patrick.net

Let me guess the political parties of the signees. And, of course, they are all objective and do not involve themselves in politics. Of course, they can make these determinations through publicity and innuendo at arm's length.

"Signatories have been vetted to the best of our ability." Meaning, believe this shit at your own hazard.

Has all the authority of a partisan testimonial.

Ceffer says

Let me guess the political parties

So what ? They still have legal reputations. Are you guys really that dishonest ? Either it's a fact or it's not.

Let's see how many conservative prosecutors come out and say "bullshit, no way."

The letter's list of signees — 663 as of Tuesday afternoon — includes at least 42 people who have served in the Justice Department under Trump and more than 100 officials who have served in the DOJ for 20 years or more.

It also includes the signature of Jeffrey Harris, who worked for Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani when he was the then-associate attorney general under President Ronald Reagan. Bill Weld, a former assistant U.S. attorney during the Reagan administration running as a Republican against Trump in 2020, also signed the letter.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/hundreds-former-prosecutors-say-trump-would-have-been-indicted-if-n1002436

663 is a lot. These are prosecutors talking about law.

Yeah, you're probably right. It's all just partisan politics.

How many former prosecutors are there in US? Apparently all of them except the 650 do NOT say that he'd be indicted, president or not. The OP should realize that, no?

Lame. 650 signed it, many federal prosecutors and a lot of DOJ prosecutors, laying their reputation on the line.

AS soon as a huge number of conservative prosecutors, including similar number of federal and DOJ prosecutors start putting their reputation on the line by saying that this is not true, then you will have a point.

mostly_reader says

do NOT say that he'd be indicted, president or not.

That's a hoot. A person doesn't sign a letter so that means they automatically take the opposite position?

One would think a counter letter taking the opposite position would be appropriate, no? Is there one?

How come Trump didn't recommend skull fucking Mueller to death? What a wimp of a Precedent!

In other words... if someone made those demands and weren't specifically given those powers by the constitution they would have been consider in violation of the law. Well, that's pretty silly too: If someone made those demands and weren't the president, those demands would have been meaningless and so wouldn't have been a problem either.

"Trump says over 720 former prosecutors would be indicted if they weren't Democrats!"

marcus says

Either it's a fact or it's not.

What fact are we discussing?

That 650 out of the millions of lawyer have a political opinion about POTUS? Shocking.

Their opinion is unsubstantiable by the facts. Or do I also need to find an article that quotes anonymous experts to argue against the OP?

There's a reason they are all former prosecutors.
So we should take the advice of people that couldn't hold their job?
marcus says

Over 650 former prosecutors say Trump would be indicted if he weren't president

Most likely they signed the much publicized document to get their names in front of state HR supervisors...

CBOEtrader says

What fact are we discussing?

I get it. Being a TRump supporter requires one to not understand that it's very probably either a true fact or not, that TRump would be indictede for obstruction if he weren't President.

Sure it's only a matter of:

CBOEtrader says

political opinion

In your world I'll presume that law isn't based on clear precedent and reason.

In your world, prosecutors don't have to worry about their reputation of being a competent prosecutor, and they are happy to put their signature to a legal opinion that is incorrect and makes hem appear to be a political hack.

That's just how fucking stupid the Liberals are. He wouldn't have Presidential problems if he wasn't President.
It's hard to impeach a Citizen the fucking moronic imbeciles.

Liberals even Suck at a phony Narrative. Give up already the Losers! Their shit is pathetic and weak as fuck.

So the article admits even if Trump wasn't running for President the FBI, CIA, DOJ and NSA would spy on a citizen of the US. Drum up bogus charges against him then railroad him through a Kangaroo court in a witch hunt.

Trump must send these bastards back to the bowels of hell. I hope they all fry in the chair or hang by the neck for what they've done.

Tenpoundbass says

He wouldn't have Presidential problems if he wasn't President.
It's hard to impeach a Citizen

The statement refers to felony obstruction of justice, something you don't have to be President to be guilty of.

When you don't understand something, that's not a valid argument of why it's not true.

Newsflash: Presidents are not above the law. It's a documented fact - that Trumps crimes would be far worse if his staff hadn't disobeyed his orders on numerous occasions.

Barr has acknowledged in testimony that he did not consider any evidence in the Mueller report in forming his opinion about it's conclusions.

Interesting no ?

marcus says

CBOEtrader says

What fact are we discussing?

I get it. Being a TRump supporter requires one to not understand that it's very probably either a true fact or not, that TRump would be indictede for obstruction if he weren't President.

