Two ex-Watergate prosecutors agree ‘there’s enough evidence right now to indict Donald Trump’

[tycho1572]

Trump winning the presidency has been a gift that keeps on giving.

Watching the left dig and scratch at every tidbit of hope seeing him impeached is almost as entertaining as the vids we saw the night he won.....

 

[Peach]

Former Watergate Prosecuters have no access to current evidence, their opinions must be weighed accordingly.

Nixon had less evidence against him at this phase of the investigation

At this phase, yes. Still no impeachment evidence.

 

[easyt65]

Not only does Mueller NOT have any evidence, not only has he abandoned his investigation to dig into Israel and a Turkish Cleric, some of Mueller's fellow lawyers and the media just reported he has a history being a F*-Up as a prosecuter, having most recently 'sh!t the bed' in the prosecution of the 'biggest terrorist attack since 9/11'.

 

[Avatar4321]

These morons believe that President Trump firing an incompetent Comey is somehow illegal.

Firing the guy who is investigating you is going to end up how? Think hard now!

Comey was not investigating Trump. Back to the drawing board with you!

Have a nice day!

Comey is investigating trump now. SUCKS to be you.

Um no he isn't. He is unemployed

 

[depotoo]

And they know this how? Everything is supposed to be classified, unless you are suggesting his team is leaking it, which is illegal.

Two ex-Watergate prosecutors agree ‘there’s enough evidence right now to indict Donald Trump’

Bob Brigham
24 Nov 2017 at 20:58 ET
AddThis Sharing Buttons
Share to FacebookFacebook2.7KShare to TumblrTumblrShare to MoreMore78

Former Watergate prosecutors Jill Wine-Banks and Nick Akerman joined MSNBC host Chris Hayes on Friday night to discuss the latest revelations about Michael Flynn potentially flipping and testifying against President Donald Trump.

Acknowledging her history, Hayes asked Wine-Banks whether there was enough evidence for an obstruction of justice charge against President Trump.

Two ex-Watergate prosecutors agree ‘there’s enough evidence right now to indict Donald Trump’

Wow, this nothingburger is piled high 10 feet high with every kind of meat you can think of. It is fucking juicy!!! Trump is fucking going down!

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Keep dreaming....the last two sure things for you guys...manafort and papadopolous.......one was indicted for bank fraud, the other for lying to the FBI......neither one connected the dots to Trump....so keep dreaming.......

And all 3 of his associates who have been indicted having close connections to Russia.

Who is the third person? You are so damn clueless!

Popodopoulis plead guilty. The point is 3 of his close political associates are either accused or guilty.

Who is the 3rd person? Are you competent in the English language?

Manafort, Papadopoulos, and who?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Former Watergate Prosecuters have no access to current evidence, their opinions must be weighed accordingly.

They are referring to the publicly known, circumstantial evidence.

2 under house arrest and one guilty plea is a bit beyond circumstantial evidence.

That's not even circumstantial evidence of obstruction of justice by Trump. Not sure what you were thinking in that post....

 

[easyt65]

Just libs lying...

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

And they know this how? Everything is supposed to be classified, unless you are suggesting his team is leaking it, which is illegal.

Two ex-Watergate prosecutors agree ‘there’s enough evidence right now to indict Donald Trump’

Bob Brigham
24 Nov 2017 at 20:58 ET
AddThis Sharing Buttons
Share to FacebookFacebook2.7KShare to TumblrTumblrShare to MoreMore78

Former Watergate prosecutors Jill Wine-Banks and Nick Akerman joined MSNBC host Chris Hayes on Friday night to discuss the latest revelations about Michael Flynn potentially flipping and testifying against President Donald Trump.

Acknowledging her history, Hayes asked Wine-Banks whether there was enough evidence for an obstruction of justice charge against President Trump.

Two ex-Watergate prosecutors agree ‘there’s enough evidence right now to indict Donald Trump’

Wow, this nothingburger is piled high 10 feet high with every kind of meat you can think of. It is fucking juicy!!! Trump is fucking going down!

Again, they are referring to the publicly known, circumstantial evidence.

 

[Avatar4321]

Not a word that exists in the far left playbook. They believe in witch trials instead.

They always say Mewler has some secret stash of super top secret evidence.

That's a lie. What is said is that Mueller MAY have evidence, and that we wouldnt know it if he did. It is YOU who claims to know whether or not he does. As always, you are more guilty of the things of which you accuse everyone else.

Mueller will not reveal his evidence until Crooked Donnie testifies under oath

Well I guess that is one explanation for why no evidence will ever appear

Why tip your hand too early?

