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

[Fort Fun Indiana]

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!

You morons have been saying that for a year.

Get a life.

WOW!!!! AN ENTIRE YEAR?!?!?!?!?!


WOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[sealybobo]

There is an OLD legal saying. "A good lawyer can indite a ham sandwich"
Convicted is a whole other story.

All you need is one trump supporter on the jury and evidence won’t matter.

 

[OKTexas]

Just about every politician makes those kinds of mistakes,

... and hires foreign agents to run their campaign and be national security adviser? uh... put down the crack pipe, my man...

Don't expect a serious reply when you take things out of context.


.

It was not out of context. It was specifically the thought to which you responded. Let's review:

I said: "Specifically, he was a horrible leader completely oblivious to the actions of all of his top officials, and basically either too stupid or to incurious and insulated to understand what was going on all around him with the people he chose."

To which you replied: "Just about every politician makes those kinds of mistakes"

To which I replied: "... and hires foreign agents to run their campaign and be national security adviser?"

Maybe you confused yourself, but there is no context issue here to complain about.

This was the complete post you removed that partial quote from, half a sentence does not represent the complete post. My bold.

Just about every politician makes those kinds of mistakes, it just usually happens when they are running for city counsel or some low level post. One of Trumps major attractions was he wasn't an established polished politician. Sure he made mistakes, but he still managed to beat one of the best political machines in American history. As I've said many times before, he could leave office tomorrow and I wouldn't regret voting for him. I've already gotten every thing I'd hoped to get.

You might want to review the rules on altering the context of a post within the quote box.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Just about every politician makes those kinds of mistakes,

... and hires foreign agents to run their campaign and be national security adviser? uh... put down the crack pipe, my man...

Don't expect a serious reply when you take things out of context.


.

It was not out of context. It was specifically the thought to which you responded. Let's review:

I said: "Specifically, he was a horrible leader completely oblivious to the actions of all of his top officials, and basically either too stupid or to incurious and insulated to understand what was going on all around him with the people he chose."

To which you replied: "Just about every politician makes those kinds of mistakes"

To which I replied: "... and hires foreign agents to run their campaign and be national security adviser?"

Maybe you confused yourself, but there is no context issue here to complain about.

This was the complete post you removed that partial quote from, half a sentence does not represent the complete post. My bold.

Just about every politician makes those kinds of mistakes, it just usually happens when they are running for city counsel or some low level post. One of Trumps major attractions was he wasn't an established polished politician. Sure he made mistakes, but he still managed to beat one of the best political machines in American history. As I've said many times before, he could leave office tomorrow and I wouldn't regret voting for him. I've already gotten every thing I'd hoped to get.

You might want to review the rules on altering the context of a post within the quote box.

Your first sentence is not your complete post, but it was still an assertion in direct response to my comment. You said "those kinds of mistakes"... your following sentences did not contain any information relevant to this assertion ("those", meaning of the same kind to which I was referring) or any definitions or examples of "those kinds of mistakes". So it added nothing to the context.

What you did was try to somehow create some sort of equivalence. I reject your effort. Read again the "mistakes" (cute word by you) I mentioned and compare them to another president. Actually, per your own words, i invite you to compare them to "just about every President".

 

[OKTexas]

Just about every politician makes those kinds of mistakes,

... and hires foreign agents to run their campaign and be national security adviser? uh... put down the crack pipe, my man...

Don't expect a serious reply when you take things out of context.


.

It was not out of context. It was specifically the thought to which you responded. Let's review:

I said: "Specifically, he was a horrible leader completely oblivious to the actions of all of his top officials, and basically either too stupid or to incurious and insulated to understand what was going on all around him with the people he chose."

To which you replied: "Just about every politician makes those kinds of mistakes"

To which I replied: "... and hires foreign agents to run their campaign and be national security adviser?"

Maybe you confused yourself, but there is no context issue here to complain about.

This was the complete post you removed that partial quote from, half a sentence does not represent the complete post. My bold.

Just about every politician makes those kinds of mistakes, it just usually happens when they are running for city counsel or some low level post. One of Trumps major attractions was he wasn't an established polished politician. Sure he made mistakes, but he still managed to beat one of the best political machines in American history. As I've said many times before, he could leave office tomorrow and I wouldn't regret voting for him. I've already gotten every thing I'd hoped to get.

You might want to review the rules on altering the context of a post within the quote box.

Your first sentence is not your complete post, but it was still an assertion in direct response to my comment. You said "those kinds of mistakes"... your following sentences did not contain any information relevant to this assertion ("those", meaning of the same kind to which I was referring) or any definitions or examples of "those kinds of mistakes". So it added nothing to the context.

What you did was try to somehow create some sort of equivalence. I reject your effort. Read again the "mistakes" (cute word by you) I mentioned and compare them to another president. Actually, per your own words, i invite you to compare them to "just about every President".

