Using that reasoning... - Laugh's on me Posted: Jan 14th, 2019 - 5:21 pm In Reply to: We don't know - nobody does
If we assume that Mueller does indeed have proof that Trump is a traitor, we also have to assume that Mueller is okay with that traitor remaining as President and the leader of the free world. This seems unlikely to me.
Let's assume Mueller has bombshell evidence against Trump. How long after Mueller obtained said evidence should Trump be allowed to remain President? Months? Years?
Let's ask that question a different way. From the perspective Mueller's personal self-interest, reputation, and natural desire to "be on the right side of history..."
How long can Mueller justify his actions to leave a traitor in the office?
Because it's going to come out eventually. "On XYZ date we found this evidence... We verified it through XYZ means. Then we waited 6 months to tell anyone..."
I may be wrong, but that seems unlikely. If that's what Mueller is doing, he's putting the country at risk.
It's possible that Mueller found something early on and he's been trying to verify it ever since, but that would also imply that there's currently no real evidence of collusion or Trump being a traitor. Can we agree that Mueller wouldn't present anything other than hard evidence that had been extensively verified?
Trump hiring 17 lawyers doesn't matter. Lawyers can't keep him from getting impeached. If he truly thought he was in danger of impeachment he wouldn't hire any lawyers at all. It's a waste of money and time.
The fact that he's hiring lawyers tells me he's not anticipating an impeachment fight. He's anticipating something else, like a civil suit that threatens his money or reputation.
Post A Reply Reply By Email Options
Complete Discussion Below: (  marks the location of current message within thread)
|
