03-05-2019, 03:59 PM
(03-05-2019, 12:41 PM)GMDino Wrote: "Could be". that works both ways.
Exactly, which is why proving, actually proving, intent in this case is going to be near impossible without concrete proof.
Quote:Enough that there are people who believe it. Enough people believe she was responsible for "covering up" Benghazi that there were multiple congressional hearings on it too.
Your expressing a rather nebulous concept here. The number of people who believe it is not important on its own.
Quote:You left out the words "a few" before "Dems". Given the shady past of the current POTUS, his numerous lies and frequently changing stories about things he has brought that on himself a great deal.
To an extent, sure. However, even those "few" Dems making the case for impeaching almost immediately upon his election paint their party as being on a partisan witch hunt to rid us of a lawfully elected POTUS because they don't like him. You're more concerned with what people believe and the number of people that believe it than I am, consequently it must concern you that these actions have cast the Dem effort in an insanely negative light for millions of people.
Quote:Aye. So is SDNY. And maybe there will be more now that congress is actually doing some oversight.
I don't think there's any maybe about that. This will only fuel the perception of many that this is more about a vindictive effort to nail Trump than it is about finding any truth. But, again, you're more concerned with what people believe, and how many believe it, than I am.
Quote:RG does talk in circles. He also speaks for the President does he not?
At all times? I doubt that. Also, if I recall Trump has taken issue with several of Rudy's statements in the near past.
Quote: All I'm saying is that people are also quick to say it "could be" nothing when it "could be" something. Circumstantial that DJT authorized (perhaps) a payoff during the campaign rather than before? Probably. But it is not clear cut that he didn't do it for that reason either.
It's not clear cut at all, I agree, which is why it's not likely to ever go anywhere. The fact that we can debate it as much as we have with no clear result is proof that there is not a provable case here. If further, concrete, evidence comes to light that changes things one way or another than this could, and should, be revisited. It's going to have to be rather definitive proof for this to go anywhere though.
