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

[Norman]

TRUMP FINALLY INDICTED FOR:

1. Making America great again.
2. Taking two scoops of ice cream.

Any minute now.... any minute...

1. Obstruction
2. Money laundering
3. Accessory to a crime

Evidence?

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.

Actually it's 100 % YOU who have to provide evidence that Trump has done anything wrong. Unless you stand for the banana-republic style leftist justice - believing in the court of public opinion over anything else.

So far you failed. The fact that he may have secret stash is not evidence, that's a hypothesis, if not full blown delusion.

 

[Reasonable]

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

It, of course, is illegal, when done in an effort to obstruct justice.

Nope....he can fire his director whenever he feels like it....he is in charge of the Department of Justice....

The former Watergate prosecutor disagrees with you. Where did you get your law degree?

 

[rightwinger]

TRUMP FINALLY INDICTED FOR:

1. Making America great again.
2. Taking two scoops of ice cream.

Any minute now.... any minute...

1. Obstruction
2. Money laundering
3. Accessory to a crime

Thankfully being delusional is not a crime. You would get the maximum sentence.

We will see what the courts say

 

[rightwinger]

TRUMP FINALLY INDICTED FOR:

1. Making America great again.
2. Taking two scoops of ice cream.

Any minute now.... any minute...

1. Obstruction
2. Money laundering
3. Accessory to a crime

Evidence?

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

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

1. Obstruction
2. Money laundering
3. Accessory to a crime

Evidence?

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.

Actually it's 100 % YOU who have to provide evidence that Trump has done anything wrong. Unless you stand for the banana-republic style leftist justice - believing in the court of public opinion over anything else.

So far you failed. The fact that he may have secret stash is not evidence, that's a hypothesis, if not full blown delusion.

I dont have to provide anything...what a bizarre thing to say. First, I did not say he was guilty. Second, I am neither the special counsel nor a prosecutor. What a bizarre post by you.

"I failed"..? Again , I'm not prosecuting Trump. Bizarre.

 

[Reasonable]

1. Obstruction
2. Money laundering
3. Accessory to a crime

Evidence?

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.

Actually it's 100 % YOU who have to provide evidence that Trump has done anything wrong. Unless you stand for the banana-republic style leftist justice - believing in the court of public opinion over anything else.

So far you failed.

Another uniformed trump sheep sucking his ass.
The orange anus admitted obstruction of justice on live TV during the Lester Holt interview. He admitted impeding the investigation then boasted to the Russian spies he incredulously had in the Oval Office that he “ took the heat off himself by firing Comey.”
The stupid mfer has incriminated himself a number of times.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

1. Obstruction
2. Money laundering
3. Accessory to a crime

Evidence?

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

Donnie will not be testifying under oath. Mueller will reveal his evidence if he indicts.

 

[2aguy]

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.

and not one of them has linked Trump to Russia......however, hilary, obama, eric holder, james comey, robert mueller, rod rosenstein and lynch........all have ties to the Uranium One deal which essentially puts them in bed with the russians..without the "7 degrees of Separation from Kevin Bacon" that you find with Trump.....

And you obviously do not realize that there is an actual FBI mole who worked under cover for 5 years with the Russians on Uranium One...and links it directly to obama and clinton....

But keep ignoring the real Russian story.....and keep dreaming of President Hilary...

LMAO The so-called 'uranium one deal' is fake news; it's been debunked over and over. Get over it.

Shep Smith had a segment on his show carefully explaining the FACTS on the Uranium One deal.
He was besieged with calls by Fox viewers because listening to facts were a shock to their systems.

And he didn't tell the truth.....

FACT-CHECK: Shep Smith's Fake 'Debunking' of Uranium One Story Ends in Humiliation, Embarrassment

It is only by ignoring this de facto veto that Smith can dismiss Clinton’s role in the approval. Of course, his overall point that her corruption is somehow less severe because she was only one vote is irrelevant to the allegation being made. The particular circumstances of the decision are irrelevant — bribery statutes apply no matter how close the vote.

