I cant stand Trump, but I do think this impeachment affair is totally bogus.
Once the Russiagate affair fell to pieces the Democrats got desperate and are clutching at straws.
They have spent the last three years chasing Trump for bogus Russia collusion charges and now they are going after him over a phonecall that amounts to very little in my opinion.
It will back fire I believe.
That's some good analysis, but does it seem more like the strategy of a party who want to contain Trump in a presumed next 4 year term versus that of a party out to win the next presidential election?
If the democrats lose the election, will they move back to their base and win back the voters that voted for trump. They seemed to be overly concentrated on pleasing the left wing of their supporters.
It's also the case that if they lose the impeachment of trump, it's another big loss, then the politics and ideology of trump has won the argument and that America will not be going back.
There have been 30+ indictments and 8 convictions of Trump associates
True, but were any of them for collusion with Russia? Im open to being corrected, but the indictments were for other offences - tax evasion, false statements to FBI etc.
None of them however pinpointed collusion by Trump with the Russian government to effect the outcome of election.
The evidence from the report forms part of the evidence for the articles of impeachment.
I will retreat from my assertion that the Russia gate investigation was bogus. But the Mueller report is quite clear, that despite there being evidence indicating collusion, that in actual fact, nothing of the sort was ever established by the investigation.
The best evidence I could think of, if Trump had been seeking assistance from Russia, he would have Tweeted about it!
I will retreat from my assertion that the Russia gate investigation was bogus. But the Mueller report is quite clear, that despite there being evidence indicating collusion, that in actual fact, nothing of the sort was ever established by the investigation.
The best evidence I could think of, if Trump had been seeking assistance from Russia, he would have Tweeted about it!
Russia if you have Hilary's emails, release them". And it later came out that his campaign had been told that morning that Russia had the emails. So - closer to the truth than maybe you meant
But this is sort of the point - even that statement about China was probably impeachable just by itself. He does do and say things out in the open and just because they are in the open doesn't mean they are legal. He also admitted himself that he looked for favours from Ukraine (he released a transcript). I actually think he doesn't know what is legal and what isn'tExactly, the guy is so bare-faced its hard to believe that he was involved in any such subversive activity...he would have blurted out the details by now.
After details of the Ukrainian phone were released he stood on the White House lawn and asked China if they could assist with investigating alleged corruption by Biden!
Remember - the investigation wasn't primarily about Trump. It was a special investigation on Russian interference in the election. And the evidence of interference is pretty damning. In fact there was quite a lot of evidence 6 months before the actual election. I don't think you can call it weak - there was a lot of "soft" interference such as Facebook targeting etc. There was also a lot of "hard" interference. Electoral software and databases showed evidence of being hacked in 39 states. In the Summer before the election the FBI issued warnings to all the states about the attempts.I get all the other stuff you listed, but the evidence supporting Russia's "sweeping and systematic" interference is weak in my opinion, and goes nowhere near implicating Trump as being involved, or in the knowledge of, etc. Perhaps members of his team were, perhaps not, but it still falls way short of implicating Trump.
Indeed - there is no question of people having links with foreign governments. That's not an issue. What will be on trial during impeachment will be whether any assistance was requested from foreign entities. That would be illegal.It is not unusual for business people or politicians to have links with foreign governments - its quite normal in fact. Having "links" falls way short of corruption.
CA were employed as a contractor by a campaign - there is nothing illegal in that and it wasn't in the remit of the report. I think their access to data is questionable but probably more of a question the data owners have to answer i.e. FacebookOf course the elephant in the room (one of many actually) is Cambridge Analytica's involvement. It would appear their involvement was quite "sweeping and systematic" in interfering with the US election.
Yet I dont think it is even mentioned once in the 488 pages of the report!
And, I'm not really looking to change your mind on things -
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?