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 ?"