if there is not enough evidence to prove someone guilty,

[Christinme]

Re: if there is not enough evidence to prove someone guilty,

It would be foolish to impeach a sitting President that the DOJ found no evidence to suggest doing so. There has been claims of collusion since day one, and it didn't pan out. They need to move on because its getting ridiculous. They need to find evidence of laws being broken and prosecute, or they need to stop.

The report said there was substantial evidence of many laws broken ... and again ... a sitting President cannot be prosecuted ... he can only be impeached. And I don't get where you found there was "no evidence" ... there was even evidence of collusion but not sufficient evidence to indict ... and the report said there were lies and deleted messages (oh wow deleted messages) by some that hindered the ability to investigate the collusion ...

[keck553]

Re: if there is not enough evidence to prove someone guilty,

The report said there was substantial evidence of many laws broken ... and again ... a sitting President cannot be prosecuted ... he can only be impeached. And I don't get where you found there was "no evidence" ... there was even evidence of collusion but not sufficient evidence to indict ... and the report said there were lies and deleted messages (oh wow deleted messages) by some that hindered the ability to investigate the collusion ...

You're reaching. You can soak in conspiracy theories and waste your time or you can look at the REAL evidence that this administration is MUCH MORE hostile to Russia than the past one.

[Christinme]

Re: if there is not enough evidence to prove someone guilty,

You're reaching. You can soak in conspiracy theories and waste your time or you can look at the REAL evidence that this administration is MUCH MORE hostile to Russia than the past one.

Neither Mueller or Barr said there was no evidence ... they said there wasn't enough evidence ...

And I do not "soak in conspiracy theories" that is what Trump does ...

And the administration continuing the hostility to Russia that previous administrations have had and building on it is correct, they have done this ... but that has mostly been done against Trump's wishes ... I could go on about this but don't feel it's necessary at this time ...

[keck553]

Re: if there is not enough evidence to prove someone guilty,

Neither Mueller or Barr said there was no evidence ... they said there wasn't enough evidence ...

And I do not "soak in conspiracy theories" that is what Trump does ...

And the administration continuing the hostility to Russia that previous administrations have had and building on it is correct, they have done this ... but that has mostly been done against Trump's wishes ... I could go on about this but don't feel it's necessary at this time ...

So if you were falsely accused of something and there was insufficient evidence to convict you, how would you feel when the mob denied you due process?

[Christinme]

Re: if there is not enough evidence to prove someone guilty,

So if you were falsely accused of something and there was insufficient evidence to convict you, how would you feel when the mob denied you due process?

The conspiracy theories that Trump "soaks in" are not only concerning this ... he is a big fan of a number of the major conspiracy theory promoters.

And what do you mean the mob denied him due process ... what would due process mean for a person that cannot be charged???

Before it was put out that there was insufficient evidence to convict on the Russian part he did many things that suggested obstruction of Justice. Seriously the way he talked about how unfairly Manifort was treated who was a convicted criminal and how he talked about those who cooperated as "rats", I could go on ... and again the Mueller report concluded that gathering the evidence was hindered by deleted texts and lies ... that is why there is such a thing as obstruction of Justice and why even if you don't have sufficient evidence to convict on the main charge you can convict on an obstruction of Justice charge otherwise if one obstructs good enough to destroy evidence then a person goes scot free ... so if obstruction of Justice can be proven there is recourse ...

And the way he spoke about Mueller even before the report was given ... what evidence did Trump have to back up his accusations against Mueller ... or is he not only exempt from indictment but also exempt from having to prove the accusations he makes. Trump as President is constantly making accusations against others of having committed crimes without "due process" ...

[keck553]

Re: if there is not enough evidence to prove someone guilty,

You and the left can waste all the time you want on this. The evidence is now clear that Comey targeted Trump with a fake conspiracy. The IG report will start the process to indict and send these coup conspirators to prison.

In the meantime, the democrats have spent since 2018 all their collateral spinning tales, lying and over the top demagogy of racism and genocide of latino's instead of moving our country forward.

I don't think Trump could have a better campaign ad than the hole the democrats have dug themselves in and entrapped themselves in their own snare.

It's almost Biblical.

You and the left can waste all the time you want on this. The evidence is now clear that Comey targeted Trump with a fake conspiracy. The IG report will start the process to indict and send these coup conspirators to prison.

In the meantime, the democrats have spent since 2018 all their collateral spinning tales, lying and over the top demagogy of racism and genocide of latino's instead of moving our country forward.

I don't think Trump could have a better campaign ad than the hole the democrats have dug themselves in and entrapped themselves in their own snare.

It's almost Biblical.

[randyk]

Re: if there is not enough evidence to prove someone guilty,

You and the left can waste all the time you want on this. The evidence is now clear that Comey targeted Trump with a fake conspiracy. The IG report will start the process to indict and send these coup conspirators to prison.

In the meantime, the democrats have spent since 2018 all their collateral spinning tales, lying and over the top demagogy of racism and genocide of latino's instead of moving our country forward.

I don't think Trump could have a better campaign ad than the hole the democrats have dug themselves in and entrapped themselves in their own snare.

