Glendivegriz said:just an Attorney who has read a little of the law and has worked as a prosecutor.
,,, for Torquemada?
Glendivegriz said:just an Attorney who has read a little of the law and has worked as a prosecutor.
zengriz said:...ya think...
... :shock: ...
CFallsGriz said:zengriz said:...ya think...
... :shock: ...
You rarely communicate anything of substance with your ridiculous three line posts, ellipses, and emojis. "Zen," my ass [emoji23]
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
fencer24 said:Oh my, what fun this thread has become. So, Trump colluded with the Russians to leak Hillary's emails. There is no denying that they are hers and they show her meddling with the DNC to keep Bernie from having a fair shot, not to mention the collusion of the press with the DNC to stop Bernie. But Russians released them and we know it because . . . well, we really don't know if it was the Russians. All we do know is that Hillary wrote the ones that we are discussing and the 30k plus that she deleted in spite of being under court order to preserve them. (Hint - that's against the law).
Is there any evidence that the Russians tried to influence the election? Sure, just like we try to influence elections in other countries, including Russia. Did the Russians influence the election? Well, only in showing what Hillary and the Democrats think of us. If you wanted to keep the truth about what she thinks of us secret, then yes, I guess they did influence the election. But transparency is not a bad thing, or has it become so?
But what about the 17 intel agencies that say Russia meddled. Sorry, not true. Check Snopes if you want, but it was only the political appointees of agencies that said that, and there were only four of them. But the narrative is more important than the truth.
What about collusion? If there was just a smidgen of evidence, that would be helpful. But all we have is some incidental non reported meetings. Just like most of Washington does. Is that evidence of collusion? Not really, more likely just evidence of desperation by the accusers. And the worst of it is all the Democrats who are on the Intel committees who know it never happened but keep it alive just to paralyze the government that the people elected.
Obstructing justice? How can you obstruct justice if there isn't a crime? Firing Comey should have been done on November 10th of last year or as soon as possible thereafter. Comey leaking his memos to an outside source instead of the AG or even his IG is proof that he was trying hard to game the system. If you want another J Edgar Hoover, that was your chance. On the other hand, if you wanted a principled and dedicated public servant, it sure wasn't Comey.
You need to separate Trump the man, who is impetuous, rude, crude and without grace and class and Trump the Administration, which has already had a dramatic effect on illegal immigration, and reduced over 800 regulations that stifle business. Results matter more than personality. But I do have to admit, I enjoy the way Trump trolls the media and Democrats. It's like they're in a contest to show how stupid they are.
Paytonlives said:A very simple question: On what legal basis could impeachment proceed?
.... I don't see any.
fencer24 said:Please do tell, what is the evidence of collusion. And don't use the old "others say."
Don't use the Intel Community being unanimous about a hacking that they never had access to the server to determine who did it.
As far as the rest goes in your list, I agree that Hillary and Obama were doing all those things, but what is their relevance here?
fencer24 said:Please do tell, what is the evidence of collusion. And don't use the old "others say."
Don't use the Intel Community being unanimous about a hacking that they never had access to the server to determine who did it.
As far as the rest goes in your list, I agree that Hillary and Obama were doing all those things, but what is their relevance here?
Paytonlives said:A very simple question: On what legal basis could impeachment proceed?
.... I don't see any.