Trump stole 15 boxes of official do ents and hid them at Mar-a-Lago

[Blake]

I do too. I also find your blind kneejerk defense of Hillary hilarious, even after the FBI confirmed she broke the law. You simply can't be objective and admit both sides can be wrong.

Lol both sides again. You can't help yourself.

[CosmicCowboy]

Lol both sides again. You can't help yourself.

That is the discussion, Cuck. Try to keep up.

[Blake]

Ultimately both Clinton and Trump were ill-served by their underlings. With Hillary, they enabled her demand for convenience and her old lady tech ignorance. With Trump, they enabled his black letter federal crimes.

Seems like a big difference to me, but sure.

Both sides.

One old man foot on the gas flying down the road at 110mph. One old lady doing 82 in a 75 because she couldn't figure out how to set the cruise control properly.

BOTH SIDES WERE SPEEDING

[Blake]

That is the discussion, Cuck. Try to keep up.

Yeah I got that you wanted to talk about Hillary in detail here instead of Trump from post one. Because BoTh SidEs scREecH

[Winehole23]

mission accomplished

[CosmicCowboy]

Yeah I got that you wanted to talk about Hillary in detail here instead of Trump from post one. Because BoTh SidEs scREecH

The subject was brought up for discussion by Winehole, Cuck. You really suck at this.

Any takes from "but her emails" crew about Trump taking classified gov't records to Mar-A-Lago?

Thought not.

[Winehole23]

and five pages later, here we are, still talking about HRC

[Blake]

The subject was brought up for discussion by Winehole, Cuck. You really suck at this.

Yeah he asked you "about Trump taking classified records"

You really suck at reading

[Winehole23]

"Hillary did it too!"

[Blake]

You mean the top secret emails she kept on a private server? Thats the same as keeping them in your closet. Did you mean the email server she had professionally "wiped" when she knew the computer was about to be subpoenaed by congress?

I'm not going to argue that one again.

They were both wrong.

[CosmicCowboy]

Yeah, I got suckered into arguing with fools again.

[Winehole23]

[Blake]

Yeah, I got suckered into arguing with fools again.

You just can't help but talk about Hillary in a Trump thread huh

[CosmicCowboy]

So a question:

If the DOJ chooses not to prosecute Trump, does that mean he is innocent?

[Winehole23]

So a question:

If the DOJ chooses not to prosecute Trump, does that mean he is innocent?

of course not

[Blake]

It's sad that ABC actually feels the need to run this piece:

"No, the FBI's Trump investigation is not just like the Hillary Clinton email probe. Here's why"

https://abcnews.go.com/US/fbis-trump...ry?id=89069046

[ChumpDumper]

So a question:

If the DOJ chooses not to prosecute Trump, does that mean he is innocent?

There will be riots in the streets if he is not prosecuted.

In Hillary's case, it was concluded that not all elements of a crime could be proved, which of course you have already stated. Happens with like 80% of similar cases referred for potential prosecution.

If you're trying to both sides this for Trump, the DOJ would really have to explain why they thought their case against Trump was so weak after repeatedly dunking on him from the start of this investigation.

[RandomGuy]

That is the discussion, Cuck. Try to keep up.

Nothing to discuss. Put the er in jail, he broke the law, flagrantly and seriously. Again.

[RandomGuy]

So a question:

If the DOJ chooses not to prosecute Trump, does that mean he is innocent?

It means that the fascist party has so eroded the rule of law that we can no longer hold presidents accountable for criminal activity.

[CosmicCowboy]

There will be riots in the streets if he is not prosecuted.

In Hillary's case, it was concluded that not all elements of a crime could be proved, which of course you have already stated. Happens with like 80% of similar cases referred for potential prosecution.

If you're trying to both sides this for Trump, the DOJ would really have to explain why they thought their case against Trump was so weak after repeatedly dunking on him from the start of this investigation.

I'm not "both sides" this for trump, but the primary argument, especially from Cuck Blake is "the DOJ didnt charge her so she didn't break the law". Just asking if the same standard will apply if DOJ doesn't charge Trump.

[Spurs Homer]

So a question:

If the DOJ chooses not to prosecute Trump, does that mean he is innocent?

it would mean that the DOJ does not feel the evidence is enough to convict - trump or whoever else they indict

[Winehole23]

I'm not "both sides" this for trump, but the primary argument, especially from Cuck Blake is "the DOJ didnt charge her so she didn't break the law". Just asking if the same standard will apply if DOJ doesn't charge Trump.

sure, why not?

[RandomGuy]

"Hillary did it too!"

This is vastly easier to prove than anything Hillary may have done.

And Trumps lawyers on this are idiots.

This may finally be the thing that breaks him.

[CosmicCowboy]

sure, why not?

I will still think he is guilty as , but I suspect this will come down to where and when a President can declassify do ents which would ultimately land in the Supreme Court years from now. DOJ may decide its not worth it.

[RandomGuy]

I'm not "both sides" this for trump, but the primary argument, especially from Cuck Blake is "the DOJ didnt charge her so she didn't break the law". Just asking if the same standard will apply if DOJ doesn't charge Trump.

I think what Hillary did likely broke the law, but was ultimately mostly due to stupidity, and intent is no small part of proving things like this to my understanding.

This fails the "can it be explained by stupdity" test. There are multiple credible witnesses that say that he personally reviewed this .

I am very curious about what he though was so worth keeping.

Lock.
Him.
Up.