Garland appoints special counsel

PostmodernProphet said:
so if you don't have evidence to convict someone of a crime it can still be evidence they committed a crime?.......interesting theory.......how about the lib'rul corollary....if you have enough evidence to convict someone of a crime, but you like their politics or hope to get their vote later, you set them free......
Click to expand...

I guess your statement could be considered evidence that you aren't actually a lawyer who understands the law.

OJ was found not guilty of murder in a criminal court but found liable for the murder in civil court. Can you tell us the difference between reasonable doubt and more likely than not standards?
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
I guess your statement could be considered evidence that you aren't actually a lawyer who understands the law.

OJ was found not guilty of murder in a criminal court but found liable for the murder in civil court. Can you tell us the difference between reasonable doubt and more likely than not standards?
Click to expand...

If he's an attorney, he is an associate in an ambulance chaser firm.
 
the classic shell game.
it wasn't Garland it was Smith! no wait! it was Garland that indicted, but only because of Smith..etc.

If Garland claims this is not political, then do his job and finish the investigation and man up and
let the results stand on their own merit to back that claim

Instead although the investigation is well on the way -NOW he pulls an SC out of his hat. "it wasn't me"
 
dukkha said:
the classic shell game.
it wasn't Garland it was Smith! no wait! it was Garland that indicted, but only because of Smith..etc.

If Garland claims this is not political, then do his job and finish the investigation and man up and
let the results stand on their own merit to back that claim

Instead although the investigation is well on the way -NOW he pulls an SC out of his hat. "it wasn't me"
Click to expand...

All that matters are the facts, comrade Dookie, not hyperbole.

Putin's boy will have his day in court just like many of his fans asked during the impeachments. What's the problem?
 
dukkha said:
the classic shell game.
it wasn't Garland it was Smith! no wait! it was Garland that indicted, but only because of Smith..etc.

If Garland claims this is not political, then do his job and finish the investigation and man up and
let the results stand on their own merit to back that claim

Instead although the investigation is well on the way -NOW he pulls an SC out of his hat. "it wasn't me"
Click to expand...


It’s perfectly legal and in fact was done to help the Americans you have been lying to for over a decade trust the results


You hate that huh Putins ass boil
 
tsuke said:
im not even sure why theres a special counsel tbh. Its not like you dont know the facts of the case or the facts of the case were ever in dispute.This has been true from day 1. You either charge or you dont. Unless the goal is to just have a never ending investigation.
Click to expand...

Because it’s bigger than you think idiot
 
tsuke said:
im not even sure why theres a special counsel tbh. Its not like you dont know the facts of the case or the facts of the case were ever in dispute.This has been true from day 1. You either charge or you dont. Unless the goal is to just have a never ending investigation.
Click to expand...
Behind an eminence front
Eminence front, it's a put on
(the Who)
 
Nordberg said:
The idea is the special investigator will hit the ground running. the case is well along. It is not like Durham, who was in place just to keep spending tax dollars and firing up rightys, Trump will be indicted.
Click to expand...
exactly -the case is well on, so the SC is cutout/window dressing to give the veneer of impartiality
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
I guess your statement could be considered evidence that you aren't actually a lawyer who understands the law.

OJ was found not guilty of murder in a criminal court but found liable for the murder in civil court. Can you tell us the difference between reasonable doubt and more likely than not standards?
Click to expand...
yes but it would be irrelevant....unless you are conceding that no one has found evidence that Trump has committed a crime.....then it would just be unnecessary......
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top