Why No Amount of Evidence Will Make Republicans Admit Trump's Guilt

[robosmith]

Why No Amount of Evidence Will Make Republicans Admit Trump's Guilt

Quote

Trump was not raised in a traditional conservative milieu. He came into a seedy, corrupt world in which politicians could be bought off and laws were suggestions. He worked with mobsters and absorbed their view of law enforcement: People who follow the law are suckers, and the worst thing in the world is a rat.

That ethos ultimately explains Trump’s approach to classified information. He casually discarded all the rules concerning government secrecy as president — using an unsecured mobile phone, tearing up official documents, sharing highly classified information with Russian officials, and conducting state affairs at his loosely secured Florida resort. After leaving office, he naturally assumed he could continue flouting regulations about government secrecy. If the government was demanding its documents back, that was not an order but a negotiation. And why should he give up his leverage? He had something they wanted.

You can imagine the futility of trying to explain to Trump the seriousness and national security implications of the laws he was brazenly flouting, if any of his aides even bothered trying to get it across to him.

It is the interplay of the two forces, the paranoia of the right and the seamy criminality of the right’s current champion, that has brought the party to this point. Trump’s endlessly repeated “witch hunt” meme blends together the mobster’s hatred of the FBI with the conservative’s fear of the bureaucrat. His loyalists have been trained to either deny any evidence of misconduct by their side or rationalize it as a necessary countermeasure against their enemies.

The concept of “crime” has been redefined in the conservative mind to mean activities by Democrats. They insist upon Trump’s innocence because they believe a Republican, axiomatically, cannot be a criminal. 

^This details SOME of Trump's history of which Canadians here are completely IGNORANT. 

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, robosmith said:

 

^This details SOME of Trump's history of which Canadians here are completely IGNORANT. 

THIS oPInIon IS USleESS wIthHOuT pROOoooOOf.

[herbie]

What do you mean evidence? No number of actual convictions by a jury will convince those people of his guilt either.

[robosmith]

40 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

THIS oPInIon IS USleESS wIthHOuT pROOoooOOf.

Thanks for confirming the "no amount of evidence" premise. LMAO

[reason10]

3 hours ago, robosmith said:

Why No Amount of Evidence Will Make Republicans Admit Trump's Guilt

^This details SOME of Trump's history of which Canadians here are completely IGNORANT. 

There is no evidence and LEGALLY ELECTED PRESIDENT TRUMP COMMITTED NO CRIME, YOU FCKING NAZI. And your GESTAPO MINISTRY OF PROPAGANDA WILL NOT CHANGE THAT FACT.

Trump is only guilty of making you downs syndrome children cry when he kicked Hitlary's Nazi ass in 2016.

[robosmith]

1 minute ago, reason10 said:

There is no evidence and LEGALLY ELECTED PRESIDENT TRUMP COMMITTED NO CRIME, YOU FCKING NAZI. And your GESTAPO MINISTRY OF PROPAGANDA WILL NOT CHANGE THAT FACT.

Trump is only guilty of making you downs syndrome children cry when he kicked Hitlary's Nazi ass in 2016.

Trump's AG Barr says otherwise, your amateur legal eagle OPINION notwithstanding. Duh.

[reason10]

1 minute ago, robosmith said:

Trump's AG Barr says otherwise, your amateur legal eagle OPINION notwithstanding. Duh.

I make all you goose steppers look like what you are, by comparison. Uneducated blue state idi0ts.

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, robosmith said:

Thanks for confirming the "no amount of evidence" premise. LMAO

Happy to - I'ts 100 percent true, you present no amount of evidence   (you really do walk into these you know)

[robosmith]

4 hours ago, reason10 said:

I make all you goose steppers look like what you are, by comparison. Uneducated blue state idi0ts.

Only in YOUR FANTASIES. LMAO

3 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Happy to - I'ts 100 percent true, you present no amount of evidence   (you really do walk into these you know)

OTC, I quoted someone highly familiar with the matter, which you NEVER DO. Duh.

[CdnFox]

22 minutes ago, robosmith said:

 

OTC, I quoted someone highly familiar with the matter, which you NEVER DO. Duh.

Nope, sorry liar. You did not. The 'intelligencer' is just a rag and that loser knows less than you do which i would have thought impossible.

You never provide evidence -you just scream that others should.  Typical leftie - do as i say not as i do.

[Rebound]

7 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Nope, sorry liar. You did not. The 'intelligencer' is just a rag and that loser knows less than you do which i would have thought impossible.

You never provide evidence -you just scream that others should.  Typical leftie - do as i say not as i do.

The evidence is clearly spelled out in the 38 felony count indictment against Donald Trump. 

[CdnFox]

13 minutes ago, Rebound said:

The evidence is clearly spelled out in the 38 felony count indictment against Donald Trump. 

Well no it's not even close.  The charges are spelled out. The evidence for those charges are not contained in the charges.

Which tells me you haven't even read the charges.

[reason10]

8 hours ago, robosmith said:

Only in YOUR FANTASIES. LMAO

OTC, I quoted someone highly familiar with the matter, which you NEVER DO. Duh.

You have NEVER quoted a reliable source. You don't have the education.