(06-17-2019 04:27 PM)ess Wrote: (06-17-2019 02:55 PM)Rasser Wrote: As for charging for conspiring with Russians, they didn't have enough evidence to charge.
This has been my (only) point all along.
No recommendation ("not enough evidence") to charge anyone with conspiring.
Quote:NOT EXONERATED in the least.
Is that the/your standard?
Assumed guilty? Unless proven innocent?
From Mueller in his scope of his investigation, although he provided the evidence to extend the scope to a normal, criminal investigation. And, if this guy wasn't a sitting POTUS, he'd be indicted and in jail.
My standard? Really? How disingenuous! Our society has that standard, unless you've been arrested and are on trial. The person suspected of committing a criminal act may be presumed innocent, that's about where it stops.
BTW, Hillary Clinton was investigated NUMEROUS times by Congress for any decision she made that led to the Benghazi attack and how it was managed. Ten at last count. That, and she testified before the COP Congress twice. The "outrage" over Trump being investigated rings hollow here.
To be clear, I'm not a HRC fan, not even close. Gosh, I wouldn't have voted for her, just like I didn't for Obama his first run, if she hadn't have been running against a mealy mouth'd untrustworthy con man.
Just the dual interpretation, and the "Hillary derangement outrage" is a little amusing to me. Heard any good "Pizzagate stories" lately?! :-)
/
This treasonous cork soaker needs to go STAT.
