03-05-2019, 11:44 AM
(03-05-2019, 10:11 AM)GMDino Wrote: I disagree because we have his lawyer saying "can you imagine what would happen if that came up during the last debate". Now if DJT wants to play dumb and say Rudy didn't know he can try, but RG was working for the President for a while when he said that and the President's own lies about the payments won't help his case.
We're well aware that you disagree. Rudy's comments don't do anything to dismantle the credible doubt that the payments were made for other reasons.
Quote:Concrete? No. Enough to convince enough people? Maybe.
It's disturbing that you're admitting there's not solid evidence but that won't matter to "enough people".
Quote:That's what hearings are for. (Which is what I said.)
Hearings were, in Congress? I'm afraid that forum has been irrevocably tainted by calls for Trump's impeachment from day one. I've said it from the start, if the Dems actual goal was impeachment they should never have brought it up until they had evidence to back such a move. As it is it appears that they had a conclusion predetermined and then set out for evidence to help support that conclusion. Not a good way to achieve the stated goal.
Quote:I'm going to go out on a limb and say people have been convicted of worse without concrete evidence.
I'm sure there's been some miscarriage of justice of they type you state. I would hope they were extremely rare and always overturned on appeal. As of now you don't have any evidence that the payment was used in the way you assert other than the word of a convicted perjurer trying to salvage what little he can of his reputation.
