CNN Serves Up Straight Trash With 'Trump Will Be Indicted By AG Yates' Story

Townhall ^ | 6/10/2019 | Matt Vespa

[Signalman]

Every single time I see that CNN “facts first” ad I want to throw up. I mean how many time do you need to be hit with a shovel to the face that your network has done the exact opposite multiple times. Overall, it embodies the worst about the liberal media—they think they’re like first responders or the first wave storming the beaches of Normandy. They’re not. After eight years of being coddled by a liberal president, they don’t like being criticized. They don’t like being challenged. They don’t like a president who can deliver haymakers. It’s just hilarious; the reporters who bash Trump can’t stand being ripped themselves. Too bad—and no, this isn’t an attack on the press. Please, only true morons don’t see that line for what it is: another trash narrative they throw out there when Trump is beating them in like hamburger meat.

And then, there’s this trash that CNN peddles. The Trump impeachment/Trump is out of office dream scenarios that this “facts first” network tossed in there last week. The brave, brave souls at Newsbusters are tasked with covering the daily insanity that has ensued since the 2016 election. On June 8th’s episode of Trump Derangement Theater, CNN speculated that a new president would indict Trump in 2021 under…Attorney General Sally Yates. Tim Graham has more on CNN Host Brooke Baldwin’s venture into fantasyland:

CNN's Newsroom with Brooke Baldwin… asked legal analyst Renato Mariotti to explain an article he wrote for Politico magazine gleefully exploring "How Trump Could Be Prosecuted After the White House," arguing that "winning the election might be Trump’s best path to avoid being charged with a felony."

If at first your dire predictions about Mueller wrecking Trump don't succeed -- try, try again! Keep hope alive for Democrats!

BALDWIN: So, Renato, if we take Speaker Pelosi at her word, it assumes, number one, that he doesn't get reelected in 2020, and, number two, that a prosecutor would indict him on the evidence in the Mueller report or perhaps other ongoing investigations. And so you wrote this piece in Politico about what that could look like. How might this play out?

MARIOTTI: Well, what I would expect is a Democratic president, if -- I assume he or she would leave that to the attorney general. There's a pretty broad consensus amongst federal prosecutors, former federal prosecutors that you have highly prosecutable evidence in the Mueller report of obstruction of justice.

Sally Yates, for example, who might be the next attorney general, said publicly that she thought Trump would be indicted if he was not president. So what I would expect is an indictment, at least a three- count indictment for obstruction of justice for Trump trying to fire Mueller, trying to limit the scope of the investigation, and then trying to get the former White House counsel to create a false record.

I think those three are very, very strong charges. Notably, McGahn told Trump it would be obstruction of justice beforehand, or it could be obstruction of justice. And he went ahead and did it anyway. And that's about a strong evidence as you can get, if your lawyer tells you...

Okay, this needs to stop. First, we need to have this thing called an election—and right now, it looks like the president is coasting to re-election. Former Vice President Joe Biden has gone to ground thinking his 25-plus point advantage will hold. It won’t. He’s slipping, and he’s the best chance the Democrats have got, despite the party’s aversion to white voters, especially old white men. The irony is thick. No one in that 2020 clown car can beat Trump. Also, the fact of that matter is that there was no enough evidence to bring forward formal charges of obstruction; the collusion charge was totally torpedoed by the report submitted by Special Counsel Robert Mueller. This is all back in the mix because Mueller decided to all but give the go-ahead to Democrats to start impeachment hearings. For two years, this man and his corps of Democratic lawyers tried to prove collusion and couldn’t. This is all part of a long tantrum the liberal establishment has been throwing for years over the 2016 election and now the conclusion of the Russia investigation. The third, and possibly more epic meltdown, will occur when Trump is sworn in for a second term in January of 2021.

[Always A Marine]

I suspect Sally Yates is sweating heavily these days, all lawyered up and watching over her shoulder as AG Barr digs into her role in “the insurance policy.” King & Spalding is a proud and storied law firm, and I can’t imagine how its CEO thought it was a good idea to hire a recently-fired deputy attorney general who was already under suspicion of participating in an attempted coup against the President of the United States.

[stylin19a]

Don’t these morons ever even consider that discovery on the Mueller report, among other things, would probably adios any thoughts of bringing any charges ?

[Pox]

There's a pretty broad consensus amongst federal prosecutors, former federal prosecutors that you have highly prosecutable evidence in the Mueller report of obstruction of justice.

Only a prosecutor who wanted to ruin their reputation would be dumb enough to attempt to prosecute this nonsense, or any other nonsense from the Mueller hit job.

I'm sure there are plenty of die hard lefty prosecutors who are desperate enough to try, but in the end, the result will still be the same.

[USNBandit]

Yates signed a FISA warrant. She needs to worry more about herself.

[Ford4000]

If Barr is serious, she won’t be a lawyer for much longer.

[editor-surveyor]

.
Why do we bother to post CNN trash here?

Freepers may be the only audience CNN has left!
.