Two years wasted on the Mueller Investigation. How will the media discredit President Trump next?

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
No wonder pikyernose and bugs want to talk about anything other than the crimes that Trump committed as detailed in Mueller's report.

Trump would have been charged with obstruction were he not president, hundreds of former federal prosecutors assert

link to article

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.

“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.”

 

pikachuriu

Well-Known Member
No wonder pikyernose and bugs want to talk about anything other than the crimes that Trump committed as detailed in Mueller's report.

Trump would have been charged with obstruction were he not president, hundreds of former federal prosecutors assert

link to article

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.

“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.”
370 former federal prosecutors also mistakenly believe that Trump could've been indicted. I hope you'll contact them and tell them federal prosecutors impeach, not indict. Let us know their response.
 

Herb & Suds

Well-Known Member
370 former federal prosecutors also mistakenly believe that Trump could've been indicted. I hope you'll contact them and tell them federal prosecutors impeach, not indict. Let us know their response.
Show me proof federal prosecutors "impeach" moron ?
 

Moses Mobetta

Well-Known Member
No wonder pikyernose and bugs want to talk about anything other than the crimes that Trump committed as detailed in Mueller's report.

Trump would have been charged with obstruction were he not president, hundreds of former federal prosecutors assert

link to article

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.

“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.”
This is a great article, thank you for posting :)
 
Top