Ex-Prosecutors say that Trump would be indicted if he wasn't President

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...eral-prosecutors-assert/ar-AAAZ3J6?ocid=ientp

From the link:

More than 370 former federal prosecutors who worked in Republican and Democratic administrations have signed on to a statement asserting special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s findings would have produced obstruction charges against President Trump — if not for the office he held.

The statement — signed by myriad former career government employees as well as high-profile political appointees — offers a rebuttal to Attorney General William P. Barr’s determination that the evidence Mueller uncovered was “not sufficient” to establish that Trump committed a crime

 

More:

“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,” the former federal prosecutors wrote.

“We emphasize that these are not matters of close professional judgment,” they added. “Of course, there are potential defenses or arguments that could be raised in response to an indictment of the nature we describe here. . . . 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.”

 

Barr would not do what Mueller alleges he can't do.

This is blowing wisps of butt smoke into the wind.

It shows how eager Democrats are for any scraps to attack Trump.

Mueller went into this due to acts by Russia. Mueller cleared more than Trump, but all Americans for conspiracy for election fraud.

If Hillary gets charged, watch how fast Democrats tell us the same thing.

 

Yes, of course. Because you're so knowledgeable about this kind of thing.

Certainly more knowledgeable than 370 former prosecutors.

Good argument!

 

I guess this goes to show that the standard Nixon sent, that no one even a President is above the law, is not so anymore.

 

Challenge even one of my comments. Stop snarking me. This has to be about contents of a post, not about the poster.

 

When speaking of law, one must define the law and go into it as would the court of law that later gets the final decision. Even then, it is able to be appealed.

 

Thanks so much for the post. This is one of those moments when Trumpists will have to gather themselves to spin their way out of this news. That..........or what for the rebuttal from Trump TV to get their talking points.

 

From the article............

“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,” the former federal prosecutors wrote.

“We emphasize that these are not matters of close professional judgment,” they added. “Of course, there are potential defenses or arguments that could be raised in response to an indictment of the nature we describe here. . . . 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.”

 

Of course he would. Meantime, in an unrelated matter, Cone is going to prison and TRump, the man who gave the orders is not even charged because of his title.

Ladies and gentlemen, one thing we have learned, the President is above the law.

 

You didn't make any comment worth responding to with facts and reason; you made goofy fart comments.

If you think you did, kindly point it out.

 

Exactly. Cohen is going to jail for things that he did on behalf of Trump and the Trump organization at the request of Trump himself.

 

Poor Trumpists. They are now struggling with the incongruity of the laughable claim of "EXONERATION" getting slammed by the reality of a bipartisan evaluation of the facts.

 

The Democratic congressmen have a tough decision to make. The impeachment process would cause a huge political disruption, and there is almost no chance that the Republican Senate will vote in favor of impeachment. On the other hand if the Democrats do not pursue this, they are accepting or "approving" a new low standard for presidential behavior. I think that the Dems will wait for Mueller to testify and wait to see if the other 12 or 14 investigations produce enough evidence to push impeachment.

I predict that the Congressional Dems will vote for a condemnation or censure of the president and push for an electoral verdict against Trump and his supporters. A failed impeachment might be a political problem for the Dems, so there will be no impeachment unless more and persistent evidence forces it.

 

As important as it is for these former prosecutors to publicly share their collective years of experience on Don's exposure to criminal prosecution...............it's not particularly relevatory.

Only the spin from Billy the Bagman, the WH, and right wing media has kept the general public from understanding this to be the case from the time Mueller's report was released.

 

Twice in a row you talked bad about the poster. Do not test me ever.

 

We will see if the Democrats believe this by impeaching Trump.

 

That has to mean we will never hear that Hillary was exonerated. A chill ran down my spine when Comey blasted Hillary Clinton.

 

Ex-prosecutors say Hillary Clinton would have been Chelsea Manning's cellmate had it "not been her turn".

 

How was tax evasion done for Trump? Another Cohen conviction was over his election law violations. The court never found he did it for anybody but himself.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/walter...rs-prison-here-is-the-breakdown/#10750de53262

 

I asked you to point out what awesome points you made. Where are they?

P.S. Please don't scare me anymore!

 

The alleged request was embedded with snark.

I put it to you like this.

Robert said: ↑

 

Dems are making a political calculation about impeaching the Groper-in-Chief, not a legal one.

 

Naw the chief groper exited the whitehouse in 2001.

 

Like the one where you claim it was really a fart? Like that? Or the other unsupported opinions that fall from your fingertips like globs of chip grease?

Dude, don't just post blustery opinions. Post substance, supported by sources.

There. You're welcome.

The next time you're feeling violent about my posts, just throw a beer into your monitor and give it a good whack. I'll be sure to feel the sticky beer and painful smack from there.