Prosecutors often make cases on circumstantial evidence. The absence of direct evidence, i.e. a witness who saw Trump make an agreement with Putin, hardly proves innocence. And a body of circumstantial evidence can and often does add up to proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
— Joyce Alene (@JoyceWhiteVance) February 12, 2019
Senate Repubs say no direct evidence of conspiracy? They would exonerate @GenBenArnold by saying “Since Benedict Arnold wasn’t actually CAUGHT with Major Andre. The maps to seize West Point found in his boot was coincidence, not DIRECT evidence of conspiracy!” #TreasonCaucus https://t.co/5TYhB16kf1
— Malcolm Nance (@MalcolmNance) February 12, 2019
Re: the headline, "Senate has uncovered no direct evidence of conspiracy between Trump campaign and Russia," same aide says: "the word 'direct' is doing a lot of work here."
— Natasha Bertrand (@NatashaBertrand) February 12, 2019
Trump runs a crime family. (Think Al Capone)
The “boss” does nothing except receive largess (contributions and gifts) from his Captains. In essence “money for nothing.”
On occasion the “boss” will order a “hit.”
Otherwise his underlings are on their own to make money by any means necessary.
What the “boss” wants is for the contributions (donations) from his Captains (Manafort, Kelly, Pruitt, etc.) to keep on coming.
On occasion the “boss” will make his own personal “deals.” (Las Vegas)
But the “crime boss” never directly colludes with anybody and his fingerprints are never on anything.
Carlie Manson was too dumb to figure out how to make a real crime family work, but so far Trump’s been successful.
If Charles Manson had been manor born as Trump was, Manson would have been a real multi-billionaire.