Do you ever just make a statement? Your communication style is impossible to decipher (*eyeroll* state of our educators today I guess).

"TRump would be indictede for obstruction if he weren't President." Is this your "fact" to discuss? Ok, sure...and if I handcuff a man and throw him into the back of my car, I also get arrested since I'm not a cop. Roles matter. Trump's behavior was all well within the normal realms of his role, given the abnormal situation.

How long till you find the cheese Marcus? Many within the Obama admin will be indicted for REAL crimes for conspiring to remove a president elect. Will you admit you're wrong when that happens?

marcus says

Barr has acknowledged in testimony that he did not consider any evidence in the Mueller report in forming his opinion about it's conclusions.

Interesting no ?

No he didn't. You've been lied to. Interesting no?

marcus says

In your world, prosecutors don't have to worry about their reputation of being a competent prosecutor, and they are happy to put their signature to a legal opinion that is incorrect and makes hem appear to be a political hack

Jussie Smollett and Kim Foxx.... need I say more? Just because you are/were a prosecutor, doesn't mean you do the correct and legal thing. This literally just happened in this case and they have evidence it was all a hoax. Smollett obstructed and lied for weeks before his little game was discovered. Kim Foxx is an actual practicing prosecutor, that takes your 650 signatures and burns them to the ground as far as having any validity or weight behind them. Jussie's punishment, hang out with Jessie Jackson (at least he spells it right) and a bunch of other racists.

As others have said, millions of attorneys in this country. Getting 650 signatures is acting like the 123 you just shot on 18 holes of golf makes you a pro. Trump is not getting indicted for obstruction in the Mueller probe and isn't going to for that specific situation. Maybe something else in the future, but at some point people need to just stop wasting their time with this one. It really does look petty and childish after a certain point. And this is coming from someone that, muh, Trump, whatever.

CBOEtrader says

state of our educators

That's when it becomes clear that you know your defending the indensible.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/5/1/18525788/kamala-harris-bill-barr-mueller-report-amy-klobuchar-trump-obstruction

If I get you a video of the words coming out of Barrs mouth, will you still say it's fake news ?

"Why can't Trump just say the report exonerates him and we all just move on ?"

marcus says

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/5/1/18525788/kamala-harris-bill-barr-mueller-report-amy-klobuchar-trump-obstruction

If I get you a video of the words coming out of Barrs mouth, will you still say it's fake news ?

Yes. Watch the entire exchange.

CBOEtrader says

Trump's behavior was all well within the normal realms of his role

"Everyone knows that part of the checks and balances our founding father intended was that if a sitting PResident is being investigated for something it's most definitely a "coup attempt" and the law is going to need to be broken to prevent it."

marcus says

Over 720 former prosecutors say Trump would be indicted if he weren't president

in 2019 ,over 720 former prosecutors say a man accused of Trump's alleged crimes would not be indicted if he was Black and/or Gay or named Clinton or Obama

Come on. All Trump Cucks, represent !

marcus says

TRump would be indictede for obstruction if he weren't President.

For what crime would you indictede him of obstruction?

marcus says

Come on. All Trump Cucks, represent !

So you're just going to dismiss the Smollett hoax? It literally proves that prosecutors don't and won't prosecute in certain cases where they should have. So what weight does their opinion have, really? If you're upset about Trump, then you need to be up in arms about Smollett. CPD uncovered the lie of Smollett in two weeks. Mueller had two years. He's an attorney, why didn't he make the indict opinion? He's THE guy investing. Sorry your guy didn't work out and throw Trump to the wolves for what appears to be no reason by his own investigation.

> rdm
> A person doesn't sign a letter so that means they automatically take the opposite position?

It means that (all-former-procecutors - 650) did NOT sign the letter that he'd be indicted. Feel free to draw your own conclusions.
Here's one statistic that would be relevant: how many were offered to sign? Do you know? How come the absolute number is reported, but not the percentage?

> One would think a counter letter taking the opposite position would be appropriate, no? Is there one?

You must be kidding. To willingly participate in this post-game circus after the game has been won? Leave it to the losers.

Elgatouno says

consisting of obstructing prosecutors or other officials.

This is getting annoying. Even IF there was obstruction, no charges are coming from this investigation for Trump. Mueller purposefully threw out some maybe type statements, but fact is, his job is a yes or no job. Others in this investigation were charged with crimes. Mueller said yes and they were charged. He has not said yes, charge Trump with obstruction. Everyone trying to get Trump indicted on this is just giving his supporters more reason to trust in him and is winning him new followers daily. Some of you people legit look crazy.

