 |
| Image from source, Politico |
The only way to get to the bottom of that is investigations, both by journalists and by elected officials. Time and again, we hear, "no evidence has been presented." Well then, investigate. Find out. If this was a Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton administration with identical circumstances, there would be no question. It would be THE. ONLY. STORY. FOX "News" would be on fire. So would talk radio. Is there anyone who doubts this?
Yet, if you go dip a toe into Right Wing World, you'd barely know there was anything to look at in the first place. "Nothingburger" is a favorite phrase. You will find people who simultaneously will say that there was no collusion, and that it doesn't matter if there was. People who will, "yeah, but..." and throw a false analogy about something Clinton or Obama is alleged to have done. You get people like Trump himself, who will say it's all "fake news," but that "the leaks are real." What?
These are people who would still ask for more investigations of Benghazi, who would still say "lock her up," about Hillary Clinton, with no charges. And let's ponder her alleged "crime." Possibly--maybe--having shared classified documents unwittingly. Compared to possibly colluding with a hostile government to subvert an United States election, and who knows what else? Sorry, no. This isn't going away, this isn't a nothingburger, and it must be investigated.
[Excerpt]
Sessions recuses himself from Trump-Russia probe
Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced Thursday that he will recuse himself from any investigations related to campaigns for president, including any probe into contacts between President Donald Trump’s campaign and Russian officials. “I have recused myself in the matters that deal with the Trump campaign,” Sessions told reporters Thursday at a news conference at the Justice Department. . .
Read more (with video) at: Politico
So, what evidence is there that anyone broke the law?
ReplyDeleteOf course, it turns out the democrats also lied about their meetings with the Russians and they were caught red handed.
This is the U.S., not a 3rd world country and you have to have evidence of a crime before you investigate and there isn't any. You just cannot go out looking for a crime if there is no evidence.
Evidence is something that is secured through investigation, whether investigative reporting, or congressional or law enforcement investigation, or forensic investigation. You don't refuse an investigation because there is no initial hard evidence, it's not a reason to say, "nothing to see here." So far, if there was THIS much swirling around any prominent Democrat, would you really be just saying, "pfft, nothing there?"
ReplyDeleteThere's a ton of circumstantial evidence, and there are all kinds of signs that SOMETHING was going on. That is often--very often--enough to warrant more investigation. And let's not forget, there is no evidence that Hillary Clinton should be "locked up," yet it was a war cry for Trumpers during the election.
ReplyDeleteLet's also not forget the "impeachment-in-search-of-a-reason" investigations that led to Bill Clinton's Monica Lewinski revelation. They wanted to impeach him, so they investigated EVERYTHING, relentlessly, until they found something he lied about. Turned out it was incredibly stupid, both of Bill, and as a reason for impeachment, but there you go.
ReplyDeleteAnd of course, endless Benghazi investigations. Endless email investigations. Republicans LOVE to investigate, investigate, investigate. Evidence? They don't need no stinking evidence! They'll find something!
It's simply not true that only 3rd world countries investigate prior to hard evidence, and it's not true that you have to have it before you start an investigation. Don't you watch CSI?