Let's indict Obama and Hillary

[Robert W]

Them saying there was sufficient evidence was not a trial.

You didn't see the evidence they saw.

And I did not claim it was a trial. Did you see the evidence you scold me over pal? You talk as if Trump is guilty.

 

[AveMarica]

No, though I do have a most unusual background in law, what it is, how it works and more, my main thrust of innocence comes from the structure of the accused, they are innocent unless convicted. Trump has not been convicted. More than that, esteemed lawyers have spoken on this very issue and it is they who persuaded me that Trump will not be found to be guilty. Trump has the appeals process that is there to solve wrong findings by juries.

We aren't disagreeing on whether they are innocent unless convicted, so that is yet another red herring you're throwing out.
There are many esteemed lawyers saying Trump is sunk, yet you have chosen to only adhere to the other opinion... could it be that you hold an extremely strong bias as a Trump supporter which is leading you to only listen to legal opinions that suit your worldview?

So same question again since you ignored it last time = will you claim some injustice has happened if Trump is found guilty by a jury in trial?

If so then you are just providing more evidence that you are an extremely biased Trump supporter, since you have already decided his innocence before all the evidence is presented and arguments are made at trial. I'm not a fan of Trump, but that doesn't mean I'm just assuming the only possible just outcome can be one that finds him guilty, that is what the trial is for.

 

[AveMarica]

And I did not claim it was a trial. Did you see the evidence you scold me over pal? You talk as if Trump is guilty.

Me = The grand jury doesn't presume anything, they just decide if the evidence warrants charges.
You = You can also be put on trial by a grand jury.
So sounds like we agree your mentioning a trial by ground was irrelevant to the conversation. We agree a grand jury found there was sufficient evidence to charge Trump, and that he has not been put on trial yet.

 

[AveMarica]

And I did not claim it was a trial. Did you see the evidence you scold me over pal? You talk as if Trump is guilty.

I haven't said Trump is guilty, I said there has been compelling evidence presented. He will be judged guilty or not at trial, I don't have enough information or legal training to say he is guilty.

The fact remains you have not seen the evidence the grand jury has seen.

 

[AveMarica]

A good case study for you and the doubting gang is the one against Tom DeLay of TX who had been attacked by several grand juries on the same matter and found to be innocent.

Grand juries don't attack anyone, they are a panel of citizens who vote on whether sufficient evidence has been presented to charge someone. Whether that person if found guilty is a different process.

You're still avoiding the question so I'll ask a third time = "will you claim some injustice has happened if Trump is found guilty by a jury in trial?

If so, I'd love to delve into how that paints someone if they have already decided that a politician they support cannot possibly be guilty so it must be a crooked judge/jury/prosecutor, despite all the evidence not being in the public domain yet.

 

[Robert W]

Grand juries don't attack anyone, they are a panel of citizens who vote on whether sufficient evidence has been presented to charge someone. Whether that person if found guilty is a different process.

You're still avoiding the question so I'll ask a third time = "will you claim some injustice has happened if Trump is found guilty by a jury in trial?

If so, I'd love to delve into how that paints someone if they have already decided that a politician they support cannot possibly be guilty so it must be a crooked judge/jury/prosecutor, despite all the evidence not being in the public domain yet.

Tom DeLay definitely was attacked.
I rely on the non prejudiced lawyers who tell us that Trump will not be convicted. I am not debating the future of anything.

 

[Robert W]

I haven't said Trump is guilty, I said there has been compelling evidence presented. He will be judged guilty or not at trial, I don't have enough information or legal training to say he is guilty.

The fact remains you have not seen the evidence the grand jury has seen.

All moot points.

 

[Robert W]

Me = The grand jury doesn't presume anything, they just decide if the evidence warrants charges.
You = You can also be put on trial by a grand jury.
So sounds like we agree your mentioning a trial by ground was irrelevant to the conversation. We agree a grand jury found there was sufficient evidence to charge Trump, and that he has not been put on trial yet.

Moot points. Apparently you believe grand juries simply accept what the prosecutor tells them to accept.

I pointed out this happened to Tom Delay of TX who was found to be innocent by an appeals court. You seem willing to skip some steps in order to persuade posters Trump is guilty.

 

[Robert W]

We aren't disagreeing on whether they are innocent unless convicted, so that is yet another red herring you're throwing out.
There are many esteemed lawyers saying Trump is sunk, yet you have chosen to only adhere to the other opinion... could it be that you hold an extremely strong bias as a Trump supporter which is leading you to only listen to legal opinions that suit your worldview?

So same question again since you ignored it last time = will you claim some injustice has happened if Trump is found guilty by a jury in trial?

