Corrupt DOJ Gives Evidence of What They Say Are Donald Trump Crimes - to His Lawyers.

a reply to: JinMI

Imagine defending Trump while arguing that Hillary should be locked up even though you can't have a single criminal statute she violated.

I can name eight different criminal statutes that the DOJ believe Trump violated. See the difference?

originally posted by: Threadbare
a reply to: JinMI

Imagine defending Trump while arguing that Hillary should be locked up even though you can't have a single criminal statute she violated.

I can name eight different criminal statutes that the DOJ believe Trump violated. See the difference?

Oh i see the double standard and hypocrisy hard at work.

And im not the only one laughing at your attempts.


Will Trump get the "no reasonable prosecutor" defense?


Or perhaps the Hunter deal?

a reply to: JinMI

What double standard? Once again you can't point to a single criminal statute that Hillary violated. You're double standard boils down to, "Wah! My guy arrested for breaking the law. It's only fair that one of their guys gets arrested too even though I can't point to any crime they committed!"

a reply to: Threadbare

So Comey lied when he laid out the charges?

Or neglected other possible charges?

Laughable.

*Tired sigh*
Oh look, WhatAboutism with regard to Hillary Clinton, who wasn't prosecuted, not even by Bill Barr, for anything, whatsoever, in a thread about... *squints* the normal discovery process ahead of Trump being prosecuted on many counts for being an idiot and ignoring subpoenas and pretending that he could keep documents that did not belong to him.
Oh my, I am surprised.
Wait, my sarcasmometer just exploded.

a reply to: Threadbare

Explain it away any way you like, don't really care.... BTW Trump isn't going to jail and will be fined as what will be pretty much the worst thing to come out of this. Page mark this for me when it comes down.

a reply to: Xtrozero

Jail is pretty unlikely. House arrest though for the rest of his days? Maybe not so much.

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
*Tired sigh*
Oh look, WhatAboutism with regard to Hillary Clinton, who wasn't prosecuted, not even by Bill Barr, for anything, whatsoever, in a thread about... *squints* the normal discovery process ahead of Trump being prosecuted on many counts for being an idiot and ignoring subpoenas and pretending that he could keep documents that did not belong to him.
Oh my, I am surprised.
Wait, my sarcasmometer just exploded.

The intellect level on display is astounding.

Precedent > whataboutism.

As demonstrated so well by:

on many counts for being an idiot and ignoring subpoenas

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
*Tired sigh*
Oh look, WhatAboutism with regard to Hillary Clinton,

*Tired sigh*

WhatAboutism is an overused term, as I said...The FBI has set precedence in suggesting that even if Hillary broke laws, and she did as the FBI openly suggested laws were broken, but they decided not to prosecute because the FBI decided there was no criminal intent on Hillary's part. Key words there if we look at Trump is to ask the question did Trump have criminal intent, and if so what would that even be?

Here is what Comey said...

Comey tells Rep. Jason Chaffetz, the chairman of the House Oversight Committee, that there is "no doubt" that some of Clinton's lawyers who sifted through her emails did not have security clearance.

Sounds a little like Trump with the whole "people were around him without a security clearance." It seems Hillary actually had people read them. Sent dozen of emails into email chains with classified to include 8 with TS in the emails.

As to her security of the server and the fact she had it hidden with classified on it, there is a rather high level of criminal negligence that anyone in this discussion would go to jail over that alone.

So this isn't whataboutism as much as similarities as to what was OK for Hillary and what is now not OK for Trump.

a reply to: JinMI

Legal precedent is only set by the courts. And only decisions made by the SCOTUS set binding precedent for the whole country.

Please cite the court case that set precedent to which you are referring.

originally posted by: Threadbare
a reply to: JinMI

Legal precedent is only set by the courts. And only decisions made by the SCOTUS set binding precedent for the whole country.

Please cite the court case that set precedent to which you are referring.

"No reasonable prosecutor."

a reply to: JinMI

Is that the defendant's or the plaintiff's name?

originally posted by: Threadbare
a reply to: JinMI

Is that the defendant's or the plaintiff's name?

"Like with a cloth?"

a reply to: Threadbare

Answer my post. She had Top Secret/Classified documents. They admitted to it. 2 people who should never have seen it each had it on their laptops. The FBI let her slide. THAT is the f'n truth. Try and deny it because you cannot.

a reply to: Threadbare

Jail is unlikely? But he has 37 counts and is accused of selling national secrets to foreign countries....already realizing the case is # huh?

Re: thepostmillennial.com...

As honest Donald Trump has stated several times in recent weeks, those start these baseless rumors will be punished, and those who believe them to be true, are a special kind of gullible-stupid.

a reply to: carewemust

]

However, it has now been revealed by Herridge and CBS that the document Trump was allegedly discussing at Bedminster is not among those documents that Trump is accused of having retained. "CBS News has learned that Trump has not been charged for keeping the document he's talking about on that tape. Special Counsel Jack Smith's office declined to answer our questions about the Iran memo or the audio tape," Herridge reported.

So anybody here want to tell us why they said it was the recording that made them move forward but the recording is not part of the indictment?

I mean. Seriously. It has to stop. It is embarrassing.

a reply to: matafuchs

She didn't have documents. She had received emails where classified information was discussed. But in only three instances did the sender even indicate the email contained classified information. And even that was done in the most minimal way that was easily missed.

a reply to: matafuchs

The logistics and cost of helping a former President are likely to be too great and too complex. That's why I'm guessing he'll be placed under house arrest.

a reply to: matafuchs

We've known for a while now that Trump's lawyers were unable to turn over the document in question when they were asked to by the DOJ.