What were you saying in all of those threads?
Did you agree with Romney(at THAT time)?
Damn shame we can’t go back and find out.
We don’t just wish to charge them with crimes. We wish to see them stand trial.
Yep. Sure did. It doesn’t matter who the president is to me. An attack on our democratic process is serious enough that politics shouldn’t play into it… right?
2 Likes
Then evidence will have to be turned over to the defense.
When will they show up to court?
They already have, he charged corporations, corporate lawyers are the appropriate people to show up for that.
We will see what the court decides who needs to show up.
Why don’t you post in invisible ink, it’s what I want.
Who do you think should show up? Shareholders? Long line of precedent involved here, charge a corporation with a crime, you get corporate lawyers, that’s how it works. If you want an individual or individuals to show in court, charge them instead.
Unlike obama who unleashed cyber shock and awe.
And, the 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back, because, the Cold War’s been over for 20 years.
Until Clinton lost.
Yevgeny Prigozhin and Dmitry Utkin
You apparently didn’t pay attention to any events from 2013 on.
Too busy clearing brush and being snarky I’m sure. Time to catch up before you look foolish.
Separate indictments.
Then he definitely needs to show up before any trial.
So you are saying that possibly the US investigators have uncovered a clear and present danger to the republic but are just sitting on the information.
For his trial, yes, which is not the indictment against a corporation.
Nope. For both. He’s a responsible party.
Again, long precedent involved regarding cases against corporations as to who counts as showing up for the trial. Their lawyers count, sorry.
