The so-far fruitless search for evidence against Trump

I recently read an article in National Review that asked, “When does all the evidence arrive?” The search for proof of Trump-Russia collusion has been going on for months and has, to date, produced nothing more than suppositions, inferences, and possibilities. Without concrete evidence there is no case except in the minds of those longing for it to be true. After all, how could it be explained that Hillary, with her sizable war chest and all of her valuable experience (?), lost to a “buffoon” (a Gene Lyons descriptive word) with no experience?

Let’s look at those who have had to admit that, so far, they have come up empty of any proof: 1) The Huffington Post says, “But just to be clear there has been no actual evidence yet.” 2) Even Maxine Waters, who wants to impeach Trump, contends that “Lock her up, lock her up, all of that, I think that was developed strategically with people from the Kremlin…” But she finally had to acknowledge that nothing has been proven yet. 3) Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California when questioned by Wolf Blitzer on CNN said, “There are all kinds of rumors around. There are newspaper stories, but that’s not necessarily evidence.” I guess not. 4) And then there is the Reuters article reporting that “current and former U.S. officials” revealed to them that members of Trump’s campaign, including Flynn, had been in contact with Russian officials as many as 18 times. However, these “current and former U.S. officials” were quick to say, “They had seen no evidence of wrong doing or collusion between the campaign and Russia.”

It was informative to watch Trey Gowdy question former CIA Director John Brennan. Gowdy asked Brennan, “When you learned of Russian efforts, did you have evidence of a connection between the Trump campaign and Russian state actors?” Brennan replied, “As I have said Mr. Gowdy, I don’t do evidence.” With further probing by Mr. Gowdy Brennan finally said, “I don’t know whether or not such collusion existed...”

During this exchange Trey Gowdy pointed to the fact that “Russia has historically attempted to interfere with our electoral process and they did so without collusion, or conspiring with any of the candidates. They have a history of doing it.” What Gowdy did not mention is that the U.S has a very long history of doing the same thing. Case in point was that in 1996, the U.S. took action in support of Boris Yeltsin.

More recently Judicial Watch uncovered evidence that, under the Obama administration, “The U.S. government quietly spent millions of taxpayer dollars to destabilize the democratically elected, center-right government in Macedonia by colluding with left-wing billionaire philanthropist George Soros.”

Finally James Clapper on CNN said when he left office that he saw no “direct evidence of political collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians.” He quickly followed that by saying, “That doesn’t mean there wasn’t any.”

Those mostly on the left are always leaving the door open and hoping for that so far elusive evidence that will make it possible to impeach the man they say stole the election, which was rightfully Hillary’s.

With this in mind and the way the country is polarized, it makes you pause and ask, will Chuck Schumer and the mainstream media be willing to accept the results of former FBI director Robert Mueller’s investigation into the matter, when evidence finally does arrive? This question is particularly pertinent especially if the evidence leads Mueller to conclude that there have been no illegal actions taken by President Trump.

The famous Harvard law professor, Alan Dershowitz, (who voted for Hillary) has said, “I just don’t see a crime here.” To date it appears to me that the only evidence of any “proven crime” seems to be that Trump succeeded in garnering the most electoral votes and denied Hillary her “rightful place” in the history books as the first woman president.

Still is a resident of Kalispell.