When I lived in downtown Atlanta and Clinton was president. I always took Marta to work when Clinton was in town. We should have just closed the office but my boss was always if we are open usually we are open always.
why risk your reputation for someone who places no value of your professional advice and refuses to follow direction? as a professionsal in a different field, I have gotten to the point that I will not work for clients that do not place value on my advice and direction, regardless of how many times they pay me to do something that will never get approved. I place more value on my reputation and relationship with the regulatory authorities I have to work with on behalf of other clients than the profits that would be earned working for a select few PITA clients.
You mean law enforcement has a prejudice against all people who try and put themselves above the law and flaunt it? shocking. ever consider that DT is his own worst enemy?
You said “it doesn't take a criminal mastermind to appoint someone who hates Trump as the head of your Justice Department and simply get out of his way. I don't think most Republicans are saying that Joe Biden directly ordered this indictment from the top. It's simply what he wanted and he appointed people he liked to give him things that he wanted.” It seems reasonable to conclude from that statement you think Biden appointed Garland to go after Trump. But if that’s not what you meant, ok. I just don’t think it’s targeting if there’s an actual crime.
Apology accepted. But remember that our conversation started with me questioning why you claimed the entire DOJ hates Trump. Your first answer of "political groupthink" and "Democratic talking points" was, of course, a complete non-answer. Your second attempt was, essentially, "well all you guys think the same thing about about racism." It's good that you acknowledge that was false. So, do you think the problem is your attempt to lump the entire DOJ or the entire left side of the aisle into whatever negative category you think helps your argument? Maybe rethink that. Personally, I can't imagine the entire DOJ, or even most of it, is motivated by hatred of one man. My guess is that most or all are simply human beings trying to do their job well.
You can tell that Garland isn't trying to play it straight with Trump by how he killed the Durham investigation and fired the lead attorney. Oh wait, he didn't do any of that. He let it run to it's fruitless conclusion. Poor little picked on Trumpers. It's never about their eternal love for a criminal, it's just that the poor criminal is unfairly picked on.
How about you just admit you've been conned for 7 years and move on instead of this tit for tat baloney? YOU WERE CONNED. TRUMP MADE YOU LOOK LIKE A COMPLETE FOOL. You want so bad to rationalize this instead of dealing with reality. Trump has and always will be a scumbag. You supported him and he failed you. Don't try to drag everyone and everything else because you are pissed that you were taken by a conman. How about we deal in facts not your wishes?
I’m not saying every person in the DOJ hates Trump or Republicans or every person in the DOJ was appointed/hired to go after Trump. All I’m saying is that the people at the top have a clear motive against Trump as I’ve already described with Garland and Biden. And there’s already evidence of prejudice within the institutions of the FBI by people of influence like Peter Stzrok and Lisa Page. And even if you take all of that with a grain of salt. This indictment juxtaposed to the Hillary Clinton treatment only reinforces that conclusion. I’m sure there are a bunch of FBI agents who even like Trump. There is simply disparate control by Democrats or people who think like Democrats in the positions of influence and that creates this bubble and prejudice as to what “fair treatment” looks like. And the influential people are the ones that call the shots, not the people simply following instructions from the top. If you can’t take the Peter Stzrok and Lisa Page messages, the disparate treatment, or the motives as evidence of prejudice… I really don’t know what to tell you. You have an enormous blind spot at the expense of Republicans.
Let's assume that the DOJ and FBI are out to get Trump and he knows it. How monumentally stupid do you have to be in handing them this indictment on a silver platter? It would be one thing if he gave the documents back immediately when asked, or even fully complied with the subpoena. Then he may have a case of being unfairly targeted. But given everything laid out in the indictment? Completely self-inflicted wounds and any complaints about being targeted are just belly aching and deflection to avoid having to face the reality that Trump commited a blatant crime.
Simply mind-boggling that poster insists that there must be selective prosecution for Trump because of his unverified suspicion of...... selective prosecution. SMH
Didn’t Trump actually pay some respected lawyer a crazy retainer, and then that lawyer was “sidelined” in mere months? I think that may have been the NY case… but still. It’s not about $$$. It’s what happens when they get in a room with him. I can only imagine how the conversations go lol. The bottom line is even if we get past Trumps criminal actions, including now involving lawyers in his criminal schemes he also talks WAAAYYY too much. The vast majority of respectable attorneys aren’t going to be with him attacking prosecutors and witnesses. Hell not even criminal mafia attorneys would want to see their “clients” doing that publicly. In fact when he attacks witnesses who flip on him, that can be construed as witness intimidation and/or obstruction. More crimes from Mr. “Law and Order”!
And conveniently under your logic Trump could never be indicted for any crime. I suppose unless there's a Rebublican President, AG, FBI Director, and Judge? He does have two of the four at least since he appointed the FBI Director and assuming Judge Cannon does hear the case. That in itself is a benefit that no other criminal defendant in the country has.
A mistake easily and often made around here, bilaterally, bc far more often than not, the assumption is correct.
You have none of the above. You only have speculation. Don’t mistake that for evidence. It’s not even circumstantial. It’s literally just speculation and fanciful thinking on your part. Grasping at straws in your partisan fevered dream.
Clinton was investigated thoroughly. The FBI was critical of her, but concluded that they did not have sufficient evidence to prove she committed federal crimes "beyond a reasonable doubt". Therefore, they did not pursue an indictment. Clearly, the DOJ believed they have sufficient evidence to prove Trump committed federal crimes "beyond a reasonable doubt". Open-minded people reading the indictment would agree.