How many presidents were elected in their first campaign ever? Name one, they we can compare and contrast.


.

 

[beagle9]

What law did he break?

remember when i said

obstruction of justice & the emoluments clause just to get started?

well you can add witness tampering too....

A key witness in the Russia probe had a 'lengthy conversation' with Trump at Mar-a-Lago
Natasha Bertrand
Nov. 27, 2017, 12:55 PM

Former CIA Director James Woolsey dined with President Donald Trump last weekend at Trump's Mar-a-Lago resort in Palm Beach, Florida — where, a report said, they had a "lengthy conversation" at the main dining table surrounded by several of Trump's friends, associates, and political allies.

A tipster told Politico's Playbook about the conversation, which raised eyebrows given Woolsey's centrality to the special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation into Michael Flynn, the former national security adviser.
[...]
A key witness in the Russia probe had a 'lengthy conversation' with Trump at Mar-a-Lago

. And the meeting on the tarmack between Clinton and the AG meant nothing to you eh ??? The Demon-crats hypocrisy is astounding. LOL.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

... and hires foreign agents to run their campaign and be national security adviser? uh... put down the crack pipe, my man...

Don't expect a serious reply when you take things out of context.


.

It was not out of context. It was specifically the thought to which you responded. Let's review:

I said: "Specifically, he was a horrible leader completely oblivious to the actions of all of his top officials, and basically either too stupid or to incurious and insulated to understand what was going on all around him with the people he chose."

To which you replied: "Just about every politician makes those kinds of mistakes"

To which I replied: "... and hires foreign agents to run their campaign and be national security adviser?"

Maybe you confused yourself, but there is no context issue here to complain about.

This was the complete post you removed that partial quote from, half a sentence does not represent the complete post. My bold.

Just about every politician makes those kinds of mistakes, it just usually happens when they are running for city counsel or some low level post. One of Trumps major attractions was he wasn't an established polished politician. Sure he made mistakes, but he still managed to beat one of the best political machines in American history. As I've said many times before, he could leave office tomorrow and I wouldn't regret voting for him. I've already gotten every thing I'd hoped to get.

You might want to review the rules on altering the context of a post within the quote box.

Your first sentence is not your complete post, but it was still an assertion in direct response to my comment. You said "those kinds of mistakes"... your following sentences did not contain any information relevant to this assertion ("those", meaning of the same kind to which I was referring) or any definitions or examples of "those kinds of mistakes". So it added nothing to the context.

What you did was try to somehow create some sort of equivalence. I reject your effort. Read again the "mistakes" (cute word by you) I mentioned and compare them to another president. Actually, per your own words, i invite you to compare them to "just about every President".

How many presidents were elected in their first campaign ever? Name one, they we can compare and contrast.


.

Why? you're the one that compared his mistakes to those of "just about every president". you're not making sense to ask me to help you distinguish trump from other presidents, when that was actually my point and you made a point to the contrary. How odd.

You tried to paint equivalence. i think that attempt is a joke and that there is no real historical equivalence to be had between Trump and any other President. And, even if there were, it would not then excuse or condone his behavior to say so.

 

[Billy_Bob]

What law did he break?

Dear TroglocratsRdumb
Complaints against Trump include obstruction of Justice, accepting domestic emoluments, and accepting foreign emoluments.

By the time you investigate and prove those, we can prove similar by Clinton and the Clinton Foundation.

So take your pick. Bet on which is going to get pushed through first.

The legal lobby and interests running courts and the country have more vested interest in keeping lawyers like Obama and Clinton in power over public opinion. They are more threatened by Trump.

Since he is not a lawyer he doesn't have the conflicts of interest that the Obamas and Clinton's have and their major Democrat supporters that tend to get their money and influence from the lawyers and judges paying each other's campaigns to stay in power.

And yet you can not provide proof that he has committed any crime.... just like Muller...

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

And the meeting on the tarmack between Clinton and the AG meant nothing to you eh ???

I thought that was unethical, and Clinton knew better.

there... can we be done with your "whataboutism,", now?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

And yet you can not provide proof that he has committed any crime.... just like Muller...

How could you possibly know the truth of this? Wait... we got us another clairvoyant! There are a lot of clairvoyants on the board these days!

 

[beagle9]

And the meeting on the tarmack between Clinton and the AG meant nothing to you eh ???

I thought that was unethical, and Clinton knew better.

there... can we be done with your "whataboutism,", now?

. Unethical ? More like OBSTRUCTION of justice taking place, and Comey was shielding it afterwards. A matter ?? Good grief.

 

[OKTexas]

Don't expect a serious reply when you take things out of context.


.

