(02-28-2018 03:39 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(02-28-2018 03:06 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I guess what I don’t understand is what information did the Trump campaign get. I thought the information allegedly hacked by “the Russians” was in fact released by Wikileaks, not the Trump campaign. And didn’t Wikileaks insist that their source was not “the Russians”? So I’m having a bit of a problem understanding what the substance is. Also, if the allegation is that “the Russians” somehow provided information that they hacked from the democrats, don’t you have to provide some proof of what information and how “the Russians” got it? Right now I don’t see any proof that “the Russians” actually gave or sold the Trump campaign anything, or that they in fact had anything to give or sell.

All reasons to investigate the issue(s). I haven't heard public information to answer your questions. But that is why they do investigations. Perhaps the investigation turns up no evidence to support additional criminal charges. Perhaps they find something.

But nobody is investigating wikileaks.

I think the idea that we must investigate to prove people innocent of outlandish charges is the best excuse for a witch hunt I have ever heard.

Everybody is guilty until an investigation proves them innocent.