will be so much better.

The opinion of people who directly participated in an event as to what that event was is literally the dictionary definition of evidence.

Lol. The sheer dumbness.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Again, his opinion is not evidence. Just admit your witch hunt is fruitless. Your life will be so much better.

How this works is that opinion is informed by facts discovered in an investigation. By definition that means prosecutors have evidence.

 

[mikeymikec]

How this works is that opinion is informed by facts

I'm pretty sure that for some people this is a whole new way of thinking, you may need to explain it more thorughly first. Also, it undermines the "witch hunt" narrative, so attempting to explain this is probably going to be an uphill struggle.

 

[fskimospy]

How this works is that opinion is informed by facts discovered in an investigation. By definition that means prosecutors have evidence.

What we are discussing here though is the opinion of the meeting’s purpose by one of the people actually in the meeting. Felix’s argument is that if a bunch of monsters had a meeting and one of them later testified that the purpose of the meeting was to plan a bank robbery, that wouldn’t count as evidence because that’s just his opinion.

 

[SMOGZINN]

I'm pretty sure that for some people this is a whole new way of thinking, you may need to explain it more thorughly first. Also, it undermines the "witch hunt" narrative, so attempting to explain this is probably going to be an uphill struggle.

It does seem obvious that some people are not aware that opinions are not all created equally. There seems to be this narrative that 'it's an opinion' means that it carries nor more weight than any other opinion.

There is a difference between an informed opinion and pulling something out of your ass. We must always evaluate an opinion as to where it comes from, the knowledge that source represents, and any conflicts that might sway it.