Congressional oversight over State Prosecutors?

[Jarod]

Yes because it's a political stunt equal to the indictment. You may think I'm an asshole and I may actually be an asshole and i may consistently be an asshole but I suggest you'd be hard pressed to find where I wasn't consistent in my arguments.

So you are supporting Gym Jordan's overreach into State actions?

You are going back and forth!

 

[Yakuda]

Welcome to the fold. I am glad you have joined our team.

No I will never join that team, God forbid, but even a blind squirrel finds an acorn once in a while, so I can't argue. Too bad you dems don't have the same willingness to work with those with whom you disagree.

 

[Yakuda]

So you are supporting Gym Jordan's overreach into State actions?

You are going back and forth!

Are you retarded? I swear that is something wrong with you but I'm going to try Tom understand you. Tell me what I wrote there that led you to that conclusion?

 

[Yakuda]

Howcan you say a 30+ count indictment is a political stunt, when you have no idea what the charges against Trump will be.

It is a political stunt. The number of counts isn't relevant unless you can explain how.

 

[floridafan]

It is a political stunt. The number of counts isn't relevant unless you can explain how.

Of course the counts are relative, they can involved any number of other criminal acts other than just Stormy Daniels.

 

[Yakuda]

Of course the counts are relative, they can involved any number of other criminal acts other than just Stormy Daniels.

You didn't address my question. Want me to restate what I said?

 

[floridafan]

You didn't address my question. Want me to restate what I said?

yup!

 

[Yakuda]

yup!

"It is a political stunt. The number of counts isn't relevant unless you can explain how."

The above quote reasserts my claim that this is a political stunt and that the number of counts isn't relevant, not relative, relevant to to whether or not it's a political stunt. So again explain how the number of counts is relevant to whether or not it's a political stunt.

 

[floridafan]

"It is a political stunt. The number of counts isn't relevant unless you can explain how."

The above quote reasserts my claim that this is a political stunt and that the number of counts isn't relevant, not relative, relevant to to whether or not it's a political stunt. So again explain how the number of counts is relevant to whether or not it's a political stunt.

Let's repeat again that you know nothing, about the counts or their severity, so your opinion means little. If this was only about Ms. Daniels and McDougal there wouldn't be this many counts.

 

[Yakuda]

Let's repeat again that you know nothing, about the counts or their severity, so your opinion means little. If this was only about Ms. Daniels and McDougal there wouldn't be this many counts.

You're continuing to avoid the question. I never claimed to know the severity of the counts, unless you can show from my words where I made such a claim. Once AGAIN explain how the number of counts is relevant to whether or not this is a political stunt.

 

[floridafan]

You're continuing to avoid the question. I never claimed to know the severity of the counts, unless you can show from my words where I made such a claim. Once AGAIN explain how the number of counts is relevant to whether or not this is a political stunt.

The more counts, the more charges. DUH!

 

[domer76]

"It is a political stunt. The number of counts isn't relevant unless you can explain how."

The above quote reasserts my claim that this is a political stunt and that the number of counts isn't relevant, not relative, relevant to to whether or not it's a political stunt. So again explain how the number of counts is relevant to whether or not it's a political stunt.

I doubt that the members of the grand jury sees it as a political stunt. My experience with juries, including grand juries, is that they take their job and the consequences of such very seriously.

 

[Jarod]

They claim its all political and made up and will never succeed, yet they have not seen the indictments.

 

[Geeko Sportivo]

Where did I say I supported big govt?

Do you support a CORRUPT government of special interest- like the one Donald Trump put together?

 

[Yakuda]

The more counts, the more charges. DUH!

Yes. Agreed. How does that prove this is not a political stunt? THATS the question.

 

[Yakuda]

I doubt that the members of the grand jury sees it as a political stunt. My experience with juries, including grand juries, is that they take their job and the consequences of such very seriously.

I couldn't agree more but does the grand jury decide which cases it will consider?

 

[floridafan]

Yes. Agreed. How does that prove this is not a political stunt? THATS the question.

No way to prove without seeing the indictments. Right now it's just your opinion. One in which Donald could never be guilty of anything.

 

[domer76]

I couldn't agree more but does the grand jury decide which cases it will consider?

Nope. They merely decide whether the charges have validity. They have decided as much in this case.

 

[Yakuda]

They claim its all political and made up and will never succeed, yet they have not seen the indictments.

Yes and I submit it's a valid claim given the seven year history of democrats pursuing trump. At the very least that history should make anyone think twice. It would be like an Arab telling me how evil a Jew is. The Jew might be evil but given the history between Arabs and Jews it's not unreasonable to be suspicious of the claim.

 

[Yakuda]

Nope. They merely decide whether the charges have validity. They have decided as much in this case.

Right the prosecutor, a politician that is a lawyer, decides which cases they hear so telling me the jury takes their job and it's consequences seriously isn't relevant to whether or not this is a political stunt.