No need to establish anything , with Obama it was ''what does he have to hide , whereas with Trump . . . . . It was show the evidence and even when evidence was shown , the narrative kept on changing.
How are you proposing a bet when you can't even establish corruption if you're calling it subjective, which by the numbers is not?
No need to establish anything , with Obama it was ''what does he have to hide , whereas with Trump . . . . . It was show the evidence and even when evidence was shown , the narrative kept on changing.
So what you're saying there's no levels to corruption? That's not how the justice system works champ.By your very post, it is subjective. You're essentially saying "Obama was less corrupt than Trump!" That's hilarious - regardless of whether it is true or not. If you're corrupt, you're corrupt.
Second, what evidence of collusion was shown to implicate Trump? Did I miss a memo?
So what you're saying there's no levels to corruption? That's not how the justice system works champ.
No, but we're all missing a report.
Ah, so the fact that the chief prosecutor who wrote said report concluded that there was "no collusion" isn't a factor in your equation?![]()
You should re-read Barr's letter. Not proceeding with an indictment is necessarily from lack of evidence, but lack of evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.
Ah, so you're saying the walls are still closing in? A major bombshell is about to drop?
I'm looking forward to the report, then. If there is something there it can't be anything worth going after Trump over because Muller didn't. However, if - and this is more likely - there is nothing there, then the disappointment gag reel continues and the weeping and gnashing of teeth gets another round on prime time (and on this forum).
Either way, nothing happens to Trump.