Two ex-Watergate prosecutors agree ‘there’s enough evidence right now to indict Donald Trump’

[mudwhistle]

What law did he break?

obstruction of justice.

emoluments clause.

that's just a start...

There is no proof of obstruction.
There is no evidence that he obstructed.
The fact that they've found zero evidence isn't proof of obstruction BTW.

 

[Esmeralda]

Two ex-Watergate prosecutors agree ‘there’s enough evidence right now to indict Donald Trump’

Bob Brigham
24 Nov 2017 at 20:58 ET
AddThis Sharing Buttons
Share to FacebookFacebook2.7KShare to TumblrTumblrShare to MoreMore78

Former Watergate prosecutors Jill Wine-Banks and Nick Akerman joined MSNBC host Chris Hayes on Friday night to discuss the latest revelations about Michael Flynn potentially flipping and testifying against President Donald Trump.

Acknowledging her history, Hayes asked Wine-Banks whether there was enough evidence for an obstruction of justice charge against President Trump.

Two ex-Watergate prosecutors agree ‘there’s enough evidence right now to indict Donald Trump’

Wow, this nothingburger is piled high 10 feet high with every kind of meat you can think of. It is fucking juicy!!! Trump is fucking going down!

These leftist idiots are suffering from Dementia.

Hillary couldn't be indicted even after proof that she committed espionage and obstruction of justice, but Trump supposedly can be indicted for offending some Snowflake SOB.

What 'proof'? Serious, concrete proof? Not rumors and scandal mongering.

 

[Esmeralda]

What law did he break?

obstruction of justice.

emoluments clause.

that's just a start...

There is no proof of obstruction.
There is no evidence that he obstructed.
The fact that they've found zero evidence isn't proof of obstruction BTW.

Firing the FBI director who is investigating your and/or your people is obstruction of justice.

 

[beagle9]

What law did he break?

obstruction of justice.

emoluments clause.

that's just a start...

There is no proof of obstruction.
There is no evidence that he obstructed.
The fact that they've found zero evidence isn't proof of obstruction BTW.

. They are hopeful that Mueller can somehow twist something into something while no one with half a brain is watching. Mueller they figure is working strictly for them, and he might be, but If he is then the huge conflicts of interest continues on and on and on in all of this.

 

[beagle9]

What law did he break?

obstruction of justice.

emoluments clause.

that's just a start...

There is no proof of obstruction.
There is no evidence that he obstructed.
The fact that they've found zero evidence isn't proof of obstruction BTW.

Firing the FBI director who is investigating your and/or your people is obstruction of justice.

. Didn't fire him for that. Comey couldn't investigate a local lemonade stand all due to his political corruption.

 

[mudwhistle]

What law did he break?

obstruction of justice.

emoluments clause.

that's just a start...

There is no proof of obstruction.
There is no evidence that he obstructed.
The fact that they've found zero evidence isn't proof of obstruction BTW.

. They are hopeful that Mueller can somehow twist something into something while no one with half a brain is watching. Mueller they figure is working strictly for them, and he might be, but If he is then the huge conflicts of interest continues on and on and on in all of this.

I think it's clear they don't care if the indictments are illegal or not.
Democrats aren't concerned with the law anyway....only how it can be used against the right.
This is why I feel that liberals are the worst threat to America we have today.

 

[Aldo Raine]

What law did he break?

obstruction of justice.

emoluments clause.

that's just a start...

There is no proof of obstruction.
There is no evidence that he obstructed.
The fact that they've found zero evidence isn't proof of obstruction BTW.

Firing the FBI director who is investigating your and/or your people is obstruction of justice.

. Didn't fire him for that. Comey couldn't investigate a local lemonade stand all due to his political corruption.

Didn't Trump say he fired Comey because of the Russian investigation?

