S2M wrote:I swear, everyone in this fucking forum has reading comprehension issues.
If I find evidence that a crime's been committed, then a crime's been committed. Where do you get this 'enough evidence' shit. In this country it is possible to be convicted based SOLELY on eyewitness testimony. FFS, a woman can just accuse a guy of rape because...for whatever reason. Either she's been dumped, he doesn't want more than sex, or because Oprah said 'Men are bad'. Worse if there's been consensual sex, and later she regrets it. An accusation is sometimes enough.
They wanted Capone...couldn't get him on racketeering...got him on tax evasion. If they want you...they're going to get you.
Hell, there was a case in Warwick, RI in the late 80s. 15 year old kid(Craig Price) ONE street over from my father's house murdered a woman and her 2 daughters, and then another woman in the neighborhood. Was tried as a minor. People couldn't take that he was going to get out at age 21...so 'they' chose to instigate him in prison, in hopes he would do something that added to his sentence because 'they' thought he didn't get enough time. You know what? Too fucking bad...that was the law...you don't like it, change it.
Believe me, if 'they' want to get you....'THEY' will.
If ANY of these guys are guilty...they'll be convicted. But then again, it's been 54 years since JFK...and no one's been arrested yet.
Maybe I have an S2M comprehension issue because you are not making sense to me. In your other post, you say "INVESTIGATE until EVIDENCE is found that proves a CRIME was committed." That is just not true. In this last post you say "If I find evidence that a crime's been committed, then a crime's been committed.", which of course would be true. But those are two totally different things. We do not investigate people without cause. At least we aren't supposed to. They knew Capone was guilty but they couldn't get him on what they knew to be true. In Trumps case, this knowable crime is not there. There is no foundation for them going after him. If they got Capone on tax evasion simply because they were hoping to find something and had no basis to investigate in the first place, that would be wrong. It's just not something we do very much in this country and CERTAINLY should not be done to a lawfully elected president. Yes, they would still convict Capone, but it would have been wrong to go after him in the first place.
We all have things we could be convicted on if they dig hard enough. Thank God it doesn't work that way - generally.
Circumstantial evidence is still evidence. But even that has to pass the smell test. In the Trump Russia case, there is not even one ounce of circumstantial evidence. At least not that we have heard.
And let me ask you this. The investigation is supposed to be on whether or not Russia was working to influence our elections. First off, I can tell you yes they do - may I please ave the 10+ million dollars they have spent so far. And give me another 10 million for saying yes, the USA also attempts to influence elections worldwide. But anyway, if the investigation is about Russia, why is the media always calling it a Trump Russia collusion case? It isn't. It's a Russia influence case. Trump is not under investigation. So far, no charges stem from Russia influence or collusion. And so far, we have heard no evidence of either. So why are we spending all this money? Just to find a crime? That's wrong no matter how you slice it.
