« prev   random   next »

1
2

Over 720 former prosecutors say Trump would be indicted if he weren't president

By marcus following x   2019 May 7, 10:08pm 1,666 views   72 comments   watch   nsfw   quote     share    


https://www.axios.com/trump-obstruction-of-justice-former-prosecutors-b5599d27-681f-4944-b04c-9743224f55e2.html

You guys will be burying this story quickly. I get that you don't want to acknowledge it, you want everyone to not pay attention to it.

And surprisingly you're getting your wish. What happened to the liberal main stream media ?

Can this fact be buried quick enough ? Can Trump come up with something outrageous enough that somehow people will be distracted and just move on ? Who knows ?

Hey, I know what. Maybe a story about what a failed businessman he is can distract us from this ?

That's right 720 and counting.

What do you say all the Trump Cucks just agree not to comment on this one, and hope this thread gets buried as fast as possible.

(edited - it's 720 now)

« First    « Previous    Comments 34 - 73 of 73    Last »

33   APOCALYPSEFUCKisShostikovitch   ignore (41)   2019 May 8, 7:26am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

BUT! What about ALEXANDRIA! OCASIO!-CORTEZ! ?
34   mostly_reader   ignore (0)   2019 May 8, 7:46am   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

> rdm
> A person doesn't sign a letter so that means they automatically take the opposite position?

It means that (all-former-procecutors - 650) did NOT sign the letter that he'd be indicted. Feel free to draw your own conclusions.
Here's one statistic that would be relevant: how many were offered to sign? Do you know? How come the absolute number is reported, but not the percentage?

> One would think a counter letter taking the opposite position would be appropriate, no? Is there one?

You must be kidding. To willingly participate in this post-game circus after the game has been won? Leave it to the losers.
35   Elgatouno   ignore (3)   2019 May 8, 7:51am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Onvacation says
marcus says
TRump would be indictede for obstruction if he weren't President.

For what crime would you indictede him of obstruction?


Obstruction of justice, in United States jurisdictions, is a process crime, consisting of obstructing prosecutors or other officials.

That is the crime.
36   WookieMan   ignore (3)   2019 May 8, 8:05am   ↑ like (4)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Elgatouno says
consisting of obstructing prosecutors or other officials.


This is getting annoying. Even IF there was obstruction, no charges are coming from this investigation for Trump. Mueller purposefully threw out some maybe type statements, but fact is, his job is a yes or no job. Others in this investigation were charged with crimes. Mueller said yes and they were charged. He has not said yes, charge Trump with obstruction. Everyone trying to get Trump indicted on this is just giving his supporters more reason to trust in him and is winning him new followers daily. Some of you people legit look crazy.

At the end of the day keep looking for the needle in the haystack that's sitting on the shelf at Hobby Lobby though.
38   Quigley   ignore (0)   2019 May 8, 8:33am   ↑ like (3)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

marcus says
The statement refers to felony obstruction of justice, something you don't have to be President to be guilty of.


Ok let’s step back from the TDS and examine the situation. Trump’s actions with respect to the investigation into a fraudulent accusation with NO MERIT could by legalistic conjuring be construed as “obstruction.” Did he materially obstruct with intent to hide wrongdoing? No. Absolutely not. But could a smart lawyer make a case that what he did so was obstruction in the textbook definition? Yes.
Thing is, Marcus. In this country we have the right to a trial by a jury of our peers. And since Trump is President (a fact which I’m sure makes you grind your teeth at night), his peers are Senators. And there is absolutely no way that the Senate will convict him of this imaginary process crime of a fruitless investigation into an imaginary crime set in motion by fraudulent mechanism.

The more you keep arguing your case, the more we know it’s just about getting rid of Trump by any means possible or even remotely probable, and nothing at all to do with the law.
39   socal2   ignore (0)   2019 May 8, 8:54am   ↑ like (3)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

marcus says
Come on. All Trump Cucks, represent !


I am not a Trump Cuck - didn't vote for him (but will gladly vote for him in 2020) - but think it is hilarious watching the Democrat's world come totally apart. They all KNEW Trump would be indicted by Mueller. They all KNEW that Trump's taxes would drive him from office.

Now they are hanging their hat on a letter from some former prosecutors. Zzzzzzzzzzzzzz.....

Did the Media interview a bunch of former prosecutors to ask them if they would have indicted Hillary for her secret server and destroying subpoenaed evidence? Of course not.

