Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
More specifics: Rudy says Trump's legal team is drafting a 50-page counter report to the Mueller report.
WHY?! I thought Trump was completely exonerated...right?
To make sure I got this right:
based off a 4-page summary of the report written by his handpicked AG, Donald Trump claimed he was "totally exonerated."
But now that Mueller's entire write up is being released soon, Trump's legal team is preparing a counter-report to the Mueller report -- a counter to the report that originally proved Trump innocent?!?!?!
I think it's due to the fact that so many left-wingers refuse to accept that the report exonerates Trump, and they're bringing up idiotic and irrelevant stuff like Martha Stewart and Lewis Libby, and they desperately need someone to explain the law to them. In other words, you people are too stupid/crazy to understand the Mueller report and its implications, and Trump's lawyers are willing to help you.
11 legal experts have gone on record to say that's not how it works. There's at least 2 cases that helped to set the precedent (Martha Stewart and Scooter Libby).
Once a crime was committed.
So... Show me a man and I will find you a crime? Is that it? Is that how you see Justice?
Martha Stewart and Scooter Libby... No, that is not how that worked. They had a crime and worked the evidence.
depends on the story told.
1. Trumps son met with a Russian lawyer promising dirt on Hillary.
2. Russian lawyer met with Hillary Clinton paid lawyers who worked with Brit national who worked with Russians to get dirt on Trump. Then the Russian lawyer met with Trumps son promising to give dirt on Hillary, only to talk about Russian adoption... then met with those Hillary lawyers.
if option 1 is in the report then eyebrows might go up.
if Option 2 is in the report then that's a different kind of concern. PS Option 2 is actually what happened.
Once a crime was committed.
So... Show me a man and I will find you a crime? Is that it? Is that how you see Justice?
Martha Stewart and Scooter Libby... No, that is not how that worked. They had a crime and worked the evidence.
Wrong. Obstruction of justice is interfering with an investigation. Is it OK to pay off witnesses as long as you eventually are found not guilty?
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,329 posts, read 54,389,283 times
Reputation: 40736
Quote:
Originally Posted by allenk893
What part of the special council indefinitely stating "The investigation led by Robert S. Mueller III found no evidence that President Trump or any of his aides coordinated with the Russian government’s 2016 election interference" wasn't clear the first time?
The investigation is over and people are moving on. Try focusing on an actual campaign that can win for next year.
The part that wasn't clear was whether Trump was exonerated of obstructing justice. I guess you'd rather just ignore that, eh?
Why? It was a million percent legal, and it was set up by the Clinton campaign to see if they could entrap the Trump campaign into making a legal mistake. So if it looked bad for anyone, it would look bad for Clinton.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