This is the phase where they give him more rope

If we had evidence of an indictment, we would have an Indictment.

We were told trump would be out of office by last summer. Instead we are hearing the same nonsense about secret evidence that's just going to end the admin that no one will reveal so they give Trump more rope to hang himself. How do you not see the lie here?

 

[depotoo]

I really wonder sometimes what kind of vetting these posters get before they give them their marching orders.. lol

These morons believe that President Trump firing an incompetent Comey is somehow illegal.

Firing the guy who is investigating you is going to end up how? Think hard now!

Comey was not investigating Trump. Back to the drawing board with you!

Have a nice day!

Comey is investigating trump now. SUCKS to be you.

Um no he isn't. He is unemployed

 

[Avatar4321]

Former Watergate Prosecuters have no access to current evidence, their opinions must be weighed accordingly.

Nixon had less evidence against him at this phase of the investigation

He had less than nothing???

 

[easyt65]

Again, they are referring to the publicly known, circumstantial evidence.

Professional liberal lawyers who haven't seen any evidence, like the rest of us, spouting BS.... Thanks...

 

[rightwinger]

Trump winning the presidency has been a gift that keeps on giving.

Watching the left dig and scratch at every tidbit of hope seeing him impeached is almost as entertaining as the vids we saw the night he won.....

What does that have to do with Crooked Donnie going to prison?

 

[Avatar4321]

And they know this how? Everything is supposed to be classified, unless you are suggesting his team is leaking it, which is illegal.

Two ex-Watergate prosecutors agree ‘there’s enough evidence right now to indict Donald Trump’

Bob Brigham
24 Nov 2017 at 20:58 ET
AddThis Sharing Buttons
Share to FacebookFacebook2.7KShare to TumblrTumblrShare to MoreMore78

Former Watergate prosecutors Jill Wine-Banks and Nick Akerman joined MSNBC host Chris Hayes on Friday night to discuss the latest revelations about Michael Flynn potentially flipping and testifying against President Donald Trump.

Acknowledging her history, Hayes asked Wine-Banks whether there was enough evidence for an obstruction of justice charge against President Trump.

Two ex-Watergate prosecutors agree ‘there’s enough evidence right now to indict Donald Trump’

Wow, this nothingburger is piled high 10 feet high with every kind of meat you can think of. It is fucking juicy!!! Trump is fucking going down!

Again, they are referring to the publicly known, circumstantial evidence.

Which is nonexistent

 

[Avatar4321]

Trump winning the presidency has been a gift that keeps on giving.

Watching the left dig and scratch at every tidbit of hope seeing him impeached is almost as entertaining as the vids we saw the night he won.....

What does that have to do with Crooked Donnie going to prison?

Nothing. We are talking facts, not fiction

 

[depotoo]

Just libs lying...

Most all they’ve got is innuendo, and hope others consider it true. Lol

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

They always say Mewler has some secret stash of super top secret evidence.

That's a lie. What is said is that Mueller MAY have evidence, and that we wouldnt know it if he did. It is YOU who claims to know whether or not he does. As always, you are more guilty of the things of which you accuse everyone else.

Mueller will not reveal his evidence until Crooked Donnie testifies under oath

Well I guess that is one explanation for why no evidence will ever appear

Why tip your hand too early?

This is the phase where they give him more rope

If we had evidence of an indictment, we would have an Indictment.

We were told trump would be out of office by last summer. Instead we are hearing the same nonsense about secret evidence that's just going to end the admin that no one will reveal so they give Trump more rope to hang himself. How do you not see the lie here?

"If we had evidence of an indictment, we would have an Indictment."

Where do you guys come up with this ridiculous shit? As if there was nothing on, say, Manafort until the night before he was indicted. Yep, Mueller was just waiting for that last puzzle piece, found it, then sprinted over to the grand jury on his Segway to file the indictment. What a ridiculous bit of unlogic.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Again, they are referring to the publicly known, circumstantial evidence.

Professional liberal lawyers who haven't seen any evidence, like the rest of us, spouting BS.... Thanks...

You always have your way to avoid using your brain at the ready. Always.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Just libs lying...

Most all they’ve got is innuendo, and hope others consider it true. Lol

Actually, we have the former FBI director testifying to Congress that Trump asked him to drop the Flynn investigation, and we have Trump on television saying he fired Comey over the "Russian thing". It looks pretty bad, and it prompted a special counsel and two congressional committees. Those are facts. And they are problematic facts for a person trying to say he was not obstructing justice.