Quote:
Originally Posted by wdmso
your to funny looking for answers based on implication of each must be equivalent .. then say I am using the playing the equivalency card.
please show me.... you and Scott are playing that Hand not I
Please clarify.
I warned of the pitfalls of the right supporting the Snowden leaks against Hillary and the DNC .. and how the right would react when the barrel of the same gun was pointing at them ... And true to form now they play the victim demanding evidence of wrong doing or its a witch hunt .. burn the leakers at the stake it very telling..
Who the Hades are you talking about? Who is DEMANDING evidence? I am saying what is being said--there is no evidence. That is not a demand for evidence. I am wondering why there is such a frenzied fuss when there is no evidence.
And yes Trump is dangerous
Because you say so? OK . . . that's an opening for you to come up with another of your chicken little accusations.
but one must ask are the leaks against Trump Treason if they expose treason ...(we'll find out after the investigation concludes )
Why must one ask if the leaks are treason? It is illegal to pass classified information to those not authorized to receive it. The investigation does not have to conclude in order to know that classified information has been leaked to unauthorized persons. That it was leaked is the only evidence that a crime has been committed--the leaks.
The leaks, as they are, show NO treason by Trump. If there had been something treasonous discovered by surveilling Trump, why was that not leaked? Why was only innocuous stuff leaked (ILLEGALLY) and not the real supposedly treasonous stuff? And why was the not treasonous stuff, the kind of thing that has happened before even by Democrats, a reason for "implication" and investigation?
then we can move on to prosecution of leakers.. if warranted I love how The right dont like due process
It is not due process to investigate a crime if there is no evidence that a crime has been committed. That is the opposite of due process.
What should happen to Trump if his claim is found to be false
"even though there is no evidence that they did" Tap his phones ??
thats Statement you used to defend Trump about collusion
|
I don't recall defending Trump if his claim is false. I don't know if he should be prosecuted because a claim of his is false. I don't think someone can be prosecuted for making a false claim unless he is under oath at the time, and actually knew that the claim is false.
I don't know if his claim is passing on classified information. Maybe the investigation will show that his claim has revealed classified information. If so, then, like the leakers against Trump, he and they should be prosecuted.