Don't click or your IP will be banned


Hittin' The Web with the Allman Brothers Band Forum
You are not logged in

< Last Thread   Next Thread >Ascending sortDescending sorting  
Author: Subject: Hundreds of ex-prosecutors claim Trump would have been indicted if not president

Sublime Peach





Posts: 7550
(7550 all sites)
Registered: 7/18/2010
Status: Offline

  posted on 5/7/2019 at 01:48 PM
Can you believe this? Hundreds of ex-prosecutors, both dems and repubs, all this dumb? Why don't they just stop whining and get over it? They all just have it in for Trump, buncha deepstaters.

from Fox News:

https://www.bing.com/amp/s/www.foxnews.com/politics/ex-prosecutors-argue-tr ump-would-have-been-indicted-by-mueller-if-not-president.amp



 
Replies:

Peach Extraordinaire



Karma:
Posts: 4194
(4192 all sites)
Registered: 8/26/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 5/7/2019 at 04:42 PM
The surprising thing here is that this was reported by Fox News.
 

Ultimate Peach



Karma:
Posts: 3149
(3148 all sites)
Registered: 10/5/2005
Status: Offline

  posted on 5/7/2019 at 06:45 PM
I wonder if their poll included a question about Hillary and her email saga?

 

____________________

 

Sublime Peach



Karma:
Posts: 7550
(7550 all sites)
Registered: 7/18/2010
Status: Offline

  posted on 5/7/2019 at 07:14 PM
Yeah really. Of course those deepstate traiturds didn't mention Hilarys email. It wasn't a poll, it is a statement they are all signing, here in part:

from same Fox News link:

"Each of us believes that the conduct of President Trump described in Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report would, in the case of any other person not covered by the Office of Legal Counsel policy against indicting a sitting President, result in multiple felony charges for obstruction of justice,” the statement read.

The statement they are signing is being circulated by "Democracy Now". Democracy. That figures. I'd rather be Russian than democratic.

 

Extreme Peach



Karma:
Posts: 1171
(1171 all sites)
Registered: 8/10/2014
Status: Offline

  posted on 5/7/2019 at 08:10 PM
quote:
.

The statement they are signing is being circulated by "Democracy Now". Democracy. That figures. I'd rather be Russian than democratic.

.

What a coincidence so would Trump! .

[Edited on 5/8/2019 by Bill_Graham]

 

____________________
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." attributed to Ben Franklin

 

Extreme Peach



Karma:
Posts: 1171
(1171 all sites)
Registered: 8/10/2014
Status: Offline

  posted on 5/7/2019 at 08:13 PM
quote:
I wonder if their poll included a question about Hillary and her email saga?


It has been 2 years now and Hillary is not President, but Trump is, so your point is moot.

 

____________________
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." attributed to Ben Franklin

 

Peach Extraordinaire



Karma:
Posts: 4194
(4192 all sites)
Registered: 8/26/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 5/7/2019 at 08:49 PM
quote:
I wonder if their poll included a question about Hillary and her email saga?


Right out of the playbook; when you can't defend Trump, bring up Hillary. He obviously used this tactic this time because the "Fake News" tactic couldn't be used since it was reported by Fox News.

 

Sublime Peach



Karma:
Posts: 7550
(7550 all sites)
Registered: 7/18/2010
Status: Offline

  posted on 5/7/2019 at 11:02 PM
Those dang prosecutors. What do they know about law. Why would they beat this dead horse. They are dumb. I am smart.
 

Maximum Peach



Karma:
Posts: 9618
(9643 all sites)
Registered: 4/27/2003
Status: Offline

  posted on 5/7/2019 at 11:46 PM
Have a trial.

That is what should happen.

I don't know if he obstructed or not. It's a legal matter. The President should not be immune to the same laws that apply to everyone else. Did Mueller not indict because of the OLC thing that a sitting President can not be indicted? That is BS, why not? Have Mueller answer the question himself and we'll see.

