Where Is The Crime?

[Charles]

Not a chance. Democrats have already been calling for the scope of the investigation to be broadened because they are determined to find Trump guilty of anything, even it's unrelated to the original accusations. Trump was 100% right to call it a witch-hunt.

Republicans have called for the scope to be broadened too, not that I have any hope it will result in anything else than personal attacks on those republicans from your side. The firing of Comey and the rumours that Trump asked Comey not to look further in to Flynn's activities along with his giving highly classified informations to the Russians putting lives of sources at risk seems a good reason to broaden the scope. If he is not guily, he is at least good at behaving like he was. I see no problem in the fact that these matters will be looked further into.

[Mountain Man]

Republicans have called for the scope to be broadened too...

You mean Republicans-In-Name-Only.

[Charles]

You mean Republicans-In-Name-Only.

If not making everything political and not always thinking in boxes but actually caring for the truth no matter if it serves your own political organisation or not means that you are not a real Republican, then they are only Republicans-In-Name-Only. So much the worse for the real Republicans if that is the case...

[Leonhard]

So here's the thing. Even if a Nixon level scandal is uncovered on Trump, and Trump is impeached, actually getting him out of office wouldn't be easy. Wouldn't both houses have to agree together to remove him. And if the Republicans decided to troll the democrats, he could be left sitting there for the entire period.

[Cow Poke]

So here's the thing. Even if a Nixon level scandal is uncovered on Trump, and Trump is impeached, actually getting him out of office wouldn't be easy. Wouldn't both houses have to agree together to remove him. And if the Republicans decided to troll the democrats, he could be left sitting there for the entire period.

Yeah, an impeachment is more like a grand jury indictment - it's not a final thing. The House handles the impeachment (or indictment) then the Senate votes on whether to remove the President on the basis of the impeachment charges.

Clinton was impeached, but he was not removed from office. (People wrongly assume that, because Clinton was not removed, that he was not impeached)

[Mountain Man]

If not making everything political and not always thinking in boxes but actually caring for the truth no matter if it serves your own political organisation or not means that you are not a real Republican, then they are only Republicans-In-Name-Only. So much the worse for the real Republicans if that is the case...

The truth is, there is zero evidence to implicate President Trump despite some very motivated individuals spending a considerable amount of time and resources looking for it. Anybody who thinks we need a special counsel to keep digging is driven by politics and not the truth.

[Charles]

The truth is, there is zero evidence to implicate President Trump despite some very motivated individuals spending a considerable amount of time and resources looking for it. Anybody who thinks we need a special counsel to keep digging is driven by politics and not the truth.

No, that is not the truth and you would know it if you would care to listen to what people are actually saying. I have explained this before so not to repeat myself I will allow myself to provide a link: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post442326

You have never been able to point to any errors in this line of reasoning but you just keep on repeating the same inexact statements anyway.

Anyway one gets the impression that your world is so simple that if any person, a democrat, republican, journalist, reporter, investigator, lawyer, intelligence expert or whatever has anything bad to say about Trump it can only be because they are having bad motives, it can only be political, it can never be their honest opinion.

I have never seen you trust anyone who had anything bad or inconvenient to say about Trump. I have never seen you allow for him to have made any mistake at all. So when were are talking about people being stuck in specific interpretations of reality, i would say you sure seems to be.

Of course the approach that “everyone who says something inconvenient is stupid, driven by politics and not the truth” makes it easy to make the pieces of the puzzle fit. However the final result, when all the pieces fit, is not worth looking at.

[Mountain Man]

No, that is not the truth...

Don't be dense, Charles. We've gone over this in other threads, and I have quoted several "hostile witnesses" who would love to see Trump found guilty who have nonetheless admitted that there is no evidence. That's a significant admission coming from Trump's political enemies, but like you, they insist that just means we need to keep digging until we find something.

[rogue06]

Don't be dense, Charles. We've gone over this in other threads, and I have quoted several "hostile witnesses" who would love to see Trump found guilty who have nonetheless admitted that there is no evidence. That's a significant admission coming from Trump's political enemies, but like you, they insist that just means we need to keep digging until we find something.

CNN legal analyst Jeffery Toobin spilled the beans in an interview in the New Yorker when he admitted that no evidence has been found of collusion between Trump and the Russians and very likely none will ever be found and that he is instead hoping that a fishing expedition by the new Special Counsel Robert Mueller might dig up something politically damaging to Trump.

[Darth Executor]

DAcIc3NXUAAhN29.jpg

[Mountain Man]

CNN legal analyst Jeffery Toobin spilled the beans in an interview in the New Yorker when he admitted that no evidence has been found of collusion between Trump and the Russians and very likely none will ever be found and that he is instead hoping that a fishing expedition by the new Special Counsel Robert Mueller might dig up something politically damaging to Trump.

Like I said, there's a reason liberals are now calling for a broadening of the investigation.

[Charles]

Don't be dense, Charles. We've gone over this in other threads, and I have quoted several "hostile witnesses" who would love to see Trump found guilty who have nonetheless admitted that there is no evidence. That's a significant admission coming from Trump's political enemies, but like you, they insist that just means we need to keep digging until we find something.

We have gone over this in other threads and time and time again I have pointed to the fact that you have misunderstood and misrepresented those statements. You can of course keep repeating those misunderstandings but that does not make them true. Look again at this: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post442326

You have yet to come up with an answer to this instead of just repeating those wrong statements.

[Mountain Man]

No, I have not misrepresented their statements. Clapper, Waters, Morell, and others have said there is no evidence. That is both significant and compelling, because if there was even a smidgen of evidence, they would know about it, and you can be sure it would have been leaked to the press months ago.

Of course they try to hedge their bets by saying something like, "Well, at least there's no evidence that I know of, so I guess we'd better keep looking!" but someone could say that about literally any case for which there is no evidence, so it's meaningless. But if that's going to be the standard for our justice system then we may as well call it by a different name, because it's no longer about justice.

[Charles]

No, I have not misrepresented their statements. Clapper, Waters, Morell, and others have said there is no evidence. That is both significant and compelling, because if there was even a smidgen of evidence, they would know about it, and you can be sure it would have been leaked to the press months ago.

Of course they try to hedge their bets by saying something like, "Well, at least there's no evidence that I know of, so I guess we'd better keep looking!" but someone could say that about literally any case for which there is no evidence, so it's meaningless. But if that's going to be the standard for our justice system then we may as well call it by a different name, because it's no longer about justice.

If your justice is a continuing misrepresenation of what other people say then I will not go for that. Why is it unfair for Clapper to point that he did not know of the FBI investigation and that his statement is not a conclusion on an investigation that he did not know of? That seems rather obvious to me.

[Mountain Man]

If your justice is a continuing misrepresenation of what other people say then I will not go for that. Why is it unfair for Clapper to point that he did not know of the FBI investigation and that his statement is not a conclusion on an investigation that he did not know of? That seems rather obvious to me.

Of course he's not going to say the investigation is concluded. So what? Liberals have a vested interest in keeping this thing on life-support because they think it will give them leverage in the mid-term elections.