0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.
“Each of us believes that the conduct of President Trump described in Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report would, in the case of any other person not covered by the Office of Legal Counsel policy against indicting a sitting President, result in multiple felony charges for obstruction of justice,” the former federal prosecutors wrote.“We emphasize that these are not matters of close professional judgment,” they added. “Of course, there are potential defenses or arguments that could be raised in response to an indictment of the nature we describe here. .?.?. But, to look at these facts and say that a prosecutor could not probably sustain a conviction for obstruction of justice — the standard set out in Principles of Federal Prosecution — runs counter to logic and our experience.”
Quote from: sonofdaxjones on May 06, 2019, 10:35:12 AMQuote from: DaBigTrain on May 05, 2019, 10:04:50 PMPlease post your posts from March/April of 2010 addressing this. TIA.At least your 13th tapout in this thread alone.Take a lap or two and hit the showers. Try again another day.So you didn’t say anything then either, got it. The whole “where were you/why didn’t you say anything then” approach really works when Dax “thought” about saying something but didn’t. Batting 1.000 right now with it.
Quote from: DaBigTrain on May 05, 2019, 10:04:50 PMPlease post your posts from March/April of 2010 addressing this. TIA.At least your 13th tapout in this thread alone.Take a lap or two and hit the showers. Try again another day.
Please post your posts from March/April of 2010 addressing this. TIA.
It's so fascinating that dax oscillates between "trump is the toughest EVA on Russia" and also "what's so bad about being best friends with Russia? Isn't that good?"
Quote from: libstradamus on May 06, 2019, 03:59:31 PMIt's so fascinating that dax oscillates between "trump is the toughest EVA on Russia" and also "what's so bad about being best friends with Russia? Isn't that good?"The two are not one in the same, dummy.
Quote from: sonofdaxjones on May 06, 2019, 04:08:26 PMQuote from: libstradamus on May 06, 2019, 03:59:31 PMIt's so fascinating that dax oscillates between "trump is the toughest EVA on Russia" and also "what's so bad about being best friends with Russia? Isn't that good?"The two are not one in the same, dummy.Lol no duh. I'm going to chalk your response up to just being confused again.
Quote“Each of us believes that the conduct of President Trump described in Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report would, in the case of any other person not covered by the Office of Legal Counsel policy against indicting a sitting President, result in multiple felony charges for obstruction of justice,” the former federal prosecutors wrote.“We emphasize that these are not matters of close professional judgment,” they added. “Of course, there are potential defenses or arguments that could be raised in response to an indictment of the nature we describe here. .?.?. But, to look at these facts and say that a prosecutor could not probably sustain a conviction for obstruction of justice — the standard set out in Principles of Federal Prosecution — runs counter to logic and our experience.”https://twitter.com/mattzap/status/1125449326145298440
Quote from: chum1 on May 06, 2019, 01:30:26 PMQuote“Each of us believes that the conduct of President Trump described in Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report would, in the case of any other person not covered by the Office of Legal Counsel policy against indicting a sitting President, result in multiple felony charges for obstruction of justice,” the former federal prosecutors wrote.“We emphasize that these are not matters of close professional judgment,” they added. “Of course, there are potential defenses or arguments that could be raised in response to an indictment of the nature we describe here. .?.?. But, to look at these facts and say that a prosecutor could not probably sustain a conviction for obstruction of justice — the standard set out in Principles of Federal Prosecution — runs counter to logic and our experience.”https://twitter.com/mattzap/status/1125449326145298440Just going to ignore this one, Dax?
What most of you don’t understand or you do is it doesn’t mean a rough riding thing. Did the 370 ex bushies and Weld a trump opponent who won’t win a thing by the way,and Democrats list any action that should be taken? No because there is none and you can have 1000 ex prosecutors sign a friggin letter to the extent they want. Still does not change a thing nor will it. Next outrage please
Quote from: Ksuminnesotacat on May 06, 2019, 06:38:38 PMWhat most of you don’t understand or you do is it doesn’t mean a rough riding thing. Did the 370 ex bushies and Weld a trump opponent who won’t win a thing by the way,and Democrats list any action that should be taken? No because there is none and you can have 1000 ex prosecutors sign a friggin letter to the extent they want. Still does not change a thing nor will it. Next outrage pleaseIt's pretty clear he should be impeached.
