15
   

Mueller: No further indictments

 
 
coldjoint
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 1 Apr, 2019 12:29 pm
@DrewDad,
Quote:
...as one does with a report that completely and totally exonerates you.

No collusion. 3 years of lies by the MSM and politicians. I wouldn't be laughing if I were you. The joke is on you, and Trump now has a lock on 4 more years. Laughing Laughing Laughing
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Apr, 2019 12:44 pm
This gets it on the nose.
Quote:
Can we all trust Barr to tell us what we should and shouldn’t see in the Mueller report?

There are reasons to be skeptical, to say the least. Imagine, as some have posited, what the reaction would have been from both Republicans and the media if Ken Starr had delivered his report on the Lewinsky scandal to Janet Reno, who kept it from the public but wrote a four-page letter concluding that Bill Clinton was not guilty of any crimes. But it’s even worse than that, because Reno wasn’t given the job of attorney general because she sent Clinton a memorandum offering her opinion that he couldn’t possibly be guilty of obstruction of justice.

That’s what Barr did. His 19-page memo written last June argued that “Mueller’s obstruction theory is fatally misconceived,” and the idea that Barr’s memo was anything other than a successful audition for the position of attorney general is absurd. After all, the entire reason Trump was so eager to fire his first attorney general, Jeff Sessions, was because Sessions had recused himself from the Russia investigation and was therefore unable to protect Trump from it. The president didn’t even try to hide that fact...
Waldman
coldjoint
 
  0  
Reply Mon 1 Apr, 2019 12:49 pm
@blatham,
Quote:
This gets it on the nose.

The Washington Post is not a credible source for anything having to do with this investigation. To say it is, is laughable.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Apr, 2019 04:25 am
@DrewDad,
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?
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 2 Apr, 2019 05:55 am
@Brandon9000,
It wouldn't be the first time that he has favored ignoring the law to persecute the innocent.
http://able2know.org/topic/188223-139
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Apr, 2019 06:01 am
@Brandon9000,
Quote:
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?
I missed the start of this conversation but I presume you are alluding to Hillary Clinton here?
maporsche
 
  3  
Reply Tue 2 Apr, 2019 09:11 am
@blatham,
Hahahahaha
0 Replies
 
coldjoint
 
  0  
Reply Tue 2 Apr, 2019 09:18 am
@blatham,
Quote:
I missed the start of this conversation but I presume you are alluding to Hillary Clinton here?

Does it matter? I see no reason not to persecute her for three years. At least it would not be lies. She did destroy evidence. She did rig the DNC nomination process. And she did let 4 Americans die in Benghazi. She did lie about the cause of that attack. She did collude with the Russians and other foreign agents to win an election. She would not survive real scrutiny and would be jailed. The sooner the better.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 2 Apr, 2019 08:31 pm
@blatham,
blatham wrote:

Quote:
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?
I missed the start of this conversation but I presume you are alluding to Hillary Clinton here?

No, it was a reference to this comment about the Mueller investigation. This was part of a conversation between DrewDad and georgeob1.

DrewDad wrote:
You really don't have a very good grasp of the legal system.

"not guilty" is not the same as "innocent"

"insufficient evidence" is not the same as "not guilty" and it definitely isn't the same as "innocent"


I drove over the speed limit on my way to work today. I am not innocent of the traffic violation. I just didn't get caught.


I am taking the liberty of correcting a punctuation error in my quotation.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  4  
Reply Tue 2 Apr, 2019 09:09 pm
The rightwingnuts here are focusing solely on Plump. Some of them are making idiotic allegations to the effect that Mrs. Clinton and the DNC foisted this off on the country. That appears to be because they let the fat boy in the White House do their thinking for them. The special counsel was appointed in May, 2017, more than three months after Plump was inaugurated. The Attorney General, Jeff Sessions, recused himself because he was known to have met with the Russian ambassador. His Deputy appointed Mr. Mueller. Claiming this is some kind of Democratic plot is the kind of idiocy which Plump can rely on his supporters embracing.

Mr. Mueller's brief did not make Plump a target. Mr. Mueller's brief was not to prove Plump guilty of anything. The document appointing him has already been posted. Plump has claimed that he was exonerated, which is the exact opposite of what the Mueller report has said, and even what Plump's lickspittle AG claimed.

