The Right Side of the News

Hi Taq Could Mueller as a prosecutor find the president guilty of obstructing justice? If he could then he could exonerate him. But a prosecutor can do neither. If he has enough evidence to prosecute then he brings charges. If there is not enough evidence to get a guilty verdict then he refuses to bring charges. Is there a law or rule that an independent prosecutor can not recommend a president be prosecuted for obstructing justice if he has the evidence to get a conviction?Mueller did not bring charges because he could not prove his case.God Bless,

Hi dwise1 I have had a copy of the Mueller Report since shortly after it was posted.
I listened and recorded ever word of open testimony he gave under oath.Why should I read what Taq says when I can read or listen to what Mueller says?A prosecutor has one job and that is to bring charges against some entity. Person, Corp. etc.A prosecutor has Investigators who investigates and gathers facts and brings their evidence to the prosecutor. The prosecutor then takes that evidence and determines if he has enough evidence to charge a criminal offense. The process is simple. If he has enough evidence to convict he brings charges. If Muller found enough evidence to charge a criminal offense it was his duty to do so regardless of the DOJ guidelines. He was a paid Independent prosecutor by the citizens of the United States and if he could have charged a criminal offense and did not he should be required to refund the money he spent because he was derelict in his duty. But according to his testimony under oath he did not find a prosecutable offense.You say but he couldn't charge the president because of the DOJ guidelines. He could have recommended to the DOJ to prosecute and prosecutable offenses he found. That would have concluded his job and the DOJ could have took his recommendation and followed through on prosecution. But He muddied up the waters with his musings and caused me to lose all respect for him in this case. But I still give him credit for his previous service to the country.God Bless,

Hi Taq That is correct.If he could not find him guilty, he could not find him innocent either.Therefore his statement he could not exonerate (absolve from blame) the President was a stupid statement for a prosecutor to make. There was nothing to keep Mueller from writing a report recommending that the DOJ prosecute a criminal offense even if it was committed the President. If he found evidence that is what he should have done. The problem is he did not find the evidence to convict.God Bless,

Hi Taq 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:

---

[Muller]INTRODUCTION TO VOLUME I This report is submitted to the Attorney General pursuant to 28 C.F.R. 600.8(c), which states that, [a]t the conclusion of the Special Counsel’s work, he . . . shall provide the Attorney General a confidential report explaining the prosecution or declination decisions [the Special Counsel] reached.

---

https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdfMueller'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:

---

Mueller: And for those matters I stress that the indictments contain allegations and every defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.

---

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. 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,

Hi dwise1 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 questioning Muller]COLLINS:
Thank you. Is it true, the evidence gathered during your investigation -- given the questions that you've just answered, is it true the evidence gathered during your investigation did not establish that the president was involved in the underlying crime related to Russian election interference as stated in Volume 1, page 7?
MUELLER:
We found insufficient evidence of the president's culpability.
COLLINS:
So that would be a yes.
MUELLER:
Pardon?
COLLINS:
That would be a yes.
MUELLER:
Yes.

---

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 harmfulSo 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:

---

COLLINS:
Thank you. Isn't it true the evidence did not establish that the president or those close to him were involved in the charged (ph) Russian computer hacking or active measure conspiracies or that the president otherwise had unlawful relationships with any Russian official, Volume 2, page 76? Correct?
MUELLER:
I will leave the answer to our report.
COLLINS:
So that is a yes. Is that any (ph) true your investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with Russian government in election interference activity, Volume 1, page 2; Volume 1, page 173?
MUELLER:
Thank you. Yes.