Trump is exposing the whole shit show of our corrupt Media and unaccountable bureaucracy.
40   CBOEtrader   ignore (5)   2019 May 8, 9:24am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

marcus says
CBOEtrader says
Trump's behavior was all well within the normal realms of his role


"Everyone knows that part of the checks and balances our founding father intended was that if a sitting PResident is being investigated for something it's most definitely a "coup attempt" and the law is going to need to be broken to prevent it."


What is the context of this quote? More ambiguous, implicative communication from Marcus. I'd give you a C- grade in high school, failing in college.

Maybe try just making a statement, and backing it up w facts.
41   6rdB   ignore (1)   2019 May 8, 9:29am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

socal2 says
but will gladly vote for him in 2020

if leftists keep being terminally insane, I will consider holding my nose and voting for t-RUMP in 2020. Thanks, MSNPC!
42   CovfefeButDeadly   ignore (5)   2019 May 8, 9:49am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

I don’t understand how you can be obstructing justice if there is no underlying crime.
43   HonkpilledMaster   ignore (5)   2019 May 8, 9:52am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Mueller himself said that nothing Trump said could be construed as anything but a client conferring with legal advice. There was nothing actionable.

It's amazing how Dems were rubbing their hands with glee because Mueller is known as an overzealous overcharger who is famous even among Prosecutors for stretching a point to get a charge. Now they are denying that even he couldn't construe anything, and their Media-Dopey Followers are barking at the moon insisting something is hiding in the redactions, which is nonsense - also, several Legislators have SEEN the unredacted Mueller Report.
44   rdm   ignore (1)   2019 May 8, 10:03am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

HonkpilledMaster says
Mueller himself said that nothing Trump said could be construed as anything but a client conferring with legal advice. There was nothing actionable.


Hmm where in the report is that statement? Maybe we should hear from Mueller himself, oh shit they don't want him to testify so I guess we can make all kinds of shit up.

HonkpilledMaster says
Mueller is known as an overzealous overcharger who is famous even among Prosecutors for stretching a point to get a charge

That must be why he didn't charge Trump for obstruction it had nothing to do with the OLC memo. Where did this come from? The "gateway pundit" a well known respected legal commentator?
45   Onvacation   ignore (4)   2019 May 8, 10:36am   ↑ like (4)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Elgatouno says
Obstruction of justice,

How can there be obstruction of justice when there is no crime to obstruct. Trump did not collude with the Russians.
46   Tenpoundbass   ignore (14)   2019 May 8, 10:57am   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

marcus says
The statement refers to felony obstruction of justice, something you don't have to be President to be guilty of.


He wouldn't have been in the position to call Mueller out had he not been a lawfully president they were trying to weaponize the Judaical system to overthrow him.

But if we're going to purely hypothetical then I would say all 720 of those former prosecutors are dead ass wrong.

Had this been a civilian case, everyone unlawfully entrapped by the Dirty Shit Mueller pulled would have had their cases dismissed. The assholes that raided Cohen's law office for evidence on Trump would have been fired and prosecuted. There is client privilege the Dems just ignored it in their quest to get Trump.
If this were a civilian case, Trump would have had it ended after the first 3 months. He would have taken it to the SCOTUS and had it thrown out and every law official involved would have been in serious career jeopardy. Trump would have sued every agency involved and made out like a bandit. So would Roger Stone and Paul Manafort.

My brother is a DEA agent, he's told me about a few cases where the guilty as hell defendants. Used the law against the case and got off on technicalities, not only that but his henchmen were cut lose because the soup was contaminated.
47   Ceffer   ignore (2)   2019 May 8, 11:01am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

"Fake News and Bogus Polls have been vetted to the best of our ability."

Well, because real polls are just too much damned work.
48   rdm   ignore (1)   2019 May 8, 12:12pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

Onvacation says
How can there be obstruction of justice when there is no crime to obstruct


It doesn't work that way as almost any (Barr excepted) attorney will tell you. There does not have to be a proven or even indictable underlying crime. For example, mob boss tells a witness to not cooperate with an investigation into the mob boss, they have him on tape. The crime they are investigating goes nowhere, maybe because the witness won't cooperate, maybe because there isn't enough other proof. There can be made a perfectly legit Obstruction of Justice charge against the mob boss. There may have never been a crime to begin with, maybe the boss didn't want other matters revealed in the course of the investigation, but by obstructing the investigation into it he commits a crime. Same with Trump. Now there is a case that Barr and to a lessor extent Dershowitz makes that because the Pres. is the technical head of Justice Dept. he can do whatever he wants and sees fit to do regarding any investigation, including his own. He simply can't obstruct justice. That may well get litigated after Trump leaves office. If it is constitutionally true, it is IMO a real flaw in the rule of law. And the President, any President is indeed above the law.
49   RC2006   ignore (1)   2019 May 8, 12:22pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Why is it always bla bla bla x number of FORMER something bla bla bla, they can fuck off. Out of 1000s they find some fucks that hate Trump what a surprise.
50   FortWayneIndiana   ignore (4)   2019 May 8, 12:26pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

over 300 million people think liberals are a joke.

