I N D I C T E D

[AenorVZ]

Originally Posted by DinoTriz2 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You mean you can't prove me wrong.

Is this Fox News?

This appears to be an opinion piece by the editor of Commentary Magazine. I prefer Jeff Van Gundy for color commentary.

[DinoTriz2]

Originally Posted by AenorVZ [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

This appears to be an opinion piece by the editor of Commentary Magazine. I prefer Jeff Van Gundy for color commentary.

It's still an anti-Trump opinion piece.

Why would they admit that?

[DinoTriz2]

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[JurisDictum]

For once I'm glade she let down some of the more pushy part of the party. A little stupid on her part if she doesn't want Bernie to get elected. Impeaching Trump and dragging him into would have been her best bet....

It's not like it would have meant shit anyway for Trump in the long run. Republicans have the Senate.

[DinoTriz2]

Nancy Pelosi has to teach the new, stupid, and young 28 year old politicians that advocating for impeachment is fucking retarded.

It won't be successful and you'll end up fucking yourselves in the future.

For all her faults, Pelosi is actually making the smart call here.

[DinoTriz2]

Making America Great Again, one mad SJW at a time [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[AenorVZ]

"But when it came to the release of the stolen emails, Barr’s phrasing changed. He noted that, under applicable law, publication of the emails would be illegal only if the person publishing them had also participated in stealing them. He then went on to say the investigation did not find that any person associated with the Trump campaign “illegally participated in the dissemination” of the stolen emails."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/pb/op...=.369986ada71c

Here's the guy who will be deciding if Barr's interpretation is correct once Assange is extradited:

https://www.npr.org/2019/04/23/71603..._medium=social

[Jaxon]

Originally Posted by AenorVZ [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

"But when it came to the release of the stolen emails, Barr’s phrasing changed. He noted that, under applicable law, publication of the emails would be illegal only if the person publishing them had also participated in stealing them. He then went on to say the investigation did not find that any person associated with the Trump campaign “illegally participated in the dissemination” of the stolen emails."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/pb/op...=.369986ada71c

Here's the guy who will be deciding if Barr's interpretation is correct once Assange is extradited:

https://www.npr.org/2019/04/23/71603..._medium=social

It's not wrong in a moral sense to disseminate the news, and it's certainly never illegal. The Washington Post reported that Trump Jr. was given a link to Wikileaks, and then turned around and shared that link with others. If your definition of collusion would make every Twitter, Facebook, and internet user a criminal you might want to rethink your definition of collusion.

[DinoTriz2]

Originally Posted by Jaxon [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

If your definition of collusion would make every Twitter, Facebook, and internet user a criminal you might want to rethink your definition of collusion.

[DinoTriz2]

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]