Both sides have to be able to consider other points of view, otherwise you end up like all the people that were shocked that Mueller has been investigating collusion for two years and couldn't find any evidence.
I think he couldn't find
proof. You are conflating evidence and proof. They are not synonyms.
For what it's worth, I think the case against Clinton (Bill, that is) was stronger than the case against Trump. I mean, he lied under oath. Trump was never put under oath, so he dodged that bullet rather adroitly. (Unless all his statements were taken from sworn depositions).
It's nice that the National Review tried to be evenhanded, but I see some logical flaws there. Prosecutors do not establish "innocence." They establish insufficient evidence to prove a crime. And I don't know how the writer can say both that the Dems and media came out looking worse, and yet there wouldn't have been an investigation had Trump not turned out to have *shockingly* poor judgment in picking his friends. Being a horrible judge of character is not, probably, an impeachable offense, but I think his judgment was so poor because his friends are just like him - and he's fine with that because he thinks he's a good guy.
And Trump is going to move on from here, working as a leader?
Now he's going to pivot? Now he's going to show us how conciliatory he can be?
I wasn't the least surprised by the result, judging of course by the slender summary we've been given by the Trump administration. I've criticized the MSM. I kind of give props to MSNBC for openly labeling Maddow's show as commentary, because CNN definitely tried to have it both ways: Report the news but make sure you quote some anonymous sources, or past officials, saying what a *************** it is (I've given many examples on this forum). Yet I trust CNN pretty much when it comes to straight statements of fact. It's sure got a better record than the Trump administration.
