Now you are just making stuff up as you go along. I never said just about every former prosecutor supported indictment. I said just about every former federal prosecutor that reviewed the report believed several instances of obstruction were set out in it and there was adequate evidence to SUPPORT criminal prosecution. I generally choose my words pretty carefully, you would be well served to pay closer attention and perhaps to endeavor to do the same. What I wrote and what you apparently think you read are not the same thing. I can't help you with reading comprehension issues. Take a look at the following, maybe this will be clear enough for you: STATEMENT BY FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTORS "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 Mueller report describes several acts that satisfy all of the elements for an obstruction charge: conduct that obstructed or attempted to obstruct the truth-finding process, as to which the evidence of corrupt intent and connection to pending proceedings is overwhelming." It was signed by over 1,000 of them. What do you have on this issue again? Nada, zip, nothing. Grumpy old guy disagreeing isn't going to cut it. I have no idea why Trump was not indicted for obstructing justice just like I have no idea why he hasn't been indicted for several other things he has done, Lord knows there are enough of them. Hopefully this lack of indictments will change very shortly. The US Senate was never going to vote to convict on the impeachment articles, your current Republican party is not overly concerned with doing the legally and morally correct thing. Could the house have added articles for obstruction of justice? Absolutely. Was there adequate evidence to support conviction of them? Absolutely. Were enough Republicans ever going to vote to convict when it reached the Senate? Never in a million years. And what is your obsession with circle jerks, strip clubs and now, a new one, "crevices of each other's buttholes?" You have something going on there sexually that isn't particularly healthy. Perhaps a drag show would be just the ticket to your future well-being.
Where are you getting this from? I have never once heard what you are alleging about Martin’s actions.
House Republicans Demand Testimony from Manhattan DA as Trump Indictment Looms The Trump admin and gop set the precedent if congressional subpoenas are issued for the NY DA, they aren't worth the paper they are printed on and can be ignored with apparent impunity. That said, all they did was send a letter LOL. C'mon Gym Jordan, grow a set and issue a subpoena.
Firing is nowhere close to the same thing as “locking somebody up.” I also don’t think it’s fair to hold Trump to a standard that he never actually implemented his four years as President.
Trump were in the White House and this was the 2024 Democratic front runner being investigated/indicted/prosecuted in Florida, you guys would be screaming bloody murder right now and you know it. You’d be calling this banana republic behavior.
If he's indicted by Bragg (technically the grand jury that Bragg convened) it will be for the Stormy Daniels payoff and it's still by no means a certainty. He's also being investigated for election law violations in Georgia, mishandling of classified documents at Mar-a-Lago and inciting the January 6th insurrection and could end up being indicted for all of the above. Although they were handled as civil matters he came very close to criminal violations with his fraudulent university and his phony charitable foundation and let's not forget his valuation of properties using greatly inflated values when trying to use them as collateral for loans and much lower values for taxation.
I believe there are multiple investigations but that the reportedly imminent NY indictment relates solely to the Stormy Daniels matter.
The dems, for all of their faults, wouldn’t ever nominate, elect, and then stand behind a man like Trump so that it ever got to this point. The closest would be Clinton, but he is child’s play compared to this guy.
This is what trump always does. Paints his POV in not only the best possible light but one that often defies reality, makes that the truth and then anything that doesn’t meet it becomes a lie or a conspiracy against him. He’s done it time and time again and it still seems to work with his supporters no matter how many times he ends up worse off for it. But for this case, if you think the DA was ever going to bring charges on the word of Cohen and his history against a former president, you’re crazy. Either they have hard evidence to convict or they won’t try. Cohen is a facilitator here, nothing more. I still think this is the weakest of the cases against him though, wish it had been the third or fourth to go. My fear is he skates on this one and it scares the other prosecutors off, when they have much easier paths to conviction.
We will see, but I have never claimed it was, at least for this. I do believe he’s gonna get prosecuted in Georgia at a minimum though, unless something changes. I think he should be prosecuted for the classified docs, but Biden and Pence largely blew up that case, unless they get him for lying and obfuscating. The other two were cooperative.
This man is squeaky clean... I'd be surprised if he broke a law that they can pin on him. How many times has he been investigated at the federal level and still.... NOTHING. All presidents can take documents with them at the end of their term. And yes, they have the right to declassify at will without having to tell some other lower agencies. Unless we need to see all of Biden and Obama's declassified docs that they took too... this is a nothingburger. We cannot have a special set of laws for one president, and not all presidents equally. Equal justice is not just a catch phrase.
