Effate wrote:
Sounds like you are making a tree falling in the forrest argument. Are you arguing that short of an indictment that crime hasn’t been committed and there can be no evidence of the same? A bigger concern for me in this whole equation isn’t getting Hunter or even Joe, it’s the appearance of impropriety, the enthusiasm the DOJ/FBI employs in the investigation of certain individuals vs. others, disparate treatment.
No but I do not take as evidence right wing media hyperventilating. I am all for honest investigations, but I see so far are unsubstantiated allegations. But let's
review the actual track record of recent right wing investigations:
--After five years investigating Hunter resulted in three of misdemeanors.
--The much anticipated Dunham investigation which resulted in three indictments, and only one conviction (and that was a pretty chump change affair, given the effort that went into the investigation.
--Gal Luft (the missing witness of the House Oversight Committee), who when, when found turned out he was on the lam running from his own indictment. No wonder he was on the lam.
--And of course, Benghazi that turning up zip after years of investigation. Fun fact: My Kevin even admitted that the whole Benghazi thing was political.
Impressive track record, right? And just as a thought experiment, compare that track record with Jack Smith. m\My money is on Smith, but that's just me.
What caught my eye was the title of the thread. How much evidence is enough? Still a fair question that MAGA Nation should be asking itself. But if you can't tell the difference between allegations and evidence, this is where you will find yourself.
When there are indictments, I will pat attention. While the walls close in on Criminal Defendant Trump, the right wing noise machine will do what it does: generate noise. And right wing noise will not help him now.