 

Peach Extraordinaire



Karma:
Posts: 4056
(4062 all sites)
Registered: 10/5/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 5/8/2019 at 07:08 AM
quote:
Have a trial.

That is what should happen.

I don't know if he obstructed or not. It's a legal matter. The President should not be immune to the same laws that apply to everyone else. Did Mueller not indict because of the OLC thing that a sitting President can not be indicted? That is BS, why not? Have Mueller answer the question himself and we'll see.


A good start would be to have Mueller testify before Congress, but we know that all efforts will be made by Trump & Barr to prohibit that. The question is why? If Trump has been "exonerated" as he says and has done nothing wrong, then why does he want to keep Mueller from in front of a TV camera to answer questions? For someone who thinks he was exonerated and claims to be transparent, Trump certainly acts awfully guilty and wants to suppress any and all oversight.

Think about it. We've heard mostly from Trump, Barr, and Rudy. The guy who conducted a 2+ years investigation should be allowed to answer questions. We don't need Barr interpreting or misinterpreting on Mueller's behalf, and we don't need Trump making lies out of what was in the report. We need "true" transparency; not Trump telling us he's transparent.

 

Peach Master



Karma:
Posts: 788
(788 all sites)
Registered: 11/8/2008
Status: Offline

  posted on 5/8/2019 at 09:08 AM
quote:
Did Mueller not indict because of the OLC thing that a sitting President can not be indicted? That is BS, why not? Have Mueller answer the question himself and we'll see.

Mueller HAS answered the question - he followed the DOJ MEMO (not a constitution-based law) in deciding not to indict. As I said when Mueller said that was his reasoning, he punted. Rather than finish his job & indict or send it to a grand jury or indict under seal so it could be adjudicated after Trump left office, he didn't. He threw his investigation into the air for someone else - Congress, another jurisdiction, a plaintiff w/standing - to make the call. What prosecutor does that? The worst that could happen is that Trump would invoke DOJ policy & the courts would rightfully decide whether a sitting president can be indicted & under what circumstances. That's the very least we should expect - a judicial ruling as to whether a government department or the legislative branch makes policy.


 

Sublime Peach



Karma:
Posts: 7550
(7550 all sites)
Registered: 7/18/2010
Status: Offline

  posted on 5/8/2019 at 10:17 AM
This goes way beyond obstruction or election interference. That stuff is probably nothing compared to the real agenda They don't want their business/political ties with Russia exposed. Why all the noise about Russia? Nobody just made it up, it is smoke from a huge underground fire. Mueller probably dug down enough to feel the heat and smell the sulphur and brimstone - and knows his extended family will be mysteriously dying one by one over the next couple generations if he pushes any more.

Paranoid much? Yep, so was Paul Revere.

 

Maximum Peach



Karma:
Posts: 9618
(9643 all sites)
Registered: 4/27/2003
Status: Offline

  posted on 5/8/2019 at 09:23 PM
quote:
quote:
Did Mueller not indict because of the OLC thing that a sitting President can not be indicted? That is BS, why not? Have Mueller answer the question himself and we'll see.

Mueller HAS answered the question - he followed the DOJ MEMO (not a constitution-based law) in deciding not to indict. As I said when Mueller said that was his reasoning, he punted. Rather than finish his job & indict or send it to a grand jury or indict under seal so it could be adjudicated after Trump left office, he didn't. He threw his investigation into the air for someone else - Congress, another jurisdiction, a plaintiff w/standing - to make the call. What prosecutor does that? The worst that could happen is that Trump would invoke DOJ policy & the courts would rightfully decide whether a sitting president can be indicted & under what circumstances. That's the very least we should expect - a judicial ruling as to whether a government department or the legislative branch makes policy.




Yes, you are right. Thank you for clearly stating that.

