ALL HAIL PRESIDENT TRUMP

"

rojimboo wrote:

"

pneuma wrote:

Oh no, Mueller is going to stand up and testify to exactly what he already told everybody in his 400-page, 2-year long report. The same report that he admits Barr summarized without factual error and is freely available to anyone to read.

Nobody except Barr has seen the unredacted report, to my knowledge. Maybe Barr's assistant. And his dog.

Plus the Mueller team.

Plus several congress people, both Republican and Democrat.

If you have the clearance and ask for it, there's no reason it wouldn't be given to you unredacted. Barr himself said that he offered the unredacted report to any congressman that asked for it.

"

rojimboo wrote:

Do you think it's weird that one of your highest justice officials, the Attorney General, is going to be held for contempt for refusing to hand over the Mueller report?

I think it's very weird because he already gave it out and it's publicly available. Then again, I guess holding AG's in contempt is a thing now, starting with Eric Holder under Obama.

STATEMENT BY FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTORS

"

We are former federal prosecutors. We served under both Republican and Democratic administrations at different levels of the federal system: as line attorneys, supervisors, special prosecutors, United States Attorneys, and senior officials at the Department of Justice. The offices in which we served were small, medium, and large; urban, suburban, and rural; and located in all parts of our country.

"

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.

"

We emphasize that these are not matters of close professional judgment. Of course, there are potential defenses or arguments that could be raised in response to an indictment of the nature we describe here. In our system, every accused person is presumed innocent and it is always the government’s burden to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. 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://medium.com/@dojalumni/statement-by-former-federal-prosecutors-8ab7691c2aa1

Currently signed by 439 former federal prosecutors.

In 40 minutes or so we are now up to 459 former federal prosecutor signatures.

Now up to 527 former federal prosecutor signatures.

Nobody cares. Democrats won't impeach. These former prosecutors have no power. It's comparable to your lab thingy tbh.

If impeachment had a face it would be that:





Michael Avenatti... the creepy lawyer who is one of the biggest advocate of impeachment, CNN even sold him as the strongest reliable source xDDDD

"

Turtledove wrote:

We are former federal prosecutors.

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.

So, these former federal prosecutors haven't seen the evidence, yet they assume it would result in an indictment. I, for one, am glad they are not current federal prosecutors.

report proved it was a nothing burger... so..... what else now?

"

rojimboo wrote:

Historically US is by far the biggest polluter, still. China is catching up, but the US is far away and ahead.

Really? The name of the country with the most total emissions seems to be China:

"

Xavderion wrote:

Nobody cares. Democrats won't impeach. These former prosecutors have no power. It's comparable to your lab thingy tbh.

That is obviously false. I know that I care. I know that at least 527 ex-federal prosecutors care.

Did you find any source yet (note: social media doesn't count) to back you up on your position that an underlying crime must be committed before obstruction of justice can be prosecuted?

"

The_Impeacher wrote:

"

DalaiLama wrote:

"

Turtledove wrote:

We are former federal prosecutors.

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.

So, these former federal prosecutors haven't seen the evidence, yet they assume it would result in an indictment. I, for one, am glad they are not current federal prosecutors.

The evidence is within the Mueller report. Have a read.

Without the unredacted details, that "evidence" might as well have been made up by You, Me, Boem and Scrotie as a LARP.

Something for my far-left friends to keep in mind as they count former federal prosecutors…
Censorship and political correctness peer pressure don't change minds, they merely quiet voices and drive your opposition underground. In every large group of lefties there are people who have disagreements but fear to voice them, instead playing the role of NPC in their public life, lifelessly repeating the "correct" opinions, unwilling to jeopardize their social or work lives on mere political banter. As the Democrats drift ever further left and become more shrill and hysterical, the number of people who have walked away in their hearts but dare not with their feet will grow and grow. And at some point this moral panic will end when only a scant few true believers remain and the captive, silenced opposition finally realizes that they have safety in numbers. It will be like a bubble suddenly bursting, leaving behind nothing but empty space.