AOC - SAYS U.S. IS 'RUNNING CONCENTRATION CAMPS ON OUR SOUTHERN BORDER'

This_person

This_person

Well-Known Member
Burnthings said:
I guess if you don't accept reality, anything is possible. I'll go with what the special counsel had to say on the matter, that he can be indicted.
Click to expand...
We're not disagreeing on that point. No one with any sense disagrees with that point.

The question is whether he WILL be indicted. The report and the SC himself said that the determination of that question was beyond the scope.
The SC's boss said that he determined, from the evidence, no crime was committed nor does the evidence indicate a crime is prosecutable.

The theory holds that the president can be, he simply won't be indicted for a crime never committed.
 
Burnthings

Burnthings

Active Member
This_person said:
We're not disagreeing on that point. No one with any sense disagrees with that point.

The question is whether he WILL be indicted. The report and the SC himself said that the determination of that question was beyond the scope.
The SC's boss said that he determined, from the evidence, no crime was committed nor does the evidence indicate a crime is prosecutable.

The theory holds that the president can be, he simply won't be indicted for a crime never committed.
Click to expand...
Just so were clear, you know who the boss is of the SC is?
Kyle said:
ssdd.
Click to expand...
Is your diaper full or something. Go find your parents?
 
Burnthings

Burnthings

Active Member
This_person said:
The direct boss is the AG. Next is the president, next up is the taxpayer.

Or, in direct answer to the question, yes, I know who the boss of the SC is.
Click to expand...
Yea, and who do you think appointed that man?

Can you honestly not see the conflict of interest here?
 
Burnthings

Burnthings

Active Member
He's was nominated by Trump and Appointed by the Senate.

He's Trump's personal hatchetman.

If you were going through a divorce, would you trust the verdict of a Judge who was sleeping with your ex-wife?
 
This_person

This_person

Well-Known Member
Burnthings said:
He's was nominated by Trump and Appointed by the Senate.

He's Trump's personal hatchetman.

If you were going through a divorce, would you trust the verdict of a Judge who was sleeping with your ex-wife?
Click to expand...
Oh, you meant the AG.

The AG is not a judge. The process of indictment for a sitting president is impeachment. Not even a majority of Trump-hating Democrats can agree that impeachment is warranted, so it seems highly unlikely that a jury would indict let alone convict a man who couldn't be indicted by this rabid House. Indeed, based on a dispassionate reading of the evidence, it seems exceptionally unlikely a prosecutor would find a crime that they could charge and support with said evidence.
 
This_person

This_person

Well-Known Member
GURPS said:
:killingme

did some troll say something
Click to expand...
Hijinx posted:
This whole thing with Mueller by Nadler and Schiff, make me wonder --WTF did they think they would get?
The man could not testify against his own report.
WTH was Mueller thinking when he agreed to appear?
Does he like ridicule?

This is an example of what happens when Democrats are the majority party, even the most stupid voter in America should be able to see thru these machinations.
Click to expand...
Burnthings responded: If Trump loses the election he can be indicted for serious crimes of obstruction. Did you miss that part?

Note, the questions were WTF did they think they'd get, and what was Mueller thinking.

Recall, Mueller said he'd not answer anything that was in the report. So, WTF did they think they would get seems a pretty reasonable question.

Burnthings' answer showed something that was already in the report. It meant nothing to the question(s) asked.

I was just pointing out BT did not answer the question, and reinforced not reading the report.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top