From the Executive Summary of Volume ll


quote:
We first describe the considerations that guided our obstruction-of-justice investigation, and then provide an overview of this Volume:

First, a traditional prosecution or declination decision entails a binary determination to initiate or decline a prosecution, but we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment. The Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) has issued an opinion finding that "the indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions" in violation of "the constitutional separation of powers."1 Given the role of the Special Counsel as an attorney in the Department of Justice and the framework of the Special Counsel regulations, see 28 U.S.C. § 515; 28 C.F.R. § 600.7(a), this Office accepted OLC's legal conclusion for the purpose of exercising prosecutorial jurisdiction. And apart from OLC's constitutional view, we recognized that a federal criminal accusation against a sitting President would place burdens on the President's capacity to govern and potentially preempt constitutional processes for addressing presidential misconduct.2

Second, while the OLC opinion concludes that a sitting President may not be prosecuted, it recognizes that a criminal investigation during the President's term is permissible.3 The OLC opinion also recognizes that a President does not have immunity after he leaves office.4 And if individuals other than the President committed an obstruction offense, they may be prosecuted at this time. Given those considerations, the facts known to us, and the strong public interest in safeguarding the integrity of the criminal justice system, we conducted a thorough factual investigation in order to preserve the evidence when memories were fresh and documentary materials were available.

Third, we considered whether to evaluate the conduct we investigated under the Justice Manual standards governing prosecution and declination decisions, but we determined not to apply an approach that could potentially result in a judgment that the President committed crimes. The threshold step under the Justice Manual standards is to assess whether a person's conduct " constitutes a federal offense." U.S. Dep't of Justice, Justice Manual§ 9-27.220 (2018) (Justice Manual). Fairness concerns counseled against potentially reaching that judgment when no charges can be brought. The ordinary means for an individual to respond to an accusation is through a speedy and public trial, with all the procedural protections that surround a criminal case. An individual who believes he was wrongly accused can use that process to seek to clear his name. In contrast, a prosecutor's judgment that crimes were committed, but that no charges will be brought, affords no such adversarial opportunity for public name-clearing before an impartial adjudicator.5

The concerns about the fairness of such a determination would be heightened in the case of a sitting President, where a federal prosecutor's accusation of a crime, even in an internal report, could carry consequences that extend beyond the realm of criminal justice. OLC noted similar concerns about sealed indictments. Even if an indictment were sealed during the President's term, OLC reasoned, "it would be very difficult to preserve [an indictment' s] secrecy," and if an indictment became public, "[t]he stigma and opprobrium" could imperil the President's ability to govern."6 Although a prosecutor's internal report would not represent a formal public accusation akin to an indictment, the possibility of the report's public disclosure and the absence of a neutral adjudicatory forum to review its findings counseled against potentially determining "that the person's conduct constitutes a federal offense." Justice Manual § 9-27.220.

Fourth, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment. The evidence we obtained about the President' s actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.

https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf



 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 16027
(16019 all sites)
Registered: 10/13/2007
Status: Offline

  posted on 5/9/2019 at 08:12 PM
quote:
quote:
I wonder if their poll included a question about Hillary and her email saga?


Right out of the playbook; when you can't defend Trump, bring up Hillary.


Shouldn't the same Laws apply equally to both of them though, or no?

 

Universal Peach



Karma:
Posts: 6463
(6462 all sites)
Registered: 8/11/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 5/10/2019 at 06:30 PM
quote:
quote:
quote:
I wonder if their poll included a question about Hillary and her email saga?


Right out of the playbook; when you can't defend Trump, bring up Hillary.


Shouldn't the same Laws apply equally to both of them though, or no?


Yes, they should....Not only that, but I think little Donnie should undergo a 12 hour, televised testimony before a House sub-committee just as Hilary did. In fact I seem to recall Dear Leader stating he'd love to do so....Funny how yet another Trump boast evaporated into thin air.

 

Peach Extraordinaire



Karma:
Posts: 4056
(4062 all sites)
Registered: 10/5/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 5/10/2019 at 07:26 PM
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
I wonder if their poll included a question about Hillary and her email saga?


Right out of the playbook; when you can't defend Trump, bring up Hillary.


