Indictments coming...

[zinfamous]

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.

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?

 

[umbrella39]

You make a stupid comment you get stupid responses.

That's why I replied to your post as it was stupid (and disingenuous but that's expected)... Something DID in fact come from those...

Oct. 28, 2016 called again and told you to GFY...

 

[umbrella39]

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.

This wasn't a criminal trial and all your concerns were above his purview and you know that.... or don't you.

 

[GobBluth]

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.

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.

 

[soundforbjt]

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.

Have you read the Mueller report or followed the results of Cohen's trial?

 

[zinfamous]

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.

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.

 

[ivwshane]

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.

Actually, we've seen the evidence, all 480 pages of it.

 

[hal2kilo]

Actually, we've seen the evidence, all 480 pages of it.

Yea, but Barr said.........

 

[brandonbull]

The only reason he hasn't been indicted/convicted is because he's president.

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?

 

[brandonbull]

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?

Mueller: Going thru elements does not to mean I subscribe to what you're trying to prove through those elements.

 

[soundforbjt]

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?

You forgetting him being an unindicted co-conspirator in the Cohen case? and the memo that a sitting president can't be indicted.

 

[brandonbull]

You forgetting him being an unindicted co-conspirator in the Cohen case? and the memo that a sitting president can't be indicted.

And Mueller stating that memo/rule/policy/suggestion/idea didn't factor.

 

[soundforbjt]

And Mueller stating that memo/rule/policy/suggestion/idea didn't factor.

You must have watched a different hearing or you watched the Fox summary version.

 

[brandonbull]

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 .

 

[brandonbull]

You must have watched a different hearing or you watched the Fox summary version.

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.

 

[soundforbjt]

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 .

An opinion piece by a right winger...very compelling.

 

[brandonbull]

An opinion piece by a right winger...very compelling.

So are you saying that a criminal referral wasn't made by the IG's team?

 

[soundforbjt]

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.

A link would do, make sure it has Mueller stating the OLC memo had no influence on whether he could indict.

 

[soundforbjt]

So are you saying that a criminal referral wasn't made by the IG's team?

And dismissed by the DOJ prosecutors.

Prosecutors found the IG’s findings compelling but decided not to bring charges because they did not believe they had enough evidence of Comey’s intent to violate the law, according to multiple sources.

 

[UNCjigga]

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 .

“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.

 

[brandonbull]

A link would do, make sure it has Mueller stating the OLC memo had no influence on whether he could indict.

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".

 

[brandonbull]

“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.

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.

 

[Jhhnn]

So are you saying that a criminal referral wasn't made by the IG's team?

Why believe that it was? Anonymous sources put forth by a right wing spin doctor?

 

[brandonbull]

Why believe that it was? Anonymous sources put forth by a right wing spin doctor?

Do you have a link contradicting the "right wing spin doctor"?

 

[Jhhnn]

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.

Mmmm... second level conspiracy theory already?

Do you have a link contradicting the "right wing spin doctor"?

Why would I need one to counter hearsay?