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

[radical right]

I wish you tell that to Mueller That statement proves obstruction of justice.

...and still no russian connection

The first people Trump told about killing the Flynn investigation were the russians.

Oops...

 

[Rustic]

I wish you tell that to Mueller That statement proves obstruction of justice.

...and still no russian connection

The first people Trump told about killing the Flynn investigation were the russians.

Oops...

Nothing burger

 

[Peach]

Indict is not 'convict'; still, once indicted, some birds start singing, as do others in line to be indicted.

 

[blackhawk]

You can fire anybody you want, but you can't do it because of race, creed or color. In this case you can't do it in order to obstruct a federal investigation.

What fedral investigation was obstructed the one currently going on?

The irony is Trump firing Comey turned it from a low level FBI investigation, to a special counsel investigation with 24 top federal prosecutors.

That doesn't sound like obstruction.

 

[radical right]

The irony is Trump firing Comey turned it from a low level FBI investigation, to a special counsel investigation with 24 top federal prosecutors.

That doesn't sound like obstruction.

If Trump was in a leaky rowboat, he would drill holes in the bottom to let the water out.

Yet it was obstruction, just that Trump totally screwed it up. Instead of stopping it, he actually accelerated it.

 

[Rustic]

The irony is Trump firing Comey turned it from a low level FBI investigation, to a special counsel investigation with 24 top federal prosecutors.

That doesn't sound like obstruction.

If Trump was in a leaky rowboat, he would drill holes in the bottom to let the water out.

Yet it was obstruction, just that Trump totally screwed it up. Instead of stopping it, he actually accelerated it.

And still no Russian connection

 

[rightwinger]

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!

Yep, and also enough evidence to indict this-

View attachment 162636

Crooked Donnie is facing a shit sandwich

Perhaps. But these politicians are slippery fucks. Hillary wriggled her fat ass out shit.

Hillary never did anything

Trump is a Nixon clone

 

[blackhawk]

The irony is Trump firing Comey turned it from a low level FBI investigation, to a special counsel investigation with 24 top federal prosecutors.

That doesn't sound like obstruction.

If Trump was in a leaky rowboat, he would drill holes in the bottom to let the water out.

Yet it was obstruction, just that Trump totally screwed it up. Instead of stopping it, he actually accelerated it.

So not stopping an investigation is now considered obstruction wow.

 

[rightwinger]

Trump will be impeached any day now.........Right LWNJ's?

We shall see

It will take a lot for a Republican Congress to impeach
But Trump is a moron.....he may not be able to help himself

 

[Mac1958]

I've been listening to this stuff for over eight years from both sides.

This is it, they can't get outta this, they're nailed now, they're through for sure.

Yeah, okay. Let me know when the guilty verdict is read.
.

 

[JoeB131]

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'.

Wow, they are fucking panicking now, aren't they?

 

[bripat9643]

Trump had every right to stop the Flynn investigation. He was Comey's boss.

I wish you tell that to Mueller That statement proves obstruction of justice.

Only an idiot thinks the fact that Trump can fire Comey means Trump cannot fire Comey.

 

[bripat9643]

Conviction requires mens rea, and Comey admitted Hillary acted out of negligence.

No it doesn't, moron. Comey lied when he said that. It only requires gross negligence.

You already got your ass handed to you, when you said hearsay wasn't admissible in court. Learn a lesson, lick your wounds, and stop claiming you know shit about law.

You have a vivid imagination, turd.

 

[bripat9643]

So you're saying the president can never tell the FBI not to investigate something? Really?

It's abuse of power for the president to call for an investigation, or to call off an investigation. BTW, that's also an impeachable offense.

"Abuse of power?" That means it's perfectly legal, but petulant turds like you would cry about it.

 

[bripat9643]

The irony is Trump firing Comey turned it from a low level FBI investigation, to a special counsel investigation with 24 top federal prosecutors.

That doesn't sound like obstruction.

If Trump was in a leaky rowboat, he would drill holes in the bottom to let the water out.

Yet it was obstruction, just that Trump totally screwed it up. Instead of stopping it, he actually accelerated it.

It's not obstruction, douchebag. In the first place, there was nothing to obstruct.

 

[tycho1572]

This thread was started by a cross dresser who said he was hiding his weirdness from his wife and family.

It’s why I discount anything he says.

ScienceRocks

 

[BuckToothMoron]

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!

Yep, and also enough evidence to indict this-

View attachment 162636

Crooked Donnie is facing a shit sandwich

Perhaps. But these politicians are slippery fucks. Hillary wriggled her fat ass out shit.

Hillary never did anything

Trump is a Nixon clone

Educate yourself boy.

Private email server
State Department Emails
Benghazi
Sidney Blumenthal
Willie getting huge speaking fees while Hellary is SOS, PAY TO PLAY.
Clinton Foundation fraud
Troopergate
Travelgate
Vince Foster “suicide”
Etc etc etc.....

Did Hillary commit any crimes in 'rigging' the Democratic primary?
Well, if seeking dirt from the Russians on Clinton is now a federal crime, how about seeking dirt from Russian sources against Trump? If that does not “fall squarely within” the criminal code, how about rigging the primary, as alleged last week by former Democratic National Committee head Donna Brazile? In her new book, she contends Clinton essentially bought the DNC by assuming responsibility for its crippling debt in exchange for controlling critical elements of the organization before the primary. Brazile was fired by CNN for unethical conduct in leaking debate questions to Clinton, then lying about it to the media. However, even Brazile balked at what she found at the DNC.

Brazile says she discovered an August 2015 agreement between the national committee and the Clinton campaign that the latter be allowed to “control the party’s finances, strategy, and all the money raised.” Brazile said the deal was legal, “but it sure looked unethical,” but still gave the Clinton campaign “control of the party before the voters had decided which one they wanted to lead.” The former DNC head now agrees the deal “compromised the party’s integrity.”

 

[tycho1572]

Let us know when you grow some balls, ScienceRocks.

 

[radical right]

And still no Russian connection

Trump associates had 9 meetings with the russians. They even traveled to russia to meet with the russians. But meeting with russians isn't illegal, unless you omit those meetings from your SF-86 or lie to federal agents that you had no contact with the russians.

If there are no russian connections,why are so many Trump associates lying about not having contacts.

 

[radical right]

Yet it was obstruction, just that Trump totally screwed it up. Instead of stopping it, he actually accelerated it.

So not stopping an investigation is now considered obstruction wow.

It's like trying to stop a speeding mac truck by standing in front of it. Trump tried to obstruct justice, and failed just like he did with repeal of Obamacare.