Smith also claims that the majority of the donations to the Clinton Foundation came via Frank Giustra — a mining financier who sold his stake in the uranium company before it was sold and before Clinton became secretary of State. “The timing is inaccurate,” Smith complains.

But it is Smith who is being inaccurate. As noted in Clinton Cash and the New York Times, the Clintons helped Giustra acquire Kazakh uranium assets in 2005. Mukhtar Dzhakishev, then head of the Kazakh state nuclear agency, who met with the Clintons in Chappaqua, declared in 2010 that Hillary Clinton extorted and pressured Kazakh officials to grant those uranium concessions to Giustra. Shortly after they granted those concessions, $30 million was dropped into Clinton Foundation coffers by Giustra.
Smith never mentions any of this.

“The timing is inaccurate” only if you exclude key events.

Smith also fails to account for the fact that Uranium One’s Chairman Ian Telfer moved $2.3 million, much it undisclosed, to the Clinton Foundation as the deal was being reviewed by CFIUS. Furthermore, Smith falsely claims that the Clinton Foundation disclosed these donations to the charity but simply forgot to reveal the individual names of the donors. This is entirely false.

But Smith is not done excluding key facts which confirm the timing of funds flowing to the Clintons. Smith also strangely omits the $500,000 speaking fee Bill Clinton was paid by a Russian bank involved with Uranium One during the review process.

And here....

WATCH: Shep Smith 'Destroys' The Uranium One Scandal. Except There's More To The Story.


Soon, Uranium One began to snap up companies with assets in the United States. In April 2007, it announced the purchase of a uranium mill in Utah and more than 38,000 acres of uranium exploration properties in four Western states, followed quickly by the acquisition of the Energy Metals Corporation and its uranium holdings in Wyoming, Texas and Utah. That deal made clear that Uranium One was intent on becoming “a powerhouse in the United States uranium sector with the potential to become the domestic supplier of choice for U.S. utilities,” the company declared. … The Times published an article revealing the 2005 trip’s link to Mr. Giustra’s Kazakhstan mining deal. It also reported that several months later, Mr. Giustra had donated $31.3 million to Mr. Clinton’s foundation.

Furthermore, questions about Rosatom’s control of uranium isn’t about the Russians crafting nukes — they already have them. It’s about shortages of uranium in the United States, and dependence on foreign sources for that material. It was also about Rosatom purchasing a huge stake of nuclear material in Kazakhstan.

And the Clintons were still involved. Here’s the Times again:

Mr. Telfer’s undisclosed donations came in addition to between $1.3 million and $5.6 million in contributions, which were reported, from a constellation of people with ties to Uranium One or UrAsia, the company that originally acquired Uranium One’s most valuable asset: the Kazakh mines. Without those assets, the Russians would have had no interest in the deal: “It wasn’t the goal to buy the Wyoming mines. The goal was to acquire the Kazakh assets, which are very good,” Mr. Novikov, the Rosatom spokesman, said in an interview.

Amid this influx of Uranium One-connected money, Mr. Clinton was invited to speak in Moscow in June 2010, the same month Rosatom struck its deal for a majority stake in Uranium One.

The $500,000 fee — among Mr. Clinton’s highest — was paid by Renaissance Capital, a Russian investment bank with ties to the Kremlin that has invited world leaders, including Tony Blair, the former British prime minister, to speak at its investor conferences.

So no, it’s not at all unclear that the Clintons were unrelated to Uranium One. And it’s not unclear that they’d have no interest in pushing Uranium One — Giustra still had an interest in maintaining faith with his former shareholders, and the Clintons had intervened in the past to help out the company beyond Giustra’s involvement. That doesn't mean that Hillary signed off on the Uranium One sale. But to downplay the sale itself or the Clintons' interest in it would neglect facts in evidence.

 

[Norman]

Evidence?

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.

Actually it's 100 % YOU who have to provide evidence that Trump has done anything wrong. Unless you stand for the banana-republic style leftist justice - believing in the court of public opinion over anything else.

So far you failed. The fact that he may have secret stash is not evidence, that's a hypothesis, if not full blown delusion.

I dont have to provide anything...what a bizarre thing to say. First, I did not say he was guilty. Second, I am neither the special counsel nor a prosecutor. What a bizarre post by you.