 

[Correll]

Two ex-Watergate prosecutors agree ‘there’s enough evidence right now to indict Donald Trump’

Bob Brigham
24 Nov 2017 at 20:58 ET
AddThis Sharing Buttons
Share to FacebookFacebook2.7KShare to TumblrTumblrShare to MoreMore78

Former Watergate prosecutors Jill Wine-Banks and Nick Akerman joined MSNBC host Chris Hayes on Friday night to discuss the latest revelations about Michael Flynn potentially flipping and testifying against President Donald Trump.

Acknowledging her history, Hayes asked Wine-Banks whether there was enough evidence for an obstruction of justice charge against President Trump.

Two ex-Watergate prosecutors agree ‘there’s enough evidence right now to indict Donald Trump’

Wow, this nothingburger is piled high 10 feet high with every kind of meat you can think of. It is fucking juicy!!! Trump is fucking going down!

YOu impeach Trump and you will tear this country apart forever.


Is that really what you want?

 

[beagle9]

What law did he break?

obstruction of justice.

emoluments clause.

that's just a start...

There is no proof of obstruction.
There is no evidence that he obstructed.
The fact that they've found zero evidence isn't proof of obstruction BTW.

Firing the FBI director who is investigating your and/or your people is obstruction of justice.

. Didn't fire him for that. Comey couldn't investigate a local lemonade stand all due to his political corruption.

Didn't Trump say he fired Comey because of the Russian investigation?

Got a link ?

 

[Esmeralda]

What law did he break?

obstruction of justice.

emoluments clause.

that's just a start...

There is no proof of obstruction.
There is no evidence that he obstructed.
The fact that they've found zero evidence isn't proof of obstruction BTW.

Firing the FBI director who is investigating your and/or your people is obstruction of justice.

. Didn't fire him for that. Comey couldn't investigate a local lemonade stand all due to his political corruption.

The only fault you find with him is that he was fired by Trump who may end up being impeached for doing so. Otherwise, before that, the cons had no problem with him. He testified about negative things concerning how Trump treated him, so now he's your enemy. Before that, nothing.

 

[Esmeralda]

Two ex-Watergate prosecutors agree ‘there’s enough evidence right now to indict Donald Trump’

Bob Brigham
24 Nov 2017 at 20:58 ET
AddThis Sharing Buttons
Share to FacebookFacebook2.7KShare to TumblrTumblrShare to MoreMore78

Former Watergate prosecutors Jill Wine-Banks and Nick Akerman joined MSNBC host Chris Hayes on Friday night to discuss the latest revelations about Michael Flynn potentially flipping and testifying against President Donald Trump.

Acknowledging her history, Hayes asked Wine-Banks whether there was enough evidence for an obstruction of justice charge against President Trump.

Two ex-Watergate prosecutors agree ‘there’s enough evidence right now to indict Donald Trump’

Wow, this nothingburger is piled high 10 feet high with every kind of meat you can think of. It is fucking juicy!!! Trump is fucking going down!

YOu impeach Trump and you will tear this country apart forever.


Is that really what you want?

Trump is tearing this country apart now: we need to get rid of him.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

I think it's clear they don't care if the indictments are illegal or not.
Democrats aren't concerned with the law anyway....only how it can be used against the right.
This is why I feel that liberals are the worst threat to America we have today.

all true...this is how communists work, elections only matter when they appear to go the lefts way, when they do not it is time to bring in the judges to "fix" things

 

[mudwhistle]

What law did he break?

obstruction of justice.

emoluments clause.

that's just a start...

There is no proof of obstruction.
There is no evidence that he obstructed.
The fact that they've found zero evidence isn't proof of obstruction BTW.

Firing the FBI director who is investigating your and/or your people is obstruction of justice.

. Didn't fire him for that. Comey couldn't investigate a local lemonade stand all due to his political corruption.

Didn't Trump say he fired Comey because of the Russian investigation?

He fired Comey because he was incompetent.
It doesn't matter if he mishandled the fake Russian investigation or any other investigation.
Comey rewarded him by admitting he leaked information about an FBI investigation to the press, a felony BTW.

 

[August West]

These morons believe that President Trump firing an incompetent Comey is somehow illegal.