It was not out of context. It was specifically the thought to which you responded. Let's review:

I said: "Specifically, he was a horrible leader completely oblivious to the actions of all of his top officials, and basically either too stupid or to incurious and insulated to understand what was going on all around him with the people he chose."

To which you replied: "Just about every politician makes those kinds of mistakes"

To which I replied: "... and hires foreign agents to run their campaign and be national security adviser?"

Maybe you confused yourself, but there is no context issue here to complain about.

This was the complete post you removed that partial quote from, half a sentence does not represent the complete post. My bold.

Just about every politician makes those kinds of mistakes, it just usually happens when they are running for city counsel or some low level post. One of Trumps major attractions was he wasn't an established polished politician. Sure he made mistakes, but he still managed to beat one of the best political machines in American history. As I've said many times before, he could leave office tomorrow and I wouldn't regret voting for him. I've already gotten every thing I'd hoped to get.

You might want to review the rules on altering the context of a post within the quote box.

Your first sentence is not your complete post, but it was still an assertion in direct response to my comment. You said "those kinds of mistakes"... your following sentences did not contain any information relevant to this assertion ("those", meaning of the same kind to which I was referring) or any definitions or examples of "those kinds of mistakes". So it added nothing to the context.

What you did was try to somehow create some sort of equivalence. I reject your effort. Read again the "mistakes" (cute word by you) I mentioned and compare them to another president. Actually, per your own words, i invite you to compare them to "just about every President".

How many presidents were elected in their first campaign ever? Name one, they we can compare and contrast.


.

Why? you're the one that compared his mistakes to those of "just about every president". you're not making sense to ask me to help you distinguish trump from other presidents, when that was actually my point and you made a point to the contrary. How odd.

You tried to paint equivalence. i think that attempt is a joke and that there is no real historical equivalence to be had between Trump and any other President. And, even if there were, it would not then excuse or condone his behavior to say so.

Sorry your reading comprehension skills are so lacking, I said just about every "politician", not "president" makes mistakes in their first campaign. It's just for a much lower office.


.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I said just about every "politician", not "president" makes mistakes in their first campaign.

that's a distinction without a difference, here, unless you are making the bizarre claim that, while you may have meant "just about any politician", you were counter-intuitively and secretly excluding "just about all of the presidents". Secondly, I know what you said, it was absurd, and I pointed out why: NO, "just about every politician" does not make the ostensible "mistake " (still an adorable word by you) of hiring a foreign agent to run his campaign and of appointing another foreign agent to be our national security adviser. In light of these basic facts, you comparison (which is really an attempt to construct false equivalence) is absurd.

 

[OKTexas]

I said just about every "politician", not "president" makes mistakes in their first campaign.

that's a distinction without a difference, here, unless you are making the bizarre claim that, while you may have meant "just about any politician", you were counter-intuitively and secretly excluding "just about all of the presidents". Secondly, I know what you said, it was absurd, and I pointed out why: NO, "just about every politician" does not make the ostensible "mistake " (still an adorable word by you) of hiring a foreign agent to run his campaign and of appointing another foreign agent to be our national security adviser. In light of these basic facts, you comparison (which is really an attempt to construct false equivalence) is absurd.

Manafort was hired to wrangle convention votes, not run the campaign. And he was in a non-paid position, volunteers are rarely vetted to the same standards as paid staff.


.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I said just about every "politician", not "president" makes mistakes in their first campaign.

that's a distinction without a difference, here, unless you are making the bizarre claim that, while you may have meant "just about any politician", you were counter-intuitively and secretly excluding "just about all of the presidents". Secondly, I know what you said, it was absurd, and I pointed out why: NO, "just about every politician" does not make the ostensible "mistake " (still an adorable word by you) of hiring a foreign agent to run his campaign and of appointing another foreign agent to be our national security adviser. In light of these basic facts, you comparison (which is really an attempt to construct false equivalence) is absurd.

Manafort was hired to wrangle convention votes, not run the campaign. And he was in a non-paid position, volunteers are rarely vetted to the same standards as paid staff.


.

He was the head of the campaign. Period. What an embarrassing bit of equivocation on your part.

 

[Redfish]

The "nation" did no such thing, beagle9. The Trumpanzis snuck in by the skin of their teeth. Trump has continually been dismal in the ratings.

The nation wants Trump gone and functioning normally. That will happen.

wrong again snake jockey, The nation wants jobs, a booming economy, enforcement of our borders and immigration laws, sane foreign policy, sane trade policy, lower taxes, more efficient government, respect for our police and military. Trump is doing all of those things.

for the record, 304 EC votes is not the skin of their teeth. Middle America rejected crooked Hillary, only you loons on the left coast and the crazy NE voted for that lying cheating criminal bitch.

