Even liberal lawyers can't deny that Hillary Clinton is facing legitimate felony charges that present actual ILLEGAL actions.
Democrats have been claiming to remove Trump from office through proof of Russian collusion but as any good constitutional lawyer knows, collusion and collecting information on a political opinion through foreign sources isn't illegal. However attempting to hide the payment for such actions from the public despite the legal requirement to do so IS illegal, as is receiving a $500,000 payout for the cooperation of approving an absurd sale of 20% of American uranium to the Russian Uranium One company.
President Trump isn't guilty of any illegal activities that the left can prove, Hillary Vlinton on the other hand is facing a possible 13 felonies all with actual illegal backing to which proof exists.
Fox News’ Gregg Jarrett has identified no fewer than thirteen federal felonies that he believes could be successfully prosecuted against Hillary.
“Thirteen potential crimes committed by Hillary Clinton, she’d be charged for six anti-corruption – they were all felonies. She could also be charged with racketeering for using her charity as a criminal enterprise and then you’ve got all of the email crimes – two of them under the espionage act and two additional.” – Jarrett to Sean Hannity
Jonathan Turley is a Constitutional Law authority whose personal political leanings – it appears that he leans left – never interferes with his legal analysis.
“As you know, I’ve been very skeptical about the past Russian collusion claims as being a criminal matter, even though I supported the appointment of the special counsel after Comey was fired I’ve been cautioning and many others have that it really isn’t a crime to collude. In the same, it wouldn’t be a crime on the Trump side to receive information on the other side from a foreign national.
“The allegations against the Clintons could potentially be criminal. It doesn’t mean that they are criminal. The $500,000 given to Bill Clinton might have been innocent. The timing might just have been horrible. But that would be a cognizable crime if a linkage was found.
“In the same way, the allegation over the dossier does involve a potential violation of federal law. The Federal Election Commission Act requires campaigns to state a purpose for any money spent over about $200, to sort of have an item description for each of those amounts. There isn’t an item description for this law firm for the amount of money that is being alleged to have been given to this research firm.
You know you're in deep s*** when not even people who side with you can argue that legal actions wouldn't most definitely be a success because the evidence can't rationally be argued against.