Comments by "" (@JohnDoe-ew3xt) on "Special counsel indicts Trump again in election interference case" video.

  1.  @MAGAISSCARED  "For doing his job ?" imprisoning political opponents just before an election is not (supposed to be) his job..
    3
  2.  @chansetwo  "This is a response to the recent Supreme Court ruling." you think going after him ever since he came down that escalator has been the response to this ruling??? good grief...
    2
  3.  @Tomorrowwilldo  "And definitely not election interference." yea... announcing a candidate has been indicted on multiple felony counts just weeks before an election wouldn't sway anyone's opinion of said candidate's charactor... good grief.... 🤦‍♂
    2
  4.  @rodneycaupp5962 "Do you really believe either parties candidate should go with impunity, all the way to the Bank." you support one party doing it, yes? I don't see you criticizing the party actually doing it, only whining about the possibility of the other party doing it....... bias much?
    2
  5.  @MichaelParks-gs4yg  wise up mike....
    2
  6.  @MichaelParks-gs4yg  if you were seeking justice, half of the brandon family would be in prison...
    2
  7.  @MichaelParks-gs4yg  "probably but not 34convictions" you cant even explain what trump was convicted of.... go sit down.
    2
  8. speaking of election interference.........
    1
  9.  @merlercer  yea, our doj has been politically weaponized... so how???
    1
  10.  @Anil18834  "1. The job of a prosecutor is to prosecute anyone who brakes the law, whether it is a political ally or an opponent." except in cases where prosecutorial discretion is used, correct??? say like the prosecuting agency says something like... "no reasonable prosecutor would prosecute".. (there ya go hillary) or... "this guy is too old to prosecute"... (there ya go brandon) funny how the prosecutor doesn't always have to do its job of prosecuting anyone who breaks the law, isn't it...? nice try though....
    1
  11.  @Anil18834  "2. To indicte somebody, there must be enough evidence." yes... criminal prosecution uses the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard level of proof. civil uses the "preponderance of doubt" level of proof... what level of proof of a crime does an indictment need? can you tell me? how much "evidence" of a crime does one need to "indict"? can you define that?
    1
  12.  @Anil18834  "The prosecution doesn't have the power to imprison anyone." a guilty verdict results in sentencing, typically imprisonment for crimes such as this, no???? good grief.... what will you tell me next? water isn't really wet, it's just "not dry"?? 🤦‍♂
    1
  13.  @Anil18834  "2. To indicte somebody, there must be enough evidence." google...??? why can't I point out the burden of proof / level of evidence required for criminal / civil prosecution, and ask if this guy knows what the definition of proof / evidence is required to "indict"?? how does that violate your 'terms"???? stop with the censorship already!! even the meta guy is waking up....
    1
  14.  @Anil18834  the mind of a blue voter.... 🤦‍♂
    1
  15. they aren't in the white house... georgetown...
    1
  16.  @califomia  "which allows the Attorney General to appoint a Special Counsel without Senate confirmation" not the way it has always worked...
    1
  17.  @dahlinthefiend  "cries of "lock her up"?" and 5 indictments are not close to the same thing. wise up.
    1
  18.  @leonapireo6391  true, but we have traditionally given people in those positions quite a bit of leeway.. until trump came along.
    1
  19.  @MichaelParks-gs4yg  when you are finished giggling, would you like to try to explain what trump was convicted of....?
    1