Discussion in 'United States' started by Gatewood, Apr 7, 2019.
Oh there’s lots of evidence. Maybe not enough to indict but presidents can’t be indicted.
Yet no indictments so apparently Mueller disagrees with that assertion huh? Yet Schiff said there’s ample evidence when like I said there’s evidence needed for criminal proceedings and “evidence” for partisans in court of public opinion. Schiff knows that yet he didn’t make the clear distinction. Funny how people who get upset at Trumps vague use of terms have no issue when their side does the same thing.
What’s the standard for “clear and convincing evidence” if not indictments?
President can’t be indicted, only impeached.
Funny to hear a trump supporter complain about partisanship lol
Was Nixon indicted? Was he innocent?
See partisan..... it’s exactly why your ok with Schiff using words recklessly but hate Nunes.
A coffee boy for trump who carried confidential evidence so trump and his criminal regime could see it....
I answered your question about what I found objectionable with Schiff, customarily it would be your turn to answer my question. So again what the standard on clear and convincing evidence?
I don’t take either of their claims as the gospel
Exactly my problem with the use of that phrase by Schiff. I’m not a Trump supporter but I support him much more than the current batch of democrats.
Your jealousy of my impressive intellect is noted.
Your intellect noted.
TDS Victim: “Barr is hiding something.”
Normal person: “What’s he hiding?”
TDS Victim: “Something, definitely.”
Normal person: “Do you have evidence of that?”
TDS Victim: “No, but he’s definitely hiding something.”
The standard in criminal matters is "beyond a reasonable doubt", which is a higher standard than "clear and convincing evidence".
The facially absurd notion in your post is that trumpers are somehow "normal". The affliction seems to mainfiest itself by making goofy claims like "he's exonerated" when a 400 page report says that he specifically is not exonerated.
Says he is not guilty too. That is done. Time for the abnormal to move on.
No, he resigned.
That depends on what the meaning of is is.
Well as he is a life time Republican you might be right but I do not think so.
How many of those thugs been charged or convicted of a crime?
1) define human garbage - mine definition is someone who hates the founding principles = has no respect for essential liberty and consent of the governed - the rule of law and the principles of justice.
2) Do you know anything about Mueller's track record ?
You can start here if you are interested ..
LOL for a moment I was under the impression you was talking about Trump not Mueller who was appointed to be FBI director by Bush and then approve by the senate unanimously.
Yes he seems a worthless thug in the Trump reality at least.
You couldn't have read the articles in the links. I did; what a freaking let down.
1. The Politico story contained a bare claim by "retired" Darrell Issa. He offered no evidence of a "list". In fact, all that *********** did was refer to the story in the 4th link that you posted. More on that nonsense later.
2. That was a story claiming that Obama was "being mean" from a budget standpoint to red states, not a story on an "enemies list". C'mon, dude.
3. This was a story about ads referring to Romney supporters, not an "enemies list". Again, absurd.
4. This is the same thing as 3.
When you're generating a post, do better than google a search phrase. You have to read the stories. Those "articles" were just plain stupid.
Mueller was a worthless thug long before "Russiagate". The fact that such a scum bucket was put in this position is proof positive of how corrupt our political system is.
The fact that a low level NY conman who is also a first class demagogue can become president is more of a concern to me.
Separate names with a comma.