---

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

Hi Dr 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

Hi jar Why did he publish and then repeat in open testimony that they found insufficient evidence of the president's culpability?God Bless

Hi Dr. Collusion is not a Federal crime. If you disagree present the statute that says collusion is a federal crime. 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

Hi Dr. Do we send people to jail for committing adultery?As I understand our system we do not send people to jail for not breaking the law. We do send people to jail if we have enough evidence they committed an offense of breaking the law.But if you can not present enough evidence to convict someone of breaking the law beyond a reasonable doubt they are not guilty.Had Muller had enough evidence he would have not said he had insufficient evidence to find the President culpability?Insufficient evidence means he could not get a conviction in a court of law.God Bless,

Hi Dr. You did not hear me say "LOCK HER UP".But if I had deleted 0ver 30,000 emails from my computer after they had been Subpoenaed I would still be in jail. The last time I checked Hitler was a German and not covered by American laws and our Constitution. The President is a citizen of the US and therefore covered under our Constitution and laws.Therefore he is innocent until convicted in a court of law.God Bless

Hi jar, Please reference where Muller was charged to turn over anything to Congress.Here is what Muller says:

quote:

---

quote:

---

[Muller]INTRODUCTION TO VOLUME I This report is submitted to the Attorney General pursuant to 28 C.F.R. 600.8(c), which states that, [a]t the conclusion of the Special Counsel’s work, he . . . shall provide the Attorney General a confidential report explaining the prosecution or declination decisions [the Special Counsel] reached.

---

https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf

---

That says Muller shall provide the Attorney General a confidential report explaining the prosecution or declination decisions. It does not say anything about Muller shall provide Congress a report.He had two choices he fulfilled #1 but did not do #2.God Bless

Hi Dr. Legal definition of Collusion: An agreement between two or more people to defraud a person of his or her rights or to obtain something that is prohibited by law.Legal definition of Conspiracy: Conspiracy, in common law, an agreement between two or more persons to commit an unlawful act or to accomplish a lawful end by unlawful means.Those two statements are not interchangeable. That means they did not have enough evidence to convict the President of a crime under the judicial system in America. Since you were not on the jury your opinion does not count except in your mind.I'll not give my opinion on something unrelated to the subject at hand.God Bless

Hi ringo I never read where Hitler was tried for anything.If he had been tried he would not have had the privilege of being tried under the United States Constitution and laws.Under our laws you have to have enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt to convict a person of an offense.If you can not do that the person is not guilty.According to Muller he had insufficient evidence to convict.That is our system whether you like it or not.God Bless

Hi dwise1 I am not conflating the two terms.I am saying that collusion is not a federal offense. If I understand it correctly the action of the colluders of fraud would be a federal offense.Conspiracy is a federal offense.Testimony concerning conspiracy by Mueller under oath before Congress.

quote:

---

COLLINS:
Thank you. Isn't it true the evidence did not establish that the president or those close to him were involved in the charged (ph) Russian computer hacking or active measure conspiracies or that the president otherwise had unlawful relationships with any Russian official, Volume 2, page 76? Correct?
MUELLER:
I will leave the answer to our report.
COLLINS:
So that is a yes. Is that any (ph) true your investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with Russian government in election interference activity, Volume 1, page 2; Volume 1, page 173?
MUELLER:
Thank you. Yes.

---

According to that testimony the president or anyone working for him did not conspire with any Russian interference activity, according to Mueller.God Bless

Hi dwise1 Sorry to disappoint you but Chris Collins from New York is not the ranking member on the house judiciary committee, Doug Collins from Georgia is.I will assume you have not read the Mueller testimony before Congress. If you had you would have realized that I was quoting the ranking member that followed Nadler.The information I posted is from the appearance of Mueller before the judiciary committee. I listened too and recorded every word that said at the hearing. I also have the transcript which I was referencing.It makes no difference who asked the question. The answer Mueller gave is what we are discussing. In fact Collins gave the report and page number of Mueller's report he was getting Mueller's statement he was asking him about. Didn't help me a bitCollusion: example In economics, collusion occurs when rival firms agree to work together, e.g. setting higher prices in order to make higher profits.Conspiracy: For example, if Trump officials conspired to help Russians interfere with the election, they could be liable for conspiracy even if only the Russians did the actual interfering.

quote:

---

MUELLER:
We found insufficient evidence of the president's culpability.

---

God Bless