"I failed"..? Again , I'm not prosecuting Trump. Bizarre.

Yes, indeed you will have to provide evidence for Trump's guilt before you get to declare him guilty of anything. That's kind of how it works in the first world. Maybe a third world banana-republics would work better for you.

This is not a court, but a message board. You will have to convince us. A secret stash holding the evidence is not very convincing, sounding like a grand exercise in delusion.

 

[Harry Dresden]

Libatard media has announced they have solid evidence of "alleged" allegations by "unnamed sources" and "high level officials" who want to remain "anonymous". ......

you mean these guys?.....

......[URL='https://www.123rf.com/photo_4822953_paper-face-and-question-mark-business-concept.html'][/URL]

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

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.

Actually it's 100 % YOU who have to provide evidence that Trump has done anything wrong. Unless you stand for the banana-republic style leftist justice - believing in the court of public opinion over anything else.

So far you failed. The fact that he may have secret stash is not evidence, that's a hypothesis, if not full blown delusion.

I dont have to provide anything...what a bizarre thing to say. First, I did not say he was guilty. Second, I am neither the special counsel nor a prosecutor. What a bizarre post by you.

"I failed"..? Again , I'm not prosecuting Trump. Bizarre.

Yes, indeed you will have to provide evidence for Trump's guilt before you get to declare him guilty of anything. That's kind of how it works in the first world. Maybe a third world banana-republics would work better for you.

This is not a court, but a message board. You will have to convince us. A secret stash holding the evidence is not very convincing, sounding like a grand exercise in delusion.

I dont have to convince anyone. Are you delusional? My opinions have no bearing on anything but my vote. I would never waste my time trying to present evidence to cultists like you...that's pearls before swine...

And I didn't declare him guilty, anyway. I certainly think it looks like he obstructed justice. But I am not demanding that you agree, so your whiny post is whiny.

 

[Reasonable]

It’s going to be one of the most satisfying days of my life to watch the trump sheep’s heads explode when Bob Mueller releases his final report with the world finally having confirmation how crooked and corrupt this president actually is.
Bob Mueller already has proof of Donnie Jr. colluding with Russia. He has the nitwit’s emails incriminating himself.
The apple doesn’t fall far from the tree since they both have incriminated themselves.

 

[Norman]

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.

Actually it's 100 % YOU who have to provide evidence that Trump has done anything wrong. Unless you stand for the banana-republic style leftist justice - believing in the court of public opinion over anything else.

So far you failed. The fact that he may have secret stash is not evidence, that's a hypothesis, if not full blown delusion.

I dont have to provide anything...what a bizarre thing to say. First, I did not say he was guilty. Second, I am neither the special counsel nor a prosecutor. What a bizarre post by you.

"I failed"..? Again , I'm not prosecuting Trump. Bizarre.

Yes, indeed you will have to provide evidence for Trump's guilt before you get to declare him guilty of anything. That's kind of how it works in the first world. Maybe a third world banana-republics would work better for you.

This is not a court, but a message board. You will have to convince us. A secret stash holding the evidence is not very convincing, sounding like a grand exercise in delusion.

I dont have to convince anyone. Are you delusional? My opinions have no bearing on anything but my vote. I would never waste my time trying to present evidence to cultists like you...that's pearls before swine...

Then what the fuck was even the point of your reply? Or even your attendance on a public forum? Now that you have admitted the fact, I will have to double down on it, yes indeed your opinions are worthless garbage. Do not bother posting any longer.


It must be difficult for you that I reject delusion and approve evidence. Yes I am that kind of cultist indeed. I can see you would have a problem with that as a lefty. Maybe if you joined the cult putting evidence before feels, your opinions too would have some serious value.

 

[Esmeralda]

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.

Actually it's 100 % YOU who have to provide evidence that Trump has done anything wrong. Unless you stand for the banana-republic style leftist justice - believing in the court of public opinion over anything else.

So far you failed. The fact that he may have secret stash is not evidence, that's a hypothesis, if not full blown delusion.