Firing the guy who is investigating you is going to end up how? Think hard now!

 

[mudwhistle]

I think it's clear they don't care if the indictments are illegal or not.
Democrats aren't concerned with the law anyway....only how it can be used against the right.
This is why I feel that liberals are the worst threat to America we have today.

all true...this is how communists work, elections only matter when they appear to go the lefts way, when they do not it is time to bring in the judges to "fix" things

I wonder if Hillary really thinks refusing to accept an election result it truly a threat to Democracy?

 

[nat4900]

“Indict” is simply a synonym for “accuse”.

Well, NOT quite.......To "accuse" is more a non-legal, layman's term readily used by anyone, while "indict" is a formal accusation BACKED UP by a grand jury.......

 

[Correll]

Two ex-Watergate prosecutors agree ‘there’s enough evidence right now to indict Donald Trump’

Bob Brigham
24 Nov 2017 at 20:58 ET
AddThis Sharing Buttons
Share to FacebookFacebook2.7KShare to TumblrTumblrShare to MoreMore78

Former Watergate prosecutors Jill Wine-Banks and Nick Akerman joined MSNBC host Chris Hayes on Friday night to discuss the latest revelations about Michael Flynn potentially flipping and testifying against President Donald Trump.

Acknowledging her history, Hayes asked Wine-Banks whether there was enough evidence for an obstruction of justice charge against President Trump.

Two ex-Watergate prosecutors agree ‘there’s enough evidence right now to indict Donald Trump’

Wow, this nothingburger is piled high 10 feet high with every kind of meat you can think of. It is fucking juicy!!! Trump is fucking going down!

YOu impeach Trump and you will tear this country apart forever.


Is that really what you want?

Trump is tearing this country apart now: we need to get rid of him.

Trump is doing nothing radical or extreme.


Your hysteria, panic and hate mongering are what is tearing this nation apart.

 

[Esmeralda]

obstruction of justice.

emoluments clause.

that's just a start...

There is no proof of obstruction.
There is no evidence that he obstructed.
The fact that they've found zero evidence isn't proof of obstruction BTW.

Firing the FBI director who is investigating your and/or your people is obstruction of justice.

. Didn't fire him for that. Comey couldn't investigate a local lemonade stand all due to his political corruption.

Didn't Trump say he fired Comey because of the Russian investigation?

He fired Comey because he was incompetent.
It doesn't matter if he mishandled the fake Russian investigation or any other investigation.
Comey rewarded him by admitting he leaked information about an FBI investigation to the press, a felony BTW.

"He fired Comey because he was incompetent."

Bullshit. Absolute Bullshit. LOL Nobody except bat blind Trumpettes believes that. No one.

 

[Esmeralda]

Two ex-Watergate prosecutors agree ‘there’s enough evidence right now to indict Donald Trump’

Bob Brigham
24 Nov 2017 at 20:58 ET
AddThis Sharing Buttons
Share to FacebookFacebook2.7KShare to TumblrTumblrShare to MoreMore78

Former Watergate prosecutors Jill Wine-Banks and Nick Akerman joined MSNBC host Chris Hayes on Friday night to discuss the latest revelations about Michael Flynn potentially flipping and testifying against President Donald Trump.

Acknowledging her history, Hayes asked Wine-Banks whether there was enough evidence for an obstruction of justice charge against President Trump.

Two ex-Watergate prosecutors agree ‘there’s enough evidence right now to indict Donald Trump’

Wow, this nothingburger is piled high 10 feet high with every kind of meat you can think of. It is fucking juicy!!! Trump is fucking going down!

YOu impeach Trump and you will tear this country apart forever.


Is that really what you want?

Trump is tearing this country apart now: we need to get rid of him.

Trump is doing nothing radical or extreme.


Your hysteria, panic and hate mongering are what is tearing this nation apart.

You people are so full of shit it is just incredible.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

I wonder if Hillary really thinks refusing to accept an election result it truly a threat to Democracy?

it depends on whether she won or lost said election