Trump is riding the back of an Obama economy. DACA needs to be legalized. There is no sane enforcement of our borders, there is no sane foreign policy, and the rest of the world laughs at Trump.

Trump, like Clinton, has committed obstruction of Justice, accepting domestic emoluments, and accepting foreign emoluments.

I voted for McMullin, the true conservative, while you vote for the liberal neo-fascist.

we have been down this road. you wasted your vote, great. No one cares.

We have sufficient laws on the books regarding immigration and border enforcement, we don't need more laws, just enforce the existing ones.

Why do you want to give citizenship to people here illegally? Why shouldn't they have to get in line with the people who want to come here legally?

Trump has improved relations with the arab world and China in less than a year. The economy is much improved, the market is up, unemployment is down, welfare and food stamp claims are down. What he has done is working. If congress gets off its ass and passes a tax cut bill, the economy will boom and even you will be better off.

There you go again with your nativism and white supremacism. Nobody really cares what you think, redfish. DACA immigrants will remain, on a path to citizenship. The economy is that of Obama not Trump. Trump is a crook and will pay the price.

Redfish is going to be very unhappy soon.

I agree that the DACA kids should have a path to citizenship. But it should be no shorter or easier than those who are trying to come here legally.

Yes, American citizens should have priority over those here illegally. That is not nativism, its common sense. Neither is it white supremacism. For the record, Mexican is not a race. Mexicans are white people from mexico.

Obozo did not create the current economic boom, Obozo did not do anything to cause the current drop in unemployment. Those changes are due to Trump's policies and his cancellation of Obama's job killing policies.

The crook in the current environment is the Clinton crime family and their cohorts in the media and congress. Those criminals will be brought to justice soon.

 

[Redfish]

I said just about every "politician", not "president" makes mistakes in their first campaign.

that's a distinction without a difference, here, unless you are making the bizarre claim that, while you may have meant "just about any politician", you were counter-intuitively and secretly excluding "just about all of the presidents". Secondly, I know what you said, it was absurd, and I pointed out why: NO, "just about every politician" does not make the ostensible "mistake " (still an adorable word by you) of hiring a foreign agent to run his campaign and of appointing another foreign agent to be our national security adviser. In light of these basic facts, you comparison (which is really an attempt to construct false equivalence) is absurd.

Manafort was hired to wrangle convention votes, not run the campaign. And he was in a non-paid position, volunteers are rarely vetted to the same standards as paid staff.


.

He was the head of the campaign. Period. What an embarrassing bit of equivocation on your part.

Trump fired him. Trump fired Flynn. Trump fires crooked people. Pay attention and stop the stupid talking points.

 

[Redfish]

what specifically has Trump done since January 20 that causes you to refer to him as a conman?

Besides a constant stream of embarrassing lies? Besides attempting to talk for 10 minutes at a time about topics he clearly knows less than nothing about? Besides talking about how "great" certain programs are and will be, despite clearly having no plan and knowing nothing about the topic?

Hmm, drawing a blank.

so, you have nothing. Not surprising. But since you keep saying he has lied, give us a list. but be careful because I will reply with a list of Obama and Hillary lies.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Redfish: I agree that the DACA kids should have a path to citizenship. But it should be no shorter or easier than those who are trying to come here legally. I agree.

Redfish: Yes, American citizens should have priority over those here illegally. That is not nativism, its common sense. Neither is it white supremacism. For the record, Mexican is not a race. Mexicans are white people from mexico. I agree.

Redfish: Obozo did not create the current economic boom, Obozo did not do anything to cause the current drop in unemployment. Those changes are due to Trump's policies and his cancellation of Obama's job killing policies. Redfish is absolutely wrong.

Redfish: The crook in the current environment is the Clinton crime family and their cohorts in the media and congress. Those criminals will be brought to justice soon. Along with Trump, perhaps, but Trump, for sure.

 

[OKTexas]

I said just about every "politician", not "president" makes mistakes in their first campaign.

that's a distinction without a difference, here, unless you are making the bizarre claim that, while you may have meant "just about any politician", you were counter-intuitively and secretly excluding "just about all of the presidents". Secondly, I know what you said, it was absurd, and I pointed out why: NO, "just about every politician" does not make the ostensible "mistake " (still an adorable word by you) of hiring a foreign agent to run his campaign and of appointing another foreign agent to be our national security adviser. In light of these basic facts, you comparison (which is really an attempt to construct false equivalence) is absurd.

Manafort was hired to wrangle convention votes, not run the campaign. And he was in a non-paid position, volunteers are rarely vetted to the same standards as paid staff.


.

He was the head of the campaign. Period. What an embarrassing bit of equivocation on your part.

Yeah, except the campaign was pretty much over at that time, Trump was already the presumptive nominee. I don't think it was ever intended that Manafort stay through the general.


.