Quote from: waks on May 06, 2019, 05:58:13 PMQuote from: chum1 on May 06, 2019, 01:30:26 PMQuote“Each of us believes that the conduct of President Trump described in Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report would, in the case of any other person not covered by the Office of Legal Counsel policy against indicting a sitting President, result in multiple felony charges for obstruction of justice,” the former federal prosecutors wrote.“We emphasize that these are not matters of close professional judgment,” they added. “Of course, there are potential defenses or arguments that could be raised in response to an indictment of the nature we describe here. .?.?. But, to look at these facts and say that a prosecutor could not probably sustain a conviction for obstruction of justice — the standard set out in Principles of Federal Prosecution — runs counter to logic and our experience.”https://twitter.com/mattzap/status/1125449326145298440Just going to ignore this one, Dax?What exactly was obstructed?Firing James Comey for cause is not obstruction.
Quote from: libstradamus on May 06, 2019, 07:08:14 PMQuote from: Ksuminnesotacat on May 06, 2019, 06:38:38 PMWhat most of you don’t understand or you do is it doesn’t mean a rough riding thing. Did the 370 ex bushies and Weld a trump opponent who won’t win a thing by the way,and Democrats list any action that should be taken? No because there is none and you can have 1000 ex prosecutors sign a friggin letter to the extent they want. Still does not change a thing nor will it. Next outrage pleaseIt's pretty clear he should be impeached.Well then get on with it. Maybe if we keep linking twitter stuff enough it will all come true?
Quote from: sonofdaxjones on May 06, 2019, 07:05:19 PMQuote from: waks on May 06, 2019, 05:58:13 PMQuote from: chum1 on May 06, 2019, 01:30:26 PMQuote“Each of us believes that the conduct of President Trump described in Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report would, in the case of any other person not covered by the Office of Legal Counsel policy against indicting a sitting President, result in multiple felony charges for obstruction of justice,” the former federal prosecutors wrote.“We emphasize that these are not matters of close professional judgment,” they added. “Of course, there are potential defenses or arguments that could be raised in response to an indictment of the nature we describe here. .?.?. But, to look at these facts and say that a prosecutor could not probably sustain a conviction for obstruction of justice — the standard set out in Principles of Federal Prosecution — runs counter to logic and our experience.”https://twitter.com/mattzap/status/1125449326145298440Just going to ignore this one, Dax?What exactly was obstructed?Firing James Comey for cause is not obstruction.I mean, just putting aside you ignoring 9 other episodes of obstruction, defending the one that trump personally admitted to on a national television interview doesn't really suggest you are very informed on the matter....
Quote from: Ksuminnesotacat on May 06, 2019, 07:12:53 PMQuote from: libstradamus on May 06, 2019, 07:08:14 PMQuote from: Ksuminnesotacat on May 06, 2019, 06:38:38 PMWhat most of you don’t understand or you do is it doesn’t mean a rough riding thing. Did the 370 ex bushies and Weld a trump opponent who won’t win a thing by the way,and Democrats list any action that should be taken? No because there is none and you can have 1000 ex prosecutors sign a friggin letter to the extent they want. Still does not change a thing nor will it. Next outrage pleaseIt's pretty clear he should be impeached.Well then get on with it. Maybe if we keep linking twitter stuff enough it will all come true?It should happen, we are in agreement 'sotacat Unfortunately trump could rape you and kill your entire family live on a Lester holt interview and there still wouldn't be enough republican senators to convict.
Quote from: libstradamus on May 06, 2019, 07:22:37 PMQuote from: Ksuminnesotacat on May 06, 2019, 07:12:53 PMQuote from: libstradamus on May 06, 2019, 07:08:14 PMQuote from: Ksuminnesotacat on May 06, 2019, 06:38:38 PMWhat most of you don’t understand or you do is it doesn’t mean a rough riding thing. Did the 370 ex bushies and Weld a trump opponent who won’t win a thing by the way,and Democrats list any action that should be taken? No because there is none and you can have 1000 ex prosecutors sign a friggin letter to the extent they want. Still does not change a thing nor will it. Next outrage pleaseIt's pretty clear he should be impeached.Well then get on with it. Maybe if we keep linking twitter stuff enough it will all come true?It should happen, we are in agreement 'sotacat Unfortunately trump could rape you and kill your entire family live on a Lester holt interview and there still wouldn't be enough republican senators to convict.Well that would be quite unfortunate. But it still doesn’t change the fact. That any rube can post or link to twitter and derpadom scrambles for the nearest Nad Inquisition next angle.Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
'sotacat, if you approve of the actions this president took to obstruct the russia investigation, then i'd be interested in what your line would actually be? what abuse of power could make you turn on trump?
