Does anyone have the balls to support Trump at this point?

[politux]

Federal indictments are easy as pie to get.  The Assistant US attorney presents his side of the evidence and that's it.  No facts are needed or proof.

Where did you get your law degree? Trump University?

You need probable cause to get an indictment and you have to present evidence.

You're literally defending Russian nationals who meddled in the election. What a patriot you are.

Isn't it funny how the "party of law and order" is attacking the FBI now. The right's tolerance for hypocrisy knows no bounds.

---

 President Trump, in a series of angry and defiant tweets on Sunday morning, sought to shift the blame to Democrats for Russia’s virtual war to meddle in the 2016 election, saying that President Barack Obama had not done enough to stop the interference and denying that he had ever suggested that Moscow might not have been involved.

Mr. Trump, who has said little to publicly acknowledge a threat to American democracy that even one of his top aides called “incontrovertible” on Saturday, asserted that the efforts to investigate and combat the Russian meddling had only given the Russians what they wanted, saying that “they are laughing their asses off in Moscow.”


“If it was the GOAL of Russia to create discord, disruption and chaos within the U.S. then, with all of the Committee Hearings, Investigations and Party hatred, they have succeeded beyond their wildest dreams,” Mr. Trump wrote.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/18/us/po...dling.html

Delusion at its best.

[LZA]

I'm wondering if they are happy with the way they can twist the function of social media to their will. Not only with the Russians using it for propaganda, but the only real thing that's getting done about it is people are bitching on their pages, showing how outraged they are.

So much so that they would rather tell people that they know this happened and how outraged they are, but not really do anything to hold those accountable to real life consequences... Maybe being outed and ridiculed online is the new for of acceptable punishment.

Internet existed in 1998, but not to the degree it is now... I'm not saying this is true, but I wonder if the Clinton/Lewinsky cra happened in this day and age, would he even have been impeached?

MAybe the powers that be are smart because now we can log on and blow our irate loads all over social media, then trun around and go to sleep, while they keep doing what they are doing... I bet Hillary would have been held more accountable if this was 15-20 years ago... Just a thought...

[politux]

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-po...story.html

Another cooperator testifying against one of Trump's goons.

[joew771]

Federal indictments are easy as pie to get.  The Assistant US attorney presents his side of the evidence and that's it.  No facts are needed or proof.

Where did you get your law degree? Trump University?

You need probable cause to get an indictment and you have to present evidence.

Where did you get your law degree? The back of a cereal box? Oh yeah, that's right, you don't have one either.

Grand juries are nearly pointless.

There is no opposing council, so no cross-examination, or any evidence not wanted to be shown by the prosecutor. There is no judge. Just the prosecutor telling his side of the story to the jury, which is not vetted in any way, or instructed in any legal matters. The prosecutor doesn't have to present any evidence or call any witnesses if they don't want to, just as in a regular jury trial, but of course then they probably wouldn't get the indictment, but they could. You only need 12 of the 23 jurors to agree to indict. That's a far cry from the unanimous verdict needed in a trial.

'As a practical matter, a federal grand jury will almost always return an indictment presented to it by a prosecutor. This is the basis for Judge Sol Wachtler's famous saying that a prosecutor can get a grand jury to “indict a ham sandwich.”'

http://corporate.findlaw.com/litigation-...ourse.html

[hypno-potamous]

Federal indictments are easy as pie to get.  The Assistant US attorney presents his side of the evidence and that's it.  No facts are needed or proof.

Where did you get your law degree? Trump University?

You need probable cause to get an indictment and you have to present evidence.

Where did you get your law degree? The back of a cereal box? Oh yeah, that's right, you don't have one either.

Grand juries are nearly pointless.

There is no opposing council, so no cross-examination, or any evidence not wanted to be shown by the prosecutor. There is no judge. Just the prosecutor telling his side of the story to the jury, which is not vetted in any way, or instructed in any legal matters. The prosecutor doesn't have to present any evidence or call any witnesses if they don't want to, just as in a regular jury trial, but of course then they probably wouldn't get the indictment, but they could. You only need 12 of the 23 jurors to agree to indict. That's a far cry from the unanimous verdict needed in a trial.

'As a practical matter, a federal grand jury will almost always return an indictment presented to it by a prosecutor. This is the basis for Judge Sol Wachtler's famous saying that a prosecutor can get a grand jury to “indict a ham sandwich.”'

http://corporate.findlaw.com/litigation-...ourse.html

You speak the truth.

[politux]

Everyone who agrees with hypno "speaks the truth" lol.

joew is a well known troll personality. You taking him seriously speaks volumes about your judgement.

[joew771]

I stated nothing but facts. You can think what you want. I couldn't care less.

From wikipedia...

'According to the American Bar Association (ABA), the grand jury has come under increasing criticism for being a mere "rubber stamp" for the prosecution without adequate procedural safeguards....Grand juries provide little protection to accused suspects and are much more useful to prosecutors...Grand jurors often hear only the prosecutor's side of the case and are usually persuaded by them. Grand juries almost always indict people on the prosecutor's recommendation....And William J. Campbell, a former federal district judge in Chicago, noted: "[T]oday, the grand jury is the total captive of the prosecutor who, if he is candid, will concede that he can indict anybody, at any time, for almost anything, before any grand jury."'

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_juri...ted_States


An indictment is a meaningless thing. It doesn't ascribe guilt or innocence. It is completly rigged in favor of the prosecution, and there are no consequences from one. I could be indicted for murder tomorrow, and nothing may come of it. All that really matters is if someone is charged with a crime and an actual trial takes place. Grand juries are useless, and in case anyone didn't know, they are totally secret. So who knows what the prosecutor said or presented? No one, that's who. And what was allowed to be presented by the defense? Nothing, because there is none in a grand jury proceding.

The U.S. and Liberia are the only two countries to have grand juries, and that should tell you something.

[hypno-potamous]

Everyone who agrees with hypno "speaks the truth" lol.

joew is a well known troll personality. You taking him seriously speaks volumes about your judgement.

joew is a renouned and gifted troll, but in this instance he surpasses you with actual facts that are correct. I have first hand knowledge of what I commented and if anything I understated it, not that it matters.

[Mr.Masami]

Arguing about politics will only give you grey hair and nothing more.
Life is too short for talking about some old farts, don't like some laws ? fuck em.

I don't even know who is president in my country, and don't want to know.

Life is good.