At the end of the day keep looking for the needle in the haystack that's sitting on the shelf at Hobby Lobby though.

marcus says

The statement refers to felony obstruction of justice, something you don't have to be President to be guilty of.

Ok let’s step back from the TDS and examine the situation. Trump’s actions with respect to the investigation into a fraudulent accusation with NO MERIT could by legalistic conjuring be construed as “obstruction.” Did he materially obstruct with intent to hide wrongdoing? No. Absolutely not. But could a smart lawyer make a case that what he did so was obstruction in the textbook definition? Yes.
Thing is, Marcus. In this country we have the right to a trial by a jury of our peers. And since Trump is President (a fact which I’m sure makes you grind your teeth at night), his peers are Senators. And there is absolutely no way that the Senate will convict him of this imaginary process crime of a fruitless investigation into an imaginary crime set in motion by fraudulent mechanism.

The more you keep arguing your case, the more we know it’s just about getting rid of Trump by any means possible or even remotely probable, and nothing at all to do with the law.

marcus says

Come on. All Trump Cucks, represent !

I am not a Trump Cuck - didn't vote for him (but will gladly vote for him in 2020) - but think it is hilarious watching the Democrat's world come totally apart. They all KNEW Trump would be indicted by Mueller. They all KNEW that Trump's taxes would drive him from office.

Now they are hanging their hat on a letter from some former prosecutors. Zzzzzzzzzzzzzz.....

Did the Media interview a bunch of former prosecutors to ask them if they would have indicted Hillary for her secret server and destroying subpoenaed evidence? Of course not.

Trump is exposing the whole shit show of our corrupt Media and unaccountable bureaucracy.

marcus says

CBOEtrader says

Trump's behavior was all well within the normal realms of his role

"Everyone knows that part of the checks and balances our founding father intended was that if a sitting PResident is being investigated for something it's most definitely a "coup attempt" and the law is going to need to be broken to prevent it."

What is the context of this quote? More ambiguous, implicative communication from Marcus. I'd give you a C- grade in high school, failing in college.

Maybe try just making a statement, and backing it up w facts.

socal2 says

but will gladly vote for him in 2020

if leftists keep being terminally insane, I will consider holding my nose and voting for t-RUMP in 2020. Thanks, MSNPC!

I don’t understand how you can be obstructing justice if there is no underlying crime.

Mueller himself said that nothing Trump said could be construed as anything but a client conferring with legal advice. There was nothing actionable.

It's amazing how Dems were rubbing their hands with glee because Mueller is known as an overzealous overcharger who is famous even among Prosecutors for stretching a point to get a charge. Now they are denying that even he couldn't construe anything, and their Media-Dopey Followers are barking at the moon insisting something is hiding in the redactions, which is nonsense - also, several Legislators have SEEN the unredacted Mueller Report.

HonkpilledMaster says

Mueller himself said that nothing Trump said could be construed as anything but a client conferring with legal advice. There was nothing actionable.

Hmm where in the report is that statement? Maybe we should hear from Mueller himself, oh shit they don't want him to testify so I guess we can make all kinds of shit up.

HonkpilledMaster says

Mueller is known as an overzealous overcharger who is famous even among Prosecutors for stretching a point to get a charge

That must be why he didn't charge Trump for obstruction it had nothing to do with the OLC memo. Where did this come from? The "gateway pundit" a well known respected legal commentator?

Elgatouno says

Obstruction of justice,

How can there be obstruction of justice when there is no crime to obstruct. Trump did not collude with the Russians.

marcus says

The statement refers to felony obstruction of justice, something you don't have to be President to be guilty of.

He wouldn't have been in the position to call Mueller out had he not been a lawfully president they were trying to weaponize the Judaical system to overthrow him.

But if we're going to purely hypothetical then I would say all 720 of those former prosecutors are dead ass wrong.

Had this been a civilian case, everyone unlawfully entrapped by the Dirty Shit Mueller pulled would have had their cases dismissed. The assholes that raided Cohen's law office for evidence on Trump would have been fired and prosecuted. There is client privilege the Dems just ignored it in their quest to get Trump.
If this were a civilian case, Trump would have had it ended after the first 3 months. He would have taken it to the SCOTUS and had it thrown out and every law official involved would have been in serious career jeopardy. Trump would have sued every agency involved and made out like a bandit. So would Roger Stone and Paul Manafort.

My brother is a DEA agent, he's told me about a few cases where the guilty as hell defendants. Used the law against the case and got off on technicalities, not only that but his henchmen were cut lose because the soup was contaminated.