Quote:
Originally Posted by whell
House investigations are far more likely to be circuses than they are to accomplish anything productive.
That said, you also have had an FBI investigation, a Senate investigation and now a Special Counsel. None of them have found any evidence of that which the Dems are claiming in their CIVIL suit.
The Dems know there's zero evidence of Russian collusion. Schiff has stated that there's no evidence. Mark Warner has said that there's no evidence. DiFi has said she's not seen any evidence. Joe Manchin has said there's no evidence. Hell, even Maxine Waters admits there's no evidence. You're probably one of the remaining few and proud hyper-ventilators that still think there is evidence, you poor deluded fool.
|
Actually, the FBI investigation was rolled into the Special Counsel's. As for the Senate's investigation, I still don't have full confidence in the Republicans, particularly after their ridiculous reaction to the Comey memos (somehow they think they proved Comey to be the liar and Trump the truth-teller
), not to mention their silence about Nunes' disreputable and unethical antics.
Read items 6-19 starting on page 6 of the lawsuit. Sounds like quite a bit of evidence.
http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/doc...ikileaks/2914/
In a civil suit, the standard of proof is a "preponderance of evidence" supporting the allegation as opposed to "beyond a reasonable doubt." Moreover, "pleading the fifth" in a civil case or deposition allows an inference of guilt, unlike in a criminal trial. In any event, a similar civil suit was filed against Nixon and his henchmen during Watergate and the DNC won a settlement of $750K.
If it also serves to keep the Democratic base on a low boil and increase contributions to the DNC, no harm in that.