It's almost Biblical.

I couldn't agree more. The Political Left acts like Communist Radicals--the politics of power and manipulation. There is no morality involved--just an unapologetic lust for power and a willingness to do whatever is necessary to achieve that power. I fully understand that Trump used like immoral tactics in demonizing, unfairly, his opponents during the nomination process within his own party. I don't like how he called Ted Cruz "Lyin' Ted," etc.

However, what I see now in the Democratic Party pales in comparison. They appear to have hired a research firm to get opposition research on Trump, and then slip it in through the back door into the DOJ and FBI, obtaining govt. means of sabotaging the Trump campaign and presidency. Now, after several years we've wasted normal govt. functions that serve the people, going after a presidency for purely political purposes, so that the Democrats can regain power and the presidency. The Congress wastes time going after Trump, instead of serving the people, assuming that "serving the people" means that they must reacquire power.

The Mueller report was flawed. The basis for the Mueller appointment was flawed. Sessions should never have been pressured to recuse himself. And Clinton should never have even been allowed to run for President, once it became clear she had subpoenaed material destroyed. Brennan, Clapper, Ohr, Comey, Strzok, Page, and maybe even Clinton, Lynch, and Obama, should be dragged back into court to account for this apparent political conspiracy.

Quite frankly, I think the conspiracy to go after Trump was designed so as to never expose the conspiracy against him, and to prevent any investigation into these corrupt political tactics by the Democrats. It's therefore no surprise that Congress is working so hard, ie Nadler and Schiff, to focus away from the origins of this conspiracy and continue to double down on a Trump investigation that has petered out.

The panicked cry that "a president is immune from criminal prosecution" is muted by the very real threat of impeachment, once criminality has been established. However, it was established by a very large, neutral investigation that there was insufficient evidence, which would be necessary to prosecute a crime. Even more Mueller appears to have hired investigators who were biased *against* the President.

It *should* be difficult to prosecute a President, since the opposing Party has an interest in mucking up problems for the President. The President was vetted and elected by the people to represent them against other political interests that could subvert this authority. Why such immunity would be decried is, I suspect, motivated by political interests.

The worst thing of it all is that the Media largely supports, without embarrassment, the cause of the Democratic Party. Every claim, justified or unjustified, is backed up by media reporting. It is no surprise to me, therefore, that there is this popular clamor for impeachment, or so it seems. In the next election we may find, as we did with Clinton, that this was just a media invention. As was said, "There's a sucker born every minute."

[keck553]

Re: if there is not enough evidence to prove someone guilty,

Yeah, it's pretty obvious the left is consumed with a hatred of free citizens and will do practically anything to transform American citizens into subject of the state. Then the real persecution can begin.

[Pbminimum]

Re: if there is not enough evidence to prove someone guilty,

Yeah, it's pretty obvious the left is consumed with a hatred of free citizens and will do practically anything to transform American citizens into subject of the state. Then the real persecution can begin.

This is happening as we speak. There are now so many people that are blind to the truth that when it happens they will be cheering instead of mourning.

[randyk]

Re: if there is not enough evidence to prove someone guilty,

Read Mark Levin's book, "Unfreedom of the Press." We grow up in this country, and live here, believing in the *ideal* American Democracy, not realizing that *never* has there been true and fair Democracy! The Press has *always* been biased, and there has been scandal after scandal in presidential administrations that is never touched by the courts, the media, or the people. I suspect many simply don't even know they took place.

Finding a few errors to prosecute Trump is a wasted effort, since somebody correctly said that "we are all guilty before God." The question is, how serious must crimes be to impeach a president? I dare say that most presidents were not impeached who committed blatant crimes. They simply were not prosecuted, or were dismissed or ignored.

The current attack on Trump is pure politics at its worst. I voted for Trump, and I've hardly been afforded the benefit of my decision. This conspiracy to destroy both his campaign and his presidency has hamstrung him, and has caused me to have to focus on politics for the last several years, instead of encourage solutions in our country. Enough already!

[keck553]

Re: if there is not enough evidence to prove someone guilty,

This is happening as we speak. There are now so many people that are blind to the truth that when it happens they will be cheering instead of mourning.

I know. They will spend all of our money making us dependents, then they will legislate against our inalienable rights which they have no authority to do.

This is happening as we speak. There are now so many people that are blind to the truth that when it happens they will be cheering instead of mourning.

I know. They will spend all of our money making us dependents, then they will legislate against our inalienable rights which they have no authority to do.

[Jacob's Ladder]

Re: if there is not enough evidence to prove someone guilty,

Observable evidence is about as valuable as used toilet paper in our secular society today.
So, hold on tight to what you have folks, guard it with all of your strength and mind, our bibles point to the fact that things are only going to grow worst and worst until Our Lord Jesus Christ returns.
(It's going to get much worst, even in the church according to 2nd Timothy chapter 3)

No one, not just the President or folks in high-offices will get a fair shake concerning evidence or factual reporting by the media.
That media is the only source of information for most folks in society today.
Presidents to common the folks are guilty (and pay a murderous slanderous cost) via public opinion whether convicted in a court or not.