Shouldn't the same Laws apply equally to both of them though, or no?


Yes, they should....Not only that, but I think little Donnie should undergo a 12 hour, televised testimony before a House sub-committee just as Hilary did. In fact I seem to recall Dear Leader stating he'd love to do so....Funny how yet another Trump boast evaporated into thin air.


On the surface you are correct, Chain. However remember that we are talking about Crooked Hillary as opposed to Honest Don. Further he boasts about how transparent he's been. So there is a difference, and you can take that to the bank...more specifically Deutsche Bank.

 

Universal Peach



Karma:
Posts: 6463
(6462 all sites)
Registered: 8/11/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 5/11/2019 at 06:56 AM
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
I wonder if their poll included a question about Hillary and her email saga?


Right out of the playbook; when you can't defend Trump, bring up Hillary.


Shouldn't the same Laws apply equally to both of them though, or no?


Yes, they should....Not only that, but I think little Donnie should undergo a 12 hour, televised testimony before a House sub-committee just as Hilary did. In fact I seem to recall Dear Leader stating he'd love to do so....Funny how yet another Trump boast evaporated into thin air.


On the surface you are correct, Chain. However remember that we are talking about Crooked Hillary as opposed to Honest Don. Further he boasts about how transparent he's been. So there is a difference, and you can take that to the bank...more specifically Deutsche Bank.




Speaking of Deutsche bank, a good interview this week on "Fresh Air" with Terry Gross about the Trump connection to this organization:

https://podcasts.google.com/?feed=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cubnByLm9yZy9yc3MvcG9kY2Fzd C5waHA_aWQ9MzgxNDQ0OTA4&episode=MmRlMDEyZTAtYTFlZC00MjRlLTlkODQtZWUyYWR lYjllNGY2&at=1557575735750

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 46687
(46688 all sites)
Registered: 7/8/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 5/11/2019 at 09:03 AM
The evidence exonerated Trump so hard he just had to seal it.

 

____________________
"Live every week like it's Shark Week." - Tracy Jordan

 

Sublime Peach



Karma:
Posts: 7550
(7550 all sites)
Registered: 7/18/2010
Status: Offline

  posted on 5/11/2019 at 10:16 AM
Seal A Meal
 

Universal Peach



Karma:
Posts: 6463
(6462 all sites)
Registered: 8/11/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 5/11/2019 at 03:10 PM
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
I wonder if their poll included a question about Hillary and her email saga?


Right out of the playbook; when you can't defend Trump, bring up Hillary.


Shouldn't the same Laws apply equally to both of them though, or no?


Yes, they should....Not only that, but I think little Donnie should undergo a 12 hour, televised testimony before a House sub-committee just as Hilary did. In fact I seem to recall Dear Leader stating he'd love to do so....Funny how yet another Trump boast evaporated into thin air.


On the surface you are correct, Chain. However remember that we are talking about Crooked Hillary as opposed to Honest Don. Further he boasts about how transparent he's been. So there is a difference, and you can take that to the bank...more specifically Deutsche Bank.




Speaking of Deutsche bank, a good interview this week on "Fresh Air" with Terry Gross about the Trump connection to this organization:

https://podcasts.google.com/?feed=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cubnByLm9yZy9yc3MvcG9kY2Fzd C5waHA_aWQ9MzgxNDQ0OTA4&episode=MmRlMDEyZTAtYTFlZC00MjRlLTlkODQtZWUyYWR lYjllNGY2&at=1557575735750


According to the reporter interviewed in the above episode of "Fresh Air", Deutsche bank has been cooperating with the House sub committee for many months now and apparently approached Congressional leaders about actually providing them with documentation about Trump and his finances.

So much so, that Deutsche Bank executives actually suggested how to write the subpoena and what types of documents to request. It's even possible that Deutsche Bank has also been cooperating with New York State and the southern district in their investigations of Trump.