Game Over!
51   WookieMan   ignore (3)   2019 May 8, 2:36pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Okay, so I see a zero next to my ignore number by my username. So no one is missing my comments. So what's up?

WookieMan says
So you're just going to dismiss the Smollett hoax?


Seriously. I get Trump is the great American leader. He wasn't actually elected (even though he was) and he likes pussy (apparently this is a problem). If we're throwing out prosecutors signatures, you have to take account for the Smollett/Foxx situation. I mean you don't have to, but it would be a bit disingenuous toward your argument if you didn't.
52   marcus   ignore (10)   2019 May 8, 9:17pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Quigley says
The more you keep arguing your case, the more we know it’s just about getting rid of Trump by any means possible or even remotely probable


I'm not arguing a case. I don't think that as of now there is grounds to remove Trump from office (although I don't know).

I also don't think there is grounds to indict him, but only becasue he is the President.

I'm just busting your balls, becasue all the Trump Cuck assholes think that if they repeat often enough that the Mueller report totally exonerated Trump, that it will become true, just by the sheer force of their desperate hopes

If you want this to be over, you should admit that Trump has and had a lot of corrupt idiots working for him, and that Trump himself is a corrupt idiot that only acts in his self interest, and that his ass has been saved several times by staffers that ignore his orders, and that he may very well have, or probably did obstruct justice in this case.

Admit that he's a corrupt moron that shouldn't be trusted with nuclear weapons, but that for some weird reason, you love having him as President,, perhaps becasue it freaks the hell out of so many of the sane intelligent folks.
53   WillPowers   ignore (0)   2019 May 8, 9:33pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

marcus says
Barr has acknowledged in testimony that he did not consider any evidence in the Mueller report in forming his opinion


FACT: Barr said and I listened to his whole testimony before the senate, that he did not look at the underlining evidence that supported the findings in the Mueller report, but instead decided to trust Mueller. Interesting, hun? Some people just can't get their facts right. Is it because you are getting them from proven liars like Peter Jennings?
54   HonkpilledMaster   ignore (5)   2019 May 8, 9:40pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

rdm says
Hmm where in the report is that statement? Maybe we should hear from Mueller himself, oh shit they don't want him to testify so I guess we can make all kinds of shit up.


Mueller can testify to the House anytime they invite him. Why haven't they?

To keep the BS going, that's why. If Mueller comes and nixes their last few talking points, what will the Dem House do until 2020?

rdm says
That must be why he didn't charge Trump for obstruction it had nothing to do with the OLC memo. Where did this come from? The "gateway pundit" a well known respected legal commentator?


He didn't charge Trump with obstruction because there was nothing he could get a grand jury to indict on.
55   marcus   ignore (10)   2019 May 8, 9:41pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

WillPowers says
but instead decided to trust Mueller


He didn't trust Mueller. He didn't echo Muellers finding on obstruction, which many interpret as, Trump did obstruct probably justice, but he is not being charged becasue he's thePresident.

Instead, Barr claims that since Mueller didn't charge Trump with obstruction, the decision is up to him (Barr himself) to decide, and he therefore decides that Trump should not be charged, simply becasue Mueller didn't, but implying it's becasue there wasn't sufficient reason. And yet he never fully considered the evidence.
56   HonkpilledMaster   ignore (5)   2019 May 8, 9:42pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

marcus says
think that if they repeat often enough that the Mueller report totally exonerated Trump, that it will become true, just by the sheer force of their desperate hopes


Again, what indictments did Mueller recommend against Trump?