I dont have to provide anything...what a bizarre thing to say. First, I did not say he was guilty. Second, I am neither the special counsel nor a prosecutor. What a bizarre post by you.

"I failed"..? Again , I'm not prosecuting Trump. Bizarre.

Yes, indeed you will have to provide evidence for Trump's guilt before you get to declare him guilty of anything. That's kind of how it works in the first world. Maybe a third world banana-republics would work better for you.

This is not a court, but a message board. You will have to convince us. A secret stash holding the evidence is not very convincing, sounding like a grand exercise in delusion.

"Yes, indeed you will have to provide evidence for Trump's guilt before you get to declare him guilty of anything. That's kind of how it works in the first world."

 

[Avatar4321]

Mueller's got his tax records, plenty of juice there, and Ryan's turned, he doesn't want to follow Manafort. And he's got a trove of incriminating shit, you can bet!
I'll just crack a beer, settle back and watch the trainwreck.

If the tax records were treasure troves why wasn't trump indicted when he was audited? How can Ryan turn when he hasn't committed a crime?

Who knows if he’s even being audited?
He lies 5.5 per day. Every day. I wouldn’t put it past him to lie about being audited. Besides this is also a bogus excuse because you can release your taxes to the public even if you are being audited.
He’s not releasing them because they would clearly show his ties to Russia.

He is a billionaire living in new York. He's been audited

 

[Reasonable]

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!

“Indict” is simply a synonym for “accuse”.

nixon was 'accused'.

Yup Nixon was accused of obstruction of justice and crimes against the USA but had the good sense to resign. Trump has no sense and no honor. This will not be pretty for him and his criminal administration.
Reagan had the most corrupt administration in history with the most indictments and convictions of any president. Trump will blow Reagan’s dubvious honor right out of the water.
LOCK HIM UP. LOCK HIM UP.
Karma is a bitch and will bite his fat ass something fierce.

 

[sartre play]

I can wait, if we get rid of a few crooks good, the president, wont hold my breath on that one.

 

[Reasonable]

Mueller's got his tax records, plenty of juice there, and Ryan's turned, he doesn't want to follow Manafort. And he's got a trove of incriminating shit, you can bet!
I'll just crack a beer, settle back and watch the trainwreck.

If the tax records were treasure troves why wasn't trump indicted when he was audited? How can Ryan turn when he hasn't committed a crime?

Who knows if he’s even being audited?
He lies 5.5 per day. Every day. I wouldn’t put it past him to lie about being audited. Besides this is also a bogus excuse because you can release your taxes to the public even if you are being audited.
He’s not releasing them because they would clearly show his ties to Russia.

He is a billionaire living in new York. He's been audited

Hes not a billionaire which is yet another reason why he doesn’t want to release his tax returns. Disagree? Show me his tax returns.
Trump is in deep debt to Russia because he hasn’t been able to get any loans in America because he’s such a bad credit risk.

 

[NightFox]

Reagan had the most corrupt administration in history with the most indictments and convictions of any president. .

Try again and this time try looking @ The Nixon Administration.

 

[Norman]

Mueller's got his tax records, plenty of juice there, and Ryan's turned, he doesn't want to follow Manafort. And he's got a trove of incriminating shit, you can bet!
I'll just crack a beer, settle back and watch the trainwreck.

If the tax records were treasure troves why wasn't trump indicted when he was audited? How can Ryan turn when he hasn't committed a crime?

Who knows if he’s even being audited?
He lies 5.5 per day. Every day. I wouldn’t put it past him to lie about being audited. Besides this is also a bogus excuse because you can release your taxes to the public even if you are being audited.
He’s not releasing them because they would clearly show his ties to Russia.

He is a billionaire living in new York. He's been audited

Hes not a billionaire which is yet another reason why he doesn’t want to release his tax returns. Disagree? Show me his tax returns.
Trump is in deep debt to Russia because he hasn’t been able to get any loans in America because he’s such a bad credit risk.

More delusion.

According to Forbes his net worth is over 3 billion. I believe them over you any day. They have evidence, you have leftist temper tantrums. It wasn't difficult to make the choice.

The Definitive Net Worth Of Donald Trump