Reminder that the DOJ has like a 90% conviction rate. That's because they don't typically press charges unless they're extremely certain a crime will be committed. In fact, they probably made EXTRA sure about these indictments given how serious and high profile the cases are. Also it's not like they are just making all of this up. We know for as fact they have video footage, texts, recordings, testimonies under oath and his own words.
Sorry lads. Whether you like the guy or not, you have to realize by now that it's game over.
"B-BUT BUT THE RUSSIA HOAX!!!"
Mueller and the DOJ was never going to press charges. He left it up to the Senate and House to decide.
"B-BUT BUT THE IMPEACHMENTS!!!"
Are also decided by Congress. Not the DOJ.
"B-BUT BUT BIDEN/HILLARY!!"
Neither of them got indicted.
They're relying on a hateful biased DC judge and jury. Is it possible that they get one sane juror who can withstand days of intimidation and badgering from 11 politicized fanatics? we'll see..
You clearly have no clue. The conviction record you are pointing to is based on the cases that go to trial, it doesn't include the ones that never make it to trial and I can assure you that many cases never get to trial because the DOJ backs off. I worked in a law firm that only did white collar crime in DC and I only remember 1 client that ever got convicted. Most cases didn't even go to trial and certainly didn't end with out clients pleading guilty even though they were in general guilty as hell. This was before the DOJ became a political weapon used to attack people based on their party affiliation... but the reality is the government still has to present evidence to support a case against Trump... and while they certainly have some evidence related to the top secret documents, I'm sure his lawyers will make using that evidence very difficult. There are numerous things the defense can do to make this trial difficult for the prosecution.
The other cases are much more problematic because they become First Amendment cases at some level which even judges with agenda will be unlikely to side with. No judge wants to see a case they presided over get over turned because they were idiots.
It's up to whoever the AG is at the time. Bill Barr said last night that he might have used his "discretion" and not pursued charges even though he thinks the government has a case. Barr also said he did not think this was a weaponization situation.
Then Bill Barr should stop sniffing glue. This is clown world. The libtards have been throwing EVERYTHING at this guy, regardless of laws or truth for years.
Had there been different attorneys general they might have indicted him sooner. Tfg still has good odds, only needs 1 juror out of 12 in each trial. Like 30% of the US voting population support him no matter what so if I rolled a dice 12 times I'm bound to get a die hard supporter at least once.
Most Trump supporters are.... real people, that if put in a position of responsibility will try to fulfill that responsibility.
Unlike libs who are clearly been radicalized as a group, to put the AGENDA ahead of such things.
Too many Trump supporters tend to still assume that libs are like them, in that if htey have a job to do, like say, LEGAL INVESTIGATOR, that their focus will be to do that job.
When in reality we see that libs placed in a position of responsibility, will reflexively betray that trust and lie without hesitation or qualm and hold to their lies, far beyond what any reasonable or even decent person would do.
I think you're painting with too broad of a brush when you use the term liberal. Many people on the left, progressives for example, take offense to that term.
If you narrow it down to Democrat & Republican politicians, I think both sides are obsessed with maintaining power.
The way Mitch McConnell handled the Merrick Garland SCOTUS nom, you might say he was pushing his conservative agenda over duty to country by refusing to hold a hearing. People were very upset about that (and are to this day) but the truth is the Democrats did not have the votes to confirm Garland. Shoe on the other foot, the Dems would have done the same thing because no party willingly gives up power.
D-Do you seriously think this won't go to trial? The Indictment is really damning and just "removing some evidence" from the trial isn't going to help him. Also, he's too arrogant to even consider a plea deal and keeps rambling about his case instead of shutting up and only letting his lawyers talk.
Also also, it's not just one trial. It's two with a possible third on the way.
Trump is getting what he deserves for all those lies he keeps harping on despite his own people telling him to shut up already. Nobody but his Maga base will vote to save him a year from next November. That still won't be enough..