This thread is a complete waste of time. Many of the usual suspects here don't surprise me at all. It is pathetic, though, that people as obviously intelligent as George and Brandon rush in here with distortions and irrelevancies. Mueller did a good job with the brief he was given. Plump will undoubtedly pay for his part, some day, in one or more state courts.
McGentrix
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 2 Apr, 2019 09:20 pm
@Setanta,
I wish you and Blatham were less predictable. Blah blah blah. Same **** you guys have been blahing for nearly 3 years.

coldjoint
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 2 Apr, 2019 09:29 pm
@Setanta,
Quote:
This thread is a complete waste of time.

Later. I know you would not dream of wasting time.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  3  
Reply Wed 3 Apr, 2019 12:12 am
@McGentrix,
Oh yeah, right . . . and you're just a constant breath of fresh air.

My post makes points you don't like, valid points, and that's what got your little lace panties in a twist.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  3  
Reply Wed 3 Apr, 2019 12:16 am
By the way, McG, your boy Plump has only been president for a little over two years--but I understand, it does feel like the clown's been disgracing the nation just forever!
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  3  
Reply Wed 3 Apr, 2019 07:22 am
@McGentrix,
Quote:
Re: Setanta (Post 6819261)
I wish you and Blatham were less predictable. Blah blah blah. Same **** you guys have been blahing for nearly 3 years.
I can understand your complaint and your singling out of the two of us, McG. Setanta and I stand quite alone here on A2K because, it's clear, he and I are the brightest and funniest posters in the community. Also, our offspring are exceedingly virile.
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 3 Apr, 2019 08:44 am
@Setanta,
Except the report does indeed clear Trump and any other Americans of any collusion or attempted collusion with Russia.
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Apr, 2019 08:48 am
@Baldimo,
BARR actually claimed that there wasn't enough evidence to legally indict the president for collusion with the the Russian government.

The Mueller report may show that there was still collusion or attempted collusion with the Russian government or even with Russian oligarchs or other Russian individuals, but that collusion did not appear to be criminal or at least the case couldn't be made (possibly because several members of the Trump campaign were convicted or pled guilty to lying to the FBI or grand jury). There may still be evidence of collusion. Just not illegal collusion (especially since as you've told us before, collusion is not a crime).

If you want to bet your house that there isn't anything politically damaging to Trump in the Mueller report, well, I'll take that bet.

DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Apr, 2019 08:49 am
@Brandon9000,
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.
Baldimo
 
  -2  
Reply Wed 3 Apr, 2019 09:33 am
@maporsche,
Quote:
BARR actually claimed that there wasn't enough evidence to legally indict the president for collusion with the the Russian government.

Wrong, here's what was actually said in the report about Trump, Trump's campaign and other Americans on the question of colluding with Russia:
Quote:
The Special Counsel's investigation did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election. As the report states: “[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”


Quote:
As noted above, the Special Counsel did not find that any U.S. person or Trump campaign official or associate conspired or knowingly coordinated with the IRA in its efforts, although the Special Counsel brought criminal charges against a number of Russian nationals and entities in connection with these activities.


Quote:
There may still be evidence of collusion. Just not illegal collusion (especially since as you've told us before, collusion is not a crime).

Wrong, the above quoted sections disprove what you are hoping and wishing for.

Quote:
If you want to bet your house that there isn't anything politically damaging to Trump in the Mueller report, well, I'll take that bet.

Politically damaging is a very subjective thing when it comes to the obvious dislike of Trump by the MSM and the entertainment elite. People still believe there is a pee tape waiting to drop. Even at this point, the MSM are still hanging on to hope that Trump is guilty of working for Russia and are pushing obvious propaganda against the President. You'll excuse me if I pass on your offer because the truth has been reveled and you still think collusion happened.
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Apr, 2019 10:04 am
@Baldimo,
Try reading it again, from the perspective of a prosecutor.

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.

It's a very fine line that Barr is walking, IMO.

Time will tell which of us is correct.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.09 seconds on 04/10/2021 at 04:36:09