One other tidbit mentioned was that it was actually Jared Kushner who introduced Trump to a specific executive at Deutsche who actually lent him money to pay back, get this, the loans he'd already defaulted on with the investment bank branch of Deutsche Bank. Trump was literally borrowing money from one arm of the bank to pay off the other.....

 

Peach Extraordinaire



Karma:
Posts: 4056
(4062 all sites)
Registered: 10/5/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 5/11/2019 at 03:38 PM
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
I wonder if their poll included a question about Hillary and her email saga?


Right out of the playbook; when you can't defend Trump, bring up Hillary.


Shouldn't the same Laws apply equally to both of them though, or no?


Yes, they should....Not only that, but I think little Donnie should undergo a 12 hour, televised testimony before a House sub-committee just as Hilary did. In fact I seem to recall Dear Leader stating he'd love to do so....Funny how yet another Trump boast evaporated into thin air.


On the surface you are correct, Chain. However remember that we are talking about Crooked Hillary as opposed to Honest Don. Further he boasts about how transparent he's been. So there is a difference, and you can take that to the bank...more specifically Deutsche Bank.




Speaking of Deutsche bank, a good interview this week on "Fresh Air" with Terry Gross about the Trump connection to this organization:

https://podcasts.google.com/?feed=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cubnByLm9yZy9yc3MvcG9kY2Fzd C5waHA_aWQ9MzgxNDQ0OTA4&episode=MmRlMDEyZTAtYTFlZC00MjRlLTlkODQtZWUyYWR lYjllNGY2&at=1557575735750


According to the reporter interviewed in the above episode of "Fresh Air", Deutsche bank has been cooperating with the House sub committee for many months now and apparently approached Congressional leaders about actually providing them with documentation about Trump and his finances.

So much so, that Deutsche Bank executives actually suggested how to write the subpoena and what types of documents to request. It's even possible that Deutsche Bank has also been cooperating with New York State and the southern district in their investigations of Trump.

One other tidbit mentioned was that it was actually Jared Kushner who introduced Trump to a specific executive at Deutsche who actually lent him money to pay back, get this, the loans he'd already defaulted on with the investment bank branch of Deutsche Bank. Trump was literally borrowing money from one arm of the bank to pay off the other.....


Was aware of most of this. Always wondered where the controls were and how much someone was subverting them. Would like to know how much $$$ Trump took the bank for. Just another example of how great a businessman he is.

Makes pretty much sense why "President Donald Trump, three of his children -- Donald Jr., Eric and Ivanka -- and his business are suing two banks to block them from turning over financial records to congressional committees that have issued subpoenas for the information. The legal action, filed in New York's Southern District, is against Deutsche Bank, one of Trump's lenders, and Capital One. Both banks "have long provided business and personal banking services to Plaintiffs," Trump's attorneys said."

Transparency remains a constant with Donnie. Probably the most open President we've ever had. Just ask him, and he'll tell you so. MAGA.

 

Universal Peach



Karma:
Posts: 6463
(6462 all sites)
Registered: 8/11/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 5/11/2019 at 03:53 PM
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
I wonder if their poll included a question about Hillary and her email saga?


Right out of the playbook; when you can't defend Trump, bring up Hillary.


Shouldn't the same Laws apply equally to both of them though, or no?


Yes, they should....Not only that, but I think little Donnie should undergo a 12 hour, televised testimony before a House sub-committee just as Hilary did. In fact I seem to recall Dear Leader stating he'd love to do so....Funny how yet another Trump boast evaporated into thin air.


On the surface you are correct, Chain. However remember that we are talking about Crooked Hillary as opposed to Honest Don. Further he boasts about how transparent he's been. So there is a difference, and you can take that to the bank...more specifically Deutsche Bank.




