And yet "we're" willing to take them as proof that he's corrupt without official confirmation by a judge. I mean, if Trump is so corrupt, impeach or arrest him.
That seems familiar to election fraud claims, doesn't it?
Some charges on obstruction of justice lie open for action. We might note the special prosecutor followed specific DoJ direction that it was not his place to recommend charges.
Trump was impeached for some charges. The end result of which was, to quote senator Marco Rubio (R):
"I will not vote to remove the president because doing so would inflict extraordinary and potentially irreparable damage to our already divided nation"
"For purposes of answering my threshold question I assumed what is alleged is true. And then I sought to answer the question of whether under these assumptions it would be in the interest of the nation to remove the president."
"[I disagree with the House Managers’ argument that] if we find the allegations they have made are true, failing to remove the president leaves us with no remedy to constrain this or future presidents. Congress and the courts have multiple ways by which to constrain the power of the executive. And ultimately, voters themselves can hold the president accountable in an election, including the one just nine months from now."
Or to translate Mr Rubio's contortions, "He's guilty, we're just not willing to pay the political price of finding him guilty."
The point being, there has been pretty good evidence that Trump has been corrupt. Whole dossiers on it, in fact. This about a million times more evidence than we have for substantial election fraud, which amounts to potentially crazy women fresh out of suspended sentences slurringly claiming officials completely re-wrote the voter rolls.