Note again: He had everything from Wiretaps to Warrants on demand. Rosenstein approved everything he asked for. Mueller ended his investigation when he felt like it; in fact the case against Trump being insufficient was decided back Before the 2018 Election.
58   WillPowers   ignore (0)   2019 May 8, 9:49pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

marcus says
but he is not being charged becasue he's President

No, you are wrong, it's because there wasn't enough evidence to support a charge of obstruction and he considered Mueller's findings, the man ,eftist decided they could trust. Now, because he didn't turn out what you want to hear, he is suddenly not to be trusted?
59   HonkpilledMaster   ignore (5)   2019 May 8, 9:50pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

marcus says
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-indictment-explainer/can-a-sitting-us-president-face-criminal-charges-idUSKCN1QF1D3


Marcus, do you actually believe there is some Secret Trump-Russian collusion hiding in the tiny amount of redactions, and that Mueller isn't saying anything all this time, while Barr and Trump cover it all up?
60   WillPowers   ignore (0)   2019 May 8, 9:56pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

rdm says
And the President, any President is indeed above the law.


False. If Mueller found enough evidence to indict, he would have recommended impeachment, the legal remedy to remove a president from office to face charges. Then a president can face criminal charges.
61   CBOEtrader   ignore (5)   2019 May 9, 4:19am   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Lolz!! I decided that my alter ego 39 year veteran Hugh Jais Esquire, Senior Prosecutor (there is no such title) should add his name to this list of prestige.



Luckily, my honorable reputation and total lack of either an email which matched the name or even a LinkedIn account, convinced them that I am totes real.
62   APOCALYPSEFUCKisShostikovitch   ignore (41)   2019 May 9, 4:20am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

THOU ART WHOLLY WANTON AND LASCIVIOUS!
63   CBOEtrader   ignore (5)   2019 May 9, 4:24am   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        



Thank you Justin and Cameron, for protecting democracy in the same way you protect integrity.

Sincerely,

Hugh Jais, Equire 39 year Senior Prosecutor with the DOJ
64   Quigley   ignore (0)   2019 May 9, 4:48am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

CBOEtrader says
Lolz!! I decided that my alter ego 39 year veteran Hugh Jais Esquire, Senior Prosecutor (there is no such title) should add his name to this list of prestige.


List owned. Story done.
Next?
65   CBOEtrader   ignore (5)   2019 May 9, 6:03am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

marcus says
That's right 720 and counting.


Think I'm currently the 5th most tenured veteran.

As a 39 year senior prosecutor at the DOJ, I, Hugh Jais Esquire approve this message.
66   Onvacation   ignore (4)   2019 May 9, 6:18am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

rdm says
they have him on tape. The crime they are investigating goes nowhere, maybe because the witness won't cooperate, maybe because there isn't enough other proof.

Maybe because she liked having her pussy grabbed?

There was no crime of collusion or obstruction! Trump is your president. Get a life.
67   marcus   ignore (10)   2019 May 9, 6:19am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

That might prove that the number is bogus. But it doesn't prove that those former prosecuters from the Reagan, Bush and Trump admin aren't legit. Rudy Guliani's former assistant is on the list.

So, is Trump going to be successful in reventing Mueller from testifying to congress ?

Why doesn't he want him to ? He should finally be able to put this issue to rest.
68   Onvacation   ignore (4)   2019 May 9, 6:24am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

marcus says
becasue

Do you do this to bother me? Or do you really think that is how you spell because?

People do judge you on the words you use.

Just BECAUSE!
69   Onvacation   ignore (4)   2019 May 9, 6:26am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

WillPowers says
becasue he's President

No, you are wrong, it's because
70   Quigley   ignore (0)   2019 May 9, 7:09am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

marcus says
So, is Trump going to be successful in reventing Mueller from testifying to congress ?


It won’t matter. Mueller can’t provide any more information than was already provided. And the best thing is if he makes accusations or insinuates that there’s more wrongdoing somewhere, that will just make him look bad for not investigating it. He’s got nothing to say.
71   komputodo   ignore (1)   2019 May 9, 7:14am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

marcus says
Why doesn't he want him to ? He should finally be able to put this issue to rest.

it will never be put to rest. Jesus Christ could appear and declare Trump free of these accusations and the media wouldn't stop.
72   komputodo   ignore (1)   2019 May 9, 7:24am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

marcus says
Over 720 former prosecutors say Trump would be indicted if he weren't president

After Trump serves his 8 years as president and you finally realize that all your panic attacks and hair pulling were all for naught. Wasting all those years trying to convince people that Trump wasn't worthy. (and not convincing anyone).
Will you finally be able to free yourself from TDS and get on with your life?

« First    « Previous    Comments 34 - 73 of 73    Last »


about   best comments   contact   one year ago   suggestions