• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Indictments coming...

Page 180 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
GobBluth said:
How can you say we have a criminal in the WH without seeing the evidence? Isn't that the whole presumed innocence/due process thing? The accused has no responsibility to prove their innocence. The burden of proof lies on the prosecution.

I'm not saying he isn't a criminal, but at least until he is accused of a crime and found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt on that charge, Lady Justice says he isn't a criminal. He's a shithead, but sadly, that isn't illegal.
Click to expand...

Huh? The evidence is rather thoroughly spelled out in the Mueller Report, consisting of 6 easily-indictable counts of obstruction, and a further 4 more, at least. There is literally a shit-ton of public evidence regarding Trump's criminal past and criminal president, as POTUS.

He is currently recognized in NY federal court as Individual One as a co-conspirator with Michael Cohen, carrying a shared felony indictment. Do you not understand that this is, in fact, undeniable evidence of criminal activity? Do you understand that this actually means Donald Trump is officially recognized in federal court as a criminal?
 
GobBluth said:
How can you say we have a criminal in the WH without seeing the evidence? Isn't that the whole presumed innocence/due process thing? The accused has no responsibility to prove their innocence. The burden of proof lies on the prosecution.

I'm not saying he isn't a criminal, but at least until he is accused of a crime and found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt on that charge, Lady Justice says he isn't a criminal. He's a shithead, but sadly, that isn't illegal.
Click to expand...

This wasn't a criminal trial and all your concerns were above his purview and you know that.... or don't you.
 
SMOGZINN said:
I can say he is a criminal because I am not a prosecutor, or judge, or any position of legal authority. Innocent until proven guilty is like freedom of speech. It binds the government not private citizens.

At the same time none of us are calling for his extra-judicial imprisonment, we are calling for a trial.
Click to expand...

I never said you were calling for extra-judicial imprisonment. You're calling for a trial, of which, you've apparently already predetermined the outcome without seeing/hearing a single piece of evidence. This is what the GOP argued before the House testimony of Peter Strzok (sp?).
You shouldn't describe him as a criminal, yet. Douchebag, maybe? Dumbass, possibly? Completely politically inept, sure. But criminal, not just yet.
 
GobBluth said:
I never said you were calling for extra-judicial imprisonment. You're calling for a trial, of which, you've apparently already predetermined the outcome without seeing/hearing a single piece of evidence. This is what the GOP argued before the House testimony of Peter Strzok (sp?).
You shouldn't describe him as a criminal, yet. Douchebag, maybe? Dumbass, possibly? Completely politically inept, sure. But criminal, not just yet.
Click to expand...
Have you read the Mueller report or followed the results of Cohen's trial?
 
GobBluth said:
I never said you were calling for extra-judicial imprisonment. You're calling for a trial, of which, you've apparently already predetermined the outcome without seeing/hearing a single piece of evidence. This is what the GOP argued before the House testimony of Peter Strzok (sp?).
You shouldn't describe him as a criminal, yet. Douchebag, maybe? Dumbass, possibly? Completely politically inept, sure. But criminal, not just yet.
Click to expand...

recall that your charge was "without having seen the evidence." So, if that's all you demand, then go look at the volumes of publicly-available evidence, with which you can then honestly make your determination.

But even so, Trump is officially recognized as a (currently) un-indicted co-conspirator in a crime for which his accomplice was indicted on federal charges. It honestly can't get more criminal than that for the only person in the country who can't currently be indicted for a crime, lol.
 
GobBluth said:
I never said you were calling for extra-judicial imprisonment. You're calling for a trial, of which, you've apparently already predetermined the outcome without seeing/hearing a single piece of evidence. This is what the GOP argued before the House testimony of Peter Strzok (sp?).
You shouldn't describe him as a criminal, yet. Douchebag, maybe? Dumbass, possibly? Completely politically inept, sure. But criminal, not just yet.
Click to expand...

Actually, we've seen the evidence, all 480 pages of it.
 
soundforbjt said:
The only reason he hasn't been indicted/convicted is because he's president.
Click to expand...
Don't forget the lack of evidence. If it wasn't for those 2 things, he would be in the Big House instead of the White House. Right? Damn pesky Constitution getting in the way of Progressheviks, again.

Did your handy law degree tell you that because Robert Mueller stated to Congress something different?
 
zinfamous said:
Huh? The evidence is rather thoroughly spelled out in the Mueller Report, consisting of 6 easily-indictable counts of obstruction, and a further 4 more, at least. There is literally a shit-ton of public evidence regarding Trump's criminal past and criminal president, as POTUS.

He is currently recognized in NY federal court as Individual One as a co-conspirator with Michael Cohen, carrying a shared felony indictment. Do you not understand that this is, in fact, undeniable evidence of criminal activity? Do you understand that this actually means Donald Trump is officially recognized in federal court as a criminal?
Click to expand...


Mueller: Going thru elements does not to mean I subscribe to what you're trying to prove through those elements.
 
brandonbull said:
Don't forget the lack of evidence. If it wasn't for those 2 things, he would be in the Big House instead of the White House. Right? Damn pesky Constitution getting in the way of Progressheviks, again.

Did your handy law degree tell you that because Robert Mueller stated to Congress something different?
Click to expand...
You forgetting him being an unindicted co-conspirator in the Cohen case? and the memo that a sitting president can't be indicted.
 
brandonbull said:
I guess I could copy the transcript where Mueller tells the Intelligence Committee but it's an undisputed fact and don't get stuck on the incorrect statement made to Ted Lieu.
Click to expand...
A link would do, make sure it has Mueller stating the OLC memo had no influence on whether he could indict.
 
brandonbull said:
Looks like Reinhold Niebuhr may have an indictment incoming, but probably IG Horowitz's findings will be used as leverage for him to flip. https://thehill.com/opinion/judicia...t-reckoning-is-imminent-this-time-for-leaking .
Click to expand...

“Although a technical violation, the DOJ did not want to “make its first case against the Russia investigators with such thin margins and look petty and vindictive,” a source told me, explaining the DOJ’s rationale.”

LOL—“we won’t prosecute Comey because it would seem petty and vindictive if we did” tells you all you need to know about this DOJ and this Administration.
 
soundforbjt said:
A link would do, make sure it has Mueller stating the OLC memo had no influence on whether he could indict.
Click to expand...

Do you have a link stating that the OLC memo was the reason why Trump wasn't indicted? I'm not doing the googling for you. Try researching for once and maybe you'll discover something called "facts".
 
UNCjigga said:
“Although a technical violation, the DOJ did not want to “make its first case against the Russia investigators with such thin margins and look petty and vindictive,” a source told me, explaining the DOJ’s rationale.”

LOL—“we won’t prosecute Comey because it would seem petty and vindictive if we did” tells you all you need to know about this DOJ and this Administration.
Click to expand...
I think it's going to be used as leverage in a bigger case. It wouldn't be the first time the DOJ went after people for technical violations.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top