Mueller: No further indictments

@DrewDad,

Hardly a fine line for the Attorney General at all. A two year well funded investigation composed mostly of people with an expressed animus towards Trump was unable to establish probable cause for either obstruction of justice or unlawful collusion with the Russians.

1 Reply

@DrewDad,

Quote:

Try reading it again, from the perspective of a prosecutor.

I have no reason to do such a thing. Only people who want "guilty" as the only answer look at things this way, there was no evidence of collusion by Trump, his campaign or any other American citizen, hence no indictments against Trump, anyone in his campaign or other American citizens or organizations for collusion or even working with the Russian.

Quote:

A prosecutor or investigator, alone, cannot establish guilt (as Brandon keeps reminding us). Mueller cannot establish or find that someone conspired, because that would be a crime, and establishing that someone is guilty of a crime requires a criminal proceeding.

They've admitted there was no evidence pointing to such "crimes".

Quote:

Time will tell which of us is correct.

This is the interesting part, because it dives into the 2nd portion of the Mueller investigation and what the Barr summary talks about. Russia causing distrust in the election and political system. The DNC and MSM have done everything in their power to make this happen, going as far as to investigate a sitting President for collusion with Russia. You should be proud, you fell for the Russian trap, hook line and sinker. The left in believing such lies have pushed this country to it's breaking point, refusing to work with Trump an anything because he was a "russian agent". What happens in the future is on your heads, Russia is sitting back and laughing at you.

1 Reply

If Bar does not turn over the unredacted report along with all the evidence the republicans will suffer muchley. I hope Bar sticks to his guns and does the coverup Trump has ordered.

3 Replies

@RABEL222,

Quote:

I hope Bar sticks to his guns and does the coverup Trump has ordered.

Trump can do nothing to change DOJ policies. Those policies lawfully withhold information. Stop making **** up.

0 Replies

@RABEL222,

RABEL222 wrote:

If Bar does not turn over the unredacted report along with all the evidence the republicans will suffer muchley. I hope Bar sticks to his guns and does the coverup Trump has ordered.

"muchly" "Bar"???

I suspect Barr will simply follow the law and DOJ policy and redact judicially sensitive parts of the report and completely withhold Grand Jury Testimony.

2 Replies

@Baldimo,

Baldimo wrote:

Quote:
A prosecutor or investigator, alone, cannot establish guilt (as Brandon keeps reminding us). Mueller cannot establish or find that someone conspired, because that would be a crime, and establishing that someone is guilty of a crime requires a criminal proceeding.

They've admitted there was no evidence pointing to such "crimes".

Better try reading it again. His summary says no such thing.

0 Replies

@RABEL222,

Special Council is assisting with the redactions....so if Barr is concocting a 'coverup' Mueller is certainly in on it.

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

I suspect Barr will simply follow the law and DOJ policy and redact judicially sensitive parts of the report and completely withhold Grand Jury Testimony.

This was my assumption to.

I am a bit concerned about his 2nd or 3rd memo where he discusses redacting information that may simply be embarrassing. I did not like reading that, but am holding any further criticism until I see what is released.

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

Quoting Trump. Muchley. Are you an English teacher George. If not what's with the putdown English correction crap? Do you think it makes you look more intelligent than me?

1 Reply

@RABEL222,

In response to your question I am not an English teacher, though I have taught undergraduate Mathematics courses.

As for the rest, no effort is needed.

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

Quote:

A two year well funded investigation composed mostly of people with an expressed animus towards Trump

.
1) the Benghazi investigation lasted a year longer

2) "well funded". Do you know of any that weren't?

3) "composed mostly of people with an expressed animus towards Trump". You are not going to be able to cite any legitimate reporting which makes this claim and which give details that support it. Prove me wrong.

Do you know anything about Mueller's team? Names? Numbers? Political affiliations? How about other key figures? Mueller, for example, is a registered Republican. Chris Wray who Trump appointed to replace Comey as head of FBI is a registered Republican who worked for Bush. Rod Rosenstein, a Bush appointee for AG in Maryland, was part of Ken Starr's team.

So just where the **** are you getting your "information", george? As I said, prove me wrong. Make me look an ill-informed ass. Provide us with some substance that will support you.

1 Reply

@blatham,

Quote:

As I said, prove me wrong. Make me look an ill-informed ass.

Again? He only repeats himself because you do not understand he already has.

0 Replies

@Baldimo,

Typical of your bullsh*t. You've read the entire report? Mr. Mueller's brief did not specify looking for collusion, therefore my response is a big so what?

0 Replies

@DrewDad,

DrewDad wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

DrewDad wrote:
You keep telling yourself that, big boy.

So, just to make sure that we're not misunderstanding you when you talk about "our legal system", you do not believe that someone is innocent until proven guilty?

Well, someone has either committed the crime or they haven't, so they aren't "innocent until proven guilty."

The question is whether the prosecutor can establish guilt in a court of law. The burden of proof is on the prosecution, certainly.

Until and unless I'm asked to sit on a jury, my judgements are my own.

I meant that our legal system does and should consider people innocent until proven guilty. People investigated and subsequently not charged with crimes should not be under a permanent cloud of suspicion until they affirmatively prove their innocence.

1 Reply

@Brandon9000,

Those assumptions do not work for the American President though. The main assumption is that a sitting president cannot be indicted for any crime because they still would be the authoritative figure of our country. The next rule would be to impeach, to remove the president from their duties, which clears the process into prosecution for crimes committed while in Office.

The Mueller investigation did not indict Trump but without being able to see the evidence of any crime committed, impeachment is off the table too. That's why it's important to release the report. We don't know if any crime was committed, we just have an AG summary specifying there's no indictment forthcoming.

It's a round-robin discussion.

3 Replies

@neptuneblue,

Quote:

, We don't know if any crime was committed

They don't know either, that is why there are no charges.

1 Reply

@coldjoint,

The purpose was never to bring charges, it was to inform. We still are left in the dark. Why is that ok with you?

3 Replies

@neptuneblue,

Quote:

it was to inform.

It has informed you. It has informed you that charges are not called for. There is no reason to involve the people they interviewed or what the grand jury said. You just have to know that is what they based their opinion on and their decision to bring no charges. In other words, it should be over, how long does the country have to suffer?

1 Reply

@coldjoint,

I disagree. An opinionated summary is not fact.

1 Reply

@neptuneblue,

Quote:

An opinionated summary is not fact.

Legally it might as well be.

0 Replies

Mueller: No further indictments

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know