An indictment is not proof of anything.
I believe your acronym is a filter by pass.
I mentioned it in a list of ways in which an interaction with a Russian official can be illegal, in response to a broad claim that it is not “illegal to talk to Russians.” The statement was relevant as a response to that assertion. Don’t take my word for it. Go back and read that portion of the thread.
See O.J. Simpson as prime example A
I did read it. So as relevant as me saying “It’s illegal to murder someone with an AK 47.”
Trump has and will be treated better than any other president would be under similar circumstances. Everyone is aware of the cult that has developed around him and he will likely face reduced or no criminal charges in exchange for disappearing to avoid stirring up the perceived civil unrest that would arise.
Mueller has plenty to get him in a sane world, but we said bye-bye to that a while ago.
Actually, it is proof that a Grand Jury found probable cause that person committed a crime. In some states, if a Grand Jury fails to indict, a suspect can ask the Jury to document the lack of evidence against them.
No, it is not. Ham sandwich ring a bell?
No. But now you are trolling.
So cratic is arguing that conspiring to distribute materials from wikileaks is not illegal. The emails in wikileaks possession were stolen, so the argument is essentially that receipt of stolen property is not a crime.
That is flat out wrong.
That I believe is a violation and no I am not. You through it into the basket because you were regurgitating. Don’t do that.
Conspiracy is very hard to prove. And you would have a hard time with that one. Did wikileaks steal it?
What a strange reply.
You know he was trying to warn you so no one would flag it don’t you?
So why the snark?
Mueller’s indictment makes it clear that the hacking of DNH emails was carried out by Russian intelligence. I know Donald Trump prefers Putin’s version of what happened. Americans have some latitude in giving their allegiance to foreign dictators.
No it doesn’t. An indictment is not proof of anything. You think Mueller didn’t know he’d never get them in a courtroom? He’s not stupid. This is politics.
The circumstances pointing to Trump crimes are all over the place. Mueller’s helped indict and convict several already. It ain’t over yet.
Not pointing fingers at you, RT, but I really wonder how many Republicans will accept the findings if it’s bad news – more crimes up the ladder and maybe extending to the Oval Office. In any event, there is a movement to making Trump one term. No matter what happens with Mueller, I’m there.
Absolutely. That’s one thing I argued over and over before the election. That and the fact that there was no certainty the Wikileaks leaks were actually what they said they were and not doctored. But yes, Wikileaks was, in effect, distributing stolen property – that, additionally, was acquired illegally by hacking.