The word "if" gets a workout from you, doesn't it? If the Moon went out of its orbit, we'd.... If the Democrats just killed themselves, we'd all be.... If conservatives had their way, they'd.... If is fun. But it's still only fantasy.
Libertarian, and likely to the right of you on things like economics. I've explained why the point is a straw man, though I understand that you can't actually defend it.
The SDNY doesn't mess around, and they've offered AMI immunity after they gave up information about the other major campaign finance violation. Add to that the desperation with which Trump and Barr are trying to replace the leadership there . . . I mean, you can keep chanting to yourself that they have nothing if you want. I'd be more skeptical. Then again, I'm not invested in Trump. I notice you didn't actually answer the question, but I suspect we both know why.
Cohen committed numerous crimes over years unrelated to the political hoax that was the Russian probe. he should be in prison doing his time stone was caught up solely in what we now know was a political hoax that there was no bases to start
He knows this very well. But he has nothing else. In a nutshell, an American president commuted the sentence of a person convicted by a jury of lying to shield that very president. Those are the indisputable facts.
'In 1972, I served as an assistant special prosecutor for the Watergate Special Prosecution Force, which investigated the connection between the White House and the break-in at the Democratic National Committee headquarters, the subsequent cover-up and other crimes connected with the White House under Richard Nixon. And nothing that I saw then — even during the so-called Saturday Night Massacre, when Nixon ordered his attorney general to fire the special prosecutor — rises to what we are witnessing now with President Trump. The commutation last week of Roger Stone’s sentence is the latest of multiple, brazen efforts to make the fulfillment of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation all but impossible." https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/13/...l?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage
Wait, this Cohen sounds familiar. Is he the guy who was supposed to testify in front of congress and dish all the dirt on Trump and finally take the president down? How'd that work out.
That is the reason the left objects. The law let Trump do it. Just as it let Obama, who did it far, far more.
How could whomever Stone talked to or not talked to about info on what WikiLeaks might or might not have and what they might or might not do with it have any bearing whatsoever on impeaching a president, ignoring of course the fanciful make believe irrational world the current House lives in??? You do realize of course (or maybe not) that Mueller's team came up with Stone equals zero in the area of Trump campaign and Russian coordination. So they got him on ticky tac process crimes. I mean Mueller has to show something he did for our $50 million he spent doing it.
I understand your confusion. It seems to hinge on the idea that because Trump hasn't been "taken down" it means there is insufficient reason or evidence to do that. A conclusion that's wrong on both counts. For example, if not for the prohibition against indicting a sitting prez Cohen's testimony.......................https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opini...ndividual-1-here-s-why-prosecutors-ncna947016 ................would have resulted in Trump being named as a co-conspirator to Cohen's confessed crime. One day, he still might. But first, Biden will have to remove Barr's hand picked lackey's in the US attorney's offices in NY and DC.
Because he could have proved to Mueller that Trump lied in his written answers regarding what Trump knew about Wikileaks plans to dump the material given to them by the Russian GRU. This is a classic example of having to go over old ground because you folks have so much disinformation swirling around in your heads. The typical response to my first paragraph is to say there is no proof Russia gave the hacked material to Wikileaks............an assertion which is unequivocally untrue.
I base this on Cohen's plea deal in which he confesses to the crime and implicates Trump in the same crime. It would be incomprehensible that you didn't know that if not for you being a Trumpleton. Like I said in the last post, it's infuriating to have to cover old, indisputable, factual ground because you folks are either misinformed or plead ignorance.
https://www.lawfareblog.com/document-michael-cohen-plea-agreement Jeeeeeeeez, how much crow can you eat in one day?
As a matter of fact there is. Cohen has photocopies of the checks Trump wrote to reimburse Cohen for the hush money he paid to Daniels on Trump's behalf and at his direction. The SC decision to force Trump to comply with the law and turn over tax documents to the NY AG will help seal the deal.
As a matter of fact there is. Cohen has photocopies of the checks Trump wrote to reimburse Cohen for the hush money he paid to Daniels on Trump's behalf and at his direction. The SC decision to force Trump to comply with the law and turn over tax documents to the NY AG will help seal the deal. Like I said in the last post, it's infuriating to have to cover old, indisputable, factual ground because you folks are either misinformed or plead ignorance. Look it up.
Sounds like an impeachable offense. I wonder why the democrats never bothered. Oh I know.... One would think this would be a great campaign issue, Trump being arrested the moment he steps out of the White House but the democrats have moved on because it's all bollocks. Cohen has checks. If the checks don't include the memo "reimbursement for Stormy Daniels hush money" they're just checks a client wrote to his attorney.
NEWS FLASH! He couldn't have and didn't. Mueller got nothing against Trump from his persecution of Stone. Do try to keep up.