>>>> there's been no evidence of actual favors.
>>>
>>>So, can't we give the Trumps the same benefit of a doubt?
>>
>>Because Trump is a proven pathological liar - why would you give the benefit of the doubt to such a person?
>
>If you go back in the thread, Tamar suggested that HRC was blameless for letting foreign governments contribute to her foundation while she was secretary of state because there was no evidence of a quid pro quo.
>
>I, for one, find that to be quite a stretch, but in our system we have to prove guilt, not prove innocence.
>
>If I see evidence that Trump is using an office that he doesn't even hold for personal gain, then I'll be quick to say that he should pay the consequences.

...but since he refuses to disclose his tax information we'll never know will we? You just have to give him the benefit of the doubt - and he's a pathological liar - see the problem here???