The Right Side of the News

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,

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.

But Barr didn't get it. He read it backwards, like you do.

Barr is an honest man. He got it.

Yes, in your world black is white.

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

not enough evidence to charge is not the same thing as no evidence.

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

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.

nope what I'm saying is that those idiots claiming that the report says there was no collusion are not being truthful. in a court of law, yes, thankfully I'm not in one of those and can have my opinion on his actions.

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

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.

I'm sorry, what was that, I couldn't hear you over the sound of an angry mob screaming LOCK HER UP. No, that's a legal fiction. People aren't actually innocent until they're convicted. Hitler, for example, was not innocent of genocide.

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 : NPRNot 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?