Yeah pretty much. This is why all campaigns at all levels play dirty as hell all the time and rarely do you see any convictions for the individual who's running. The only time this matters is when the campaign is still running and they bleed votes because the electorate doesn't trust them. But that's not legal action, that's just people going nope.jpg

He served in the Navy. Of course he's salty.

:/

Just bullshit really. There's no way Trump Sr knew nothing.

That's a reasonable stance to take. You still have to prove it in a court of law.

"find missing e-mails" turned into "drumpf told the russians to go and hack a server that has been disconnected for several years now. collusion and treason!!!!"



https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2017/07/11/tim_kaine_trump_moving_beyond_obstruction_of_justice_towards_perjury_and_potentially_treason.html

we so so close to having this nutjob as VP - and his delinquent little son is actually charged with crimes

Does it matter who finds "incriminating" evidence? From a legal standpoint it does, chain of evidence and all that. But regular people don't care about that, certainly not low information voters who believe those blue dudes(democrats) are evil liberals and commies. If someone receives information from their worst enemy about someone scamming them, or their spouse cheating on them and it proves to be true, will they care who gave them the information? Does it matter to them? This is how his voters saw it unfortunately.





Possibly.



Even harder than a sexual assault case and trying to get a conviction solely on the accuser's word against the defendant. It's not even he said, she said at this point.
It's both parties going "we we're just talking about our kids and stuff, really your honor, there was nothing potentially nefarious going in this meeting we assure you".

I think I would be slightly surprised. I think this Russia situation is simply a ratings ploy and something to rile the low information voters on the democratic side - the right does the same thing (they want to take our guns away, less freedom, etc).


as for "nothing came out of this meeting that was of any substance," we just don't know that yet
and it won't surprise even you if this narrative of "nothing of substance" coming from this meeting
gets flipped on its head in short order

Guilty until proven innocent is a weird way to operate.

Depends on the jury.