Quote:
Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah
We have had this discussion before. Collusion is a very difficult thing to prove. First you have to prove that the Russians influenced the election with the purpose of aiding Trump. That has been proved.
Then you have to prove that Trump's campaign contacted and met with the Russians. That has been proved.
Finally, you have to prove they colluded. Very difficult if not impossible to prove and as far as I am concerned trivial. What is much easier to prove is if Trump has received financial assistance from Russia and whether or not that gives them leverage. We do these kind of investigations on every single person who wants a security clearance. The only exception is the president. I have no problem with investigating him since he has refused to show us his tax returns and has refused to put his assets in a blind trust.
My point in using the Hitler reference was not to infer a similarity with Trump but to agree with you that Obama's statement was foolish. Any intelligent person should realize that democracies are prone to having their elections hacked.
|
It was also proved that Russia aided the Clintons, and that Clinto contacted the Russians.
Why has Muller not investigated any of that? Why was his investigative team so biased? Why were his conflicts of interest not important? Why is he not examining FISA abuses? Why has he not prosecuted Comey for leaks? Why did he not prosecute Lynch for meeting Clinton on the tarmac? Why did he not prosecute Steele? Why did he not prosecute McCabe for deceiving the FISA judges? Why did he not prosecute Bruce and Nellie Ohr? Why did he not prosecute the Uranium One corruption?
This list is endless. But that don't seem to bother you. No prosecutor ever opens a case unless there is first evidence of a crime, but in this case the only "crime" is that Trump won. I find it extremely hard to reconcile your bias here with your forensics background. The two are simply incompatible.