|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,784 Year: 4,041/9,624 Month: 912/974 Week: 239/286 Day: 0/46 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1470 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Right Side of the News | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6
|
Hi Taq
Taq writes: Mueller never stated that Trump clearly did not commit obstruction of justice. If that is what his investigation found he would have said so. He didn't say so. Where in DOJ guidelines or law books does it say that a prosecutor is to find a person innocent. In the US a person is innocent until proven guilty. That applies to everyone including the President.
quote:https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf Mueller's job was to determine and report to the Attorney General a report explaining prosecution (charges he recommended) or if he declined to prosecute. No place is his job to report anything concerning something he was not going to recommend prosecution for. Director Muller's own words during his opening remarks before the House intelligence committee, third paragraph of his opening statement.
quote: I would assume the same statement is true of the President. #1 Muller did not recommend prosecution of any charges against the president. 2# Muller did not recommend prosecution of any charges of the president for any criminal offenses that he declined to prosecute. Those were the two things Muller was required to do according to him in the first paragraph of his report. He did the first but he did not do the second.
Taq writes: I just showed you what stopped him. It is the OLC rule for federal investigators that they can't charge a sitting president with a crime. Are you blind or something? Here it is again: It was not his job to charge the president or not charge the president. His job was to look for evidence and report to the Attorney General if there was enough evidence to prosecute criminal offenses that had been committed. It would have then been the Attorney General who would make the decision after examining Muller's evidence as to whether to prosecute the president or not to prosecute the president. It was not in his purview to prosecute the President only investigate. Neither was it in his purview to state: " we decided we would not make a determination as to whether the President committed a crime." He was not given those direction of what his job was. It was his job to present evidence for criminal offenses or decline to present evidence for criminal offenses. The DOJ could have taken that information and done anything they desired to do with it. The entire volume 2 all 180 pages talked of offences for which there was no charges made. I think around here that would be classified as a strawman. God Bless,"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1470 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I explained that too ringo. Mueller has a reputation to defend, he can't lie outright, he has to be honest enough for Barr to get it while muddling it up with enough innuendo to give the Left something to turn into a lie.
I'm saying "Mueller" but really it was others who put together the report for him. Although he shares their partisan hatred of Trump so it didn't go against anything he'd have wanted to do. One could wonder, of course, how he got away with having nothing but Leftists on the staff of what one would have expected might have some objectivity to it. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 438 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Faith writes:
But Barr didn't get it. He read it backwards, like you do.
Mueller has a reputation to defend, he can't lie outright, he has to be honest enough for Barr to get it while muddling it up with enough innuendo to give the Left something to turn into a lie.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1470 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Barr is an honest man. He got it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 438 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Faith writes:
Yes, in your world black is white.
Barr is an honest man. He got it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6
|
Hi dwise1
dwise1 writes: THERE WAS NO COLLUSION FOUND AND THE MUELLER REPORT SAID SO.
Where does it say that? SHOW US! Since collusion and conspiracy are essentially synonymous terms according to Muller I will give it a go. You were answering Faith and demanding evidence for no collusion.Here is evidence from Muller's testimony before Congress concerning conspiracy. quote: Collins followed Nadler in the questioning and this segment is about 2 minutes into his questioning. Muller answered: "We found insufficient evidence of the president's culpability. culpability definition:Webster: meriting condemnation or blame especially as wrong or harmful So there was not enough evidence to condemn the President according to Muller. In other words he could not bring a charge. Lets go into the next question.
quote: This evidence was given under oath under the penalty of perjury. This segment establishes that no members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian governments interference in the election. This would include Trump being a member of his campaign. The word collusion is not a specific offense in federal criminal laws but collusion and conspiracy are essentially synonymous terms. Conspiracy is a specific offense. So if you name the collusion conspiracy you can prosecute it as a crime but just using collusion you probably would not get a conviction. I hope that answers any questions you have concerning whether there was any conspiracy, coordination, or collusion between Trump, his campaign and Russia into interference with the 2016 election too rest. Now jf dwise1 would like to present any evidence contrary to Mr. Muller's testimony please feel free to do so. God Bless "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DrJones* Member Posts: 2290 From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 6.9
|
So there was not enough evidence to condemn the President according to Muller. In other words he could not bring a charge not enough evidence to charge is not the same thing as no evidence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
Hi Dr
DrJones writes: not enough evidence to charge is not the same thing as no evidence. So as far as you are concerned the President or anyone else is guilty of any offense lodged against them and must prove they are innocent. I thought that was what existed in many countries but not the US where a person is innocent until proven guilty. If he did not have enough evidence to convict the President then he is innocent. Whether you like it or not that is a fact which is what the law says. God Bless "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 420 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Yawn.
It is not Mueller who even had the option to charge or convict il Donald. He did what was within his mandate, charged and indicted those he had the authority to charge and indict and turned the issue of il Donald over to Congress who are the only party with the authority to charge and indict il Donald.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DrJones* Member Posts: 2290 From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 6.9 |
So as far as you are concerned the President or anyone else is guilty of any offense lodged against them and must prove they are innocent nope what I'm saying is that those idiots claiming that the report says there was no collusion are not being truthful.
If he did not have enough evidence to convict the President then he is innocent.
in a court of law, yes, thankfully I'm not in one of those and can have my opinion on his actions.It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds soon I discovered that this rock thing was true Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world And so there was only one thing I could do Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On *not an actual doctor
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
Hi jar
jar writes: It is not Mueller who even had the option to charge or convict il Donald. jar writes: MUELLER:We found insufficient evidence of the president's culpability. Why did he publish and then repeat in open testimony that they found insufficient evidence of the president's culpability? God Bless"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
Hi Dr.
DrJones writes: nope what I'm saying is that those idiots claiming that the report says there was no collusion are not being truthful. Collusion is not a Federal crime. If you disagree present the statute that says collusion is a federal crime.
DrJones writes: in a court of law, yes, thankfully I'm not in one of those and can have my opinion on his actions. So you are saying legally he is innocent. But since you have decided that evidence does not make any difference he is guilty. I am not sure but I don't think that even works in Canada. God Bless"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 310 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
You remind us that collusion is not a crime. So obviously the fact that one is legally innocent of it doesn't mean that one is innocent of it. In the same way, Trump is not, in law, guilty of adultery. That doesn't mean he's innocent of adultery. It means that adultery isn't a crime.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 310 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
I thought that was what existed in many countries but not the US where a person is innocent until proven guilty. I'm sorry, what was that, I couldn't hear you over the sound of an angry mob screaming LOCK HER UP.
If he did not have enough evidence to convict the President then he is innocent. Whether you like it or not that is a fact ... No, that's a legal fiction. People aren't actually innocent until they're convicted. Hitler, for example, was not innocent of genocide.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 310 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
And Mueller's letter complained about how the MEDIA were reacting to Barr's report because like all the rest of the Left they had not expected Trump to be exonerated and they were beside themselves that the report exonerated him. Mueller did NOT say Barr misrepresented the report, I believe he even explicitly said he did not.. He did not, he did not he did not. He said the MEDIA were reacting in a way that bothered him. If I can find all this I will. Faith, you goddamned liar. Here is what Mueller wrote. "The summary letter the Department sent to Congress and released to the public late in the afternoon of March 24 did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of this office's work and conclusions." Mueller Letter Expressed Frustration With Barr Summary Of Russia Probe Findings : NPR Not a word about the media. You're religious. Aren't you worried that you'll end up burning in Hell while the Devil spits the word LIAR in your face for all eternity?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024