Speaking of Deutsche bank, a good interview this week on "Fresh Air" with Terry Gross about the Trump connection to this organization:

https://podcasts.google.com/?feed=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cubnByLm9yZy9yc3MvcG9kY2Fzd C5waHA_aWQ9MzgxNDQ0OTA4&episode=MmRlMDEyZTAtYTFlZC00MjRlLTlkODQtZWUyYWR lYjllNGY2&at=1557575735750


According to the reporter interviewed in the above episode of "Fresh Air", Deutsche bank has been cooperating with the House sub committee for many months now and apparently approached Congressional leaders about actually providing them with documentation about Trump and his finances.

So much so, that Deutsche Bank executives actually suggested how to write the subpoena and what types of documents to request. It's even possible that Deutsche Bank has also been cooperating with New York State and the southern district in their investigations of Trump.

One other tidbit mentioned was that it was actually Jared Kushner who introduced Trump to a specific executive at Deutsche who actually lent him money to pay back, get this, the loans he'd already defaulted on with the investment bank branch of Deutsche Bank. Trump was literally borrowing money from one arm of the bank to pay off the other.....


Was aware of most of this. Always wondered where the controls were and how much someone was subverting them. Would like to know how much $$$ Trump took the bank for. Just another example of how great a businessman he is.

Makes pretty much sense why "President Donald Trump, three of his children -- Donald Jr., Eric and Ivanka -- and his business are suing two banks to block them from turning over financial records to congressional committees that have issued subpoenas for the information. The legal action, filed in New York's Southern District, is against Deutsche Bank, one of Trump's lenders, and Capital One. Both banks "have long provided business and personal banking services to Plaintiffs," Trump's attorneys said."

Transparency remains a constant with Donnie. Probably the most open President we've ever had. Just ask him, and he'll tell you so. MAGA.


Deutsche Bank alone loaned Trump over $350 Million dollars....All of which he defaulted on....Capital One, who knows? What seems obvious to me is that he's defrauded at least two banks that we know of which are many additional felonies on top of the multiple ones he's committed since he's been President.....

In the interview the journalist did mention that Deutsche Bank most likely with fail unless the German government steps in and merges it with their other large national bank. Supposedly German leaders, including Merkel, have proposed such action...

 

Sublime Peach



Karma:
Posts: 7550
(7550 all sites)
Registered: 7/18/2010
Status: Offline

  posted on 5/11/2019 at 06:14 PM

Russia owns Trump.

 

Universal Peach



Karma:
Posts: 6463
(6462 all sites)
Registered: 8/11/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 5/11/2019 at 06:20 PM
Also discussed in the interview is the Russian money laundering operation within Deutsche Bank which may or may not have actually ended....The connection to Trump seems obvious to me given the vast holdings many Russian oligarchs have in various Trump properties.
 

Sublime Peach



Karma:
Posts: 7550
(7550 all sites)
Registered: 7/18/2010
Status: Offline

  posted on 5/11/2019 at 08:11 PM
He would never say where it came from
Russian loans dont matter if theyre gone
Lying all the time
Lose your next election and do time . . .

Goodbye Ruble Tuesday
Who could hang a rap on you
When you change with every new day
We arent gonna miss you

 
 


Powered by XForum 1.81.1 by Trollix Software

Privacy | Terms of Service | Report Infringement | Personal Data Management | Contact Us
The ALLMAN BROTHERS BAND name, The ALLMAN BROTHERS name, likenesses, logos, mushroom design and peach truck are all registered trademarks of THE ABB MERCHANDISING CO., INC. whose rights are specifically reserved. Any artwork, visual, or audio representations used on this web site CONTAINING ANY REGISTERED TRADEMARKS are under license from The ABB MERCHANDISING CO., INC. A REVOCABLE, GRATIS LICENSE IS GRANTED TO ALL REGISTERED PEACH CORP MEMBERS FOR The DOWNLOADING OF ONE COPY FOR PERSONAL USE ONLY. ANY DISTRIBUTION OR REPRODUCTION OF THE TRADEMARKS CONTAINED HEREIN ARE PROHIBITED AND ARE SPECIFICALLY RESERVED BY THE ABB MERCHANDISING CO.,INC.
site by Hittin' the Web Group with www.experiencewasabi3d.com