Where's the line in the sand?

Hillary "testified" for 11 hours, what did she say? What was she asked? We know she wasn't under oath and it has not been made public. We also know that she had an unindicted co-defendant in the room as her attorney. We also know that the FBI had already written the exoneration before the interview.

Hillary "testified" for 11 hours, what did she say? What was she asked? We know she wasn't under oath and it has not been made public. We also know that she had an unindicted co-defendant in the room as her attorney. We also know that the FBI had already written the exoneration before the interview. Originally Posted by the_real_Barleycorn

Why don't you ask Trey Gowdy and the 50 million others who saw the fiasco.

Why don't you ask Trey Gowdy and the 50 million others who saw the fiasco. Originally Posted by themystic

Actual evidence he worked with Russia to not influence, but actually TAMPER with votes, whether by hacking machines, to read votes for him that were not, or proof otherwise, he did something to steal the election. Originally Posted by garhkal

Fair enough.

Now if he did not do that but found out that someone in his campaign did and he then helped to cover that up, what then?

Nixon would have been impeached for covering up what amounted to burglary. Would the scenario you suggested no be worse?

Hillary "testified" for 11 hours, what did she say? What was she asked? We know she wasn't under oath and it has not been made public. We also know that she had an unindicted co-defendant in the room as her attorney. We also know that the FBI had already written the exoneration before the interview. Originally Posted by the_real_Barleycorn

That is a completely separate issue and irrelevant to withdrawing support from Trump or continuing to support him.

For me it would have to be something that showed his direct involvement in subverting the election.

And it would have to be something that other current politicians haven't already been getting away with.

For me it would have to be something that showed his direct involvement in subverting the election.

And it would have to be something that other current politicians haven't already been getting away with. Originally Posted by bigwill832

How about direct involvement in the decision to not disclose payments to women on his financial disclosure.

Again, the payments are perfectly legal. The issue is that by disclosing them as legally required, many voters might have not voted for him had they known of his two affairs.

At least someone thought it might, otherwise why not disclose the payments?