370 federal prosecutors agree that Mueller’s evidence is obstruction (Putin, illegal, suspect)

[atltechdude]

Originally Posted by WaldoKitty

Wow you start a topic and this is the only way you seem to be able to defend the premise based on WaPo nonsense. Ad hominem.

It speaks for itself.

Most of us don't agree with the premise of that article.

No the only way you can defend your orange god is by throwing out facts and embracing fake alternative conspiracy bull****.

Those who fall victim to that pattern of perception are generally low information.

This is definitely not exclusive to the right but their inability to accept any imperfections in this POTUS is the most clear recent example of it.

[WiseManOnceSaid]

Originally Posted by TEPLimey

This isn’t a “poll.”

I’d like you to put up, though. I’m waiting for you to find these 371 former prosecutors you think you can “easily” find to put their pen to paper and endorse a conclusion that Trump’s actions are not prosecutable even in the absence of the OLC guidelines.

Same here... Show me yours and I'll show you mine...

[trobesmom]

Originally Posted by Rakin

There are probably 500 Conservative Prosecutors who disagree.

Luckily we don't let all these people have a vote. If we did Hillary would also be in Jail.

How do you know some of these prosecutors aren't conservative?

[WiseManOnceSaid]

Originally Posted by trobesmom

How do you know some of these prosecutors aren't conservative?

Because of the source and the agenda behind it.

[TEPLimey]

Originally Posted by WiseManOnceSaid

Same here... Show me yours and I'll show you mine...

There is a link to the source document signed by 370+ former prosecutors on this thread. Where’s the link to your 371 contrarian prosecutors’ memo you said you could “easily” provide?

[DaBurgh]

371 city data posters think the truth is in Ivankas emails

[trobesmom]

Originally Posted by wisemanoncesaid

because of the source and the agenda behind it.

Will this do?
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ex-...-not-president

You can see a list of their names and who they served under. You'll notice several served under Trump.

[WiseManOnceSaid]

Originally Posted by DaBurgh

371 city data posters think the truth is in Ivankas emails

I read the article once and skimmed through it another time. Care to show me which paragraph you're referring to? Cause I don't see no link...

The only reference to the list is in the attached video in which Corey Booker says it polling data.

[atltechdude]

Originally Posted by WiseManOnceSaid

Because of the source and the agenda behind it.

No you don't. That's a completely absurd conclusion being driven from an inability to accept that other people are capable of approaching an analysis from anything other than a partisan political perspective.

Lawyers are generally apolitical in nature, it's not until you get to SCOTUS level that a greater percentage of the legal cases take on a more political character.

Even the conservative Fox judge Napolitano agreed that as a legal matter, Mueller's evidence constituted obstruction.

[WiseManOnceSaid]

Originally Posted by atltechdude

No you don't. That's a completely absurd conclusion being driven from an inability to accept that other people are capable of approaching an analysis from anything other than a partisan political perspective.

Lawyers are generally apolitical in nature, it's not until you get to SCOTUS level that a greater percentage of the legal cases take on a more political character.

Even the conservative Fox judge Napolitano agreed that as a legal matter, Mueller's evidence constituted obstruction.

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.

Saying that people don't agree with Mueller's report and would sign their name to it is like saying people agree with Mueller's report and would sign their name to it... tit for tat.