If so then you are just providing more evidence that you are an extremely biased Trump supporter, since you have already decided his innocence before all the evidence is presented and arguments are made at trial. I'm not a fan of Trump, but that doesn't mean I'm just assuming the only possible just outcome can be one that finds him guilty, that is what the trial is for.

I am not presuming anything. I gave you my input.

 

[AveMarica]

I am not presuming anything. I gave you my input.

Yet again you have refused to directly answer the question, which in itself speaks volumes. Here I'll try to put it in a format that makes it easier.

will you claim some injustice has happened if Trump is found guilty by a jury in trial?

1. Yes
2. No

 

[AveMarica]

Moot points. Apparently you believe grand juries simply accept what the prosecutor tells them to accept.

I pointed out this happened to Tom Delay of TX who was found to be innocent by an appeals court. You seem willing to skip some steps in order to persuade posters Trump is guilty.

I don't believe what you are saying I do, because there are many examples of grand juries not bringing charges. Straw man noted.

I'm not skipping any steps since I have no interest in persuading anyone Trump is guilty. I clearly stated that it is up to the trial by jury to decide that. We have the grand jury completed, and up next is the trial.

 

[AveMarica]

All moot points.

Of course, because they sink you.

 

[Robert W]

Yet again you have refused to directly answer the question, which in itself speaks volumes. Here I'll try to put it in a format that makes it easier.

will you claim some injustice has happened if Trump is found guilty by a jury in trial?

1. Yes
2. No

What gave you that idea? My reply is how can I know prior to a trial?

 

[AveMarica]

Tom DeLay definitely was attacked.
I rely on the non prejudiced lawyers who tell us that Trump will not be convicted. I am not debating the future of anything.

Tom Delay was tried and convicted. That is not the definition of attacked, the trial and the appeal are how the legal system works.

 

[Robert W]

Of course, because they sink you.

Not at all. I do not decide prior to trials what I will believe at the end. Do you?

 

[Robert W]

Tom Delay was tried and convicted. That is not the definition of attacked, the trial and the appeal are how the legal system works.

Oh if you knew the case, you would conclude Tom got attacked.

 

[john doe 101]

Townhall Larry O'Connor | Aug 14, 2020

Today's news that former FBI attorney Kevin Clinesmith is expected to plead guilty in the Obamagate/Spygate scandal will be tough news for journalists like Jim Acosta.

Just this week, he haughtily intoned on his "network" that President Trump's charge that the Obama campaign spied on his campaign in 2016 was "just not true. That did not happen; it has not been proven."

Well, today's guilty plea from Clinesmith proves it did.

The spying began in early 2016 as a robust opposition research tactic of the Hillary Clinton campaign and transformed into an "insurance policy" to handicap the Trump Administration after his unpredictable victory.

Clinesmith was so intent on spying on Carter Page, an unpaid advisor to the Trump campaign, that he lied to the secret FISA court and doctored an official document to misrepresent that Page had not cooperated with the CIA in past investigations involving Russian espionage.

Page, a retired intelligence officer from the United States Navy and a graduate of the US Naval Academy, had fully cooperated with an earlier investigation involving Russian bad guys. That information surely would have thrown a wrench into the attempts to tap Page's phones, his emails, his text messages, and the phones, emails, and text messages of everyone he corresponded with and everyone they corresponded with.

Now There's No Denying It: Obama's FBI Spied On Trump... Period

If you are conducting surveillance that is not authorized and, in fact, you lied to get the authorization, you are no longer conducting

townhall.com

Comment:
If Trump can be indicted on BS charges, then Obama can be indicted on some real charges.
If this is how the Democrats are going to operate, then make them play by their own rules.
Can you imagine all of the grinding of teeth and caterwauling from the Hollywood/Media hate machine.
And how about Hillary Clinton destroying subpoenaed evidence and her illegal e-mail server?
Why should she be allowed to get away with crimes that other people have gone to prison for?
And how about Col. Yevgeny Vindman who eavesdropped on Trump's phone calls and then reported to Adam Schiff so that Pelosi could have her bogus impeachment.
Make the Dems play by their own rules.

You have fun with your delusions meanwhile trump is facing 91 real counts.

 

[AveMarica]

Not at all. I do not decide prior to trials what I will believe at the end. Do you?

I already said I don't.

If he is found guilty it will be interesting to see if you follow through with this.

 

[AveMarica]

Oh if you knew the case, you would conclude Tom got attacked.

Charging someone with a crime is not attacking them.

 

[Robert W]

I don't believe what you are saying I do, because there are many examples of grand juries not bringing charges. Straw man noted.

I'm not skipping any steps since I have no interest in persuading anyone Trump is guilty. I clearly stated that it is up to the trial by jury to decide that. We have the grand jury completed, and up next is the trial.

I have no interest in your whatabout question. What gave you the idea I judge them prior to the actual trial?