whirlingmerc
Well-Known Member
I believe Martha Stewart went to jail because of a greater crime occurred where someone leaked information from a grand jury
That seems problematic
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Obstruction: Muellers report
- Thread starter Riders
- Start date
I believe Martha Stewart went to jail because of a greater crime occurred where someone leaked information from a grand jury
That seems problematic
Stanyon
WWMRD?
The AG said a few hours ago there was no case for obstruction
Ya know what might be going in with so many of these off-the-mark anti-Trump threads?
I suspect that they intentionally make false claims, & then when sentient posters point
out the error, they're hereafter called "Trump supporters". No discussion....no evidence.
Just labeling. Whadaya think?
To be careful, it's not that there was a determination of none of that stuff.
There was just no evidence presented.
This is still useful to the most fervent anti-Trumpettes, who can still believe.
Hope lies in more investigations.
shmogie
Well-Known Member
Absence of ANY evidence means that there was no underlying crime as a result of an exhaustive investigation. Using your little word play means that no one is ever innocent of anything, there is no evidence that you are a murderer, but you aren´t innocent of murder because the evidence could be out there just waiting to be found.
In fact, the police ought to investigate you, because that evidence might exist if they just look hard enough.
Innocent and not guilty mean exactly the same thing as relates to a specific crime for which there was a trial.
esmith
Veteran Member
The ole nail on the head
shmogie
Well-Known Member
Yep, they and the entire narrative against Trump has fallen flat on their faces.
They exemplify the old saying ¨ don´t confuse me with facts¨
shmogie
Well-Known Member
There was no crime. A sitting President cannot be indicted but when he leaves office he can be. This report never says that there was an indictable offense of any kind, nor does it recommend indictment after Trump leaves office.
shmogie
Well-Known Member
Beria, the head of Stalin´s secret police said, ¨ show me the man, I´ll show you the crime¨.
Kangaroo Feathers
Yea, it is written in the Book of Cyril...
Prove that there is "absence of ANY evidence" and you'd have a point. Until that time, allow me to borrow a phrase;
Yes he did. Mueller did not say that.
I think this is why we should see the Mueller report.
Shad
Veteran Member
It is this
"Barr added that after review, he and Deputy Attorney General Rob Rosenstein "have concluded that the evidence developed during the Special Counsel's investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense."
So this could mean anything within that limit.
The claim was made for evidence of obstruction.
This isn't.
If there is, it hasn't been presented yet.
Shad
Veteran Member
It is distorting not sufficient part to mean there is evidence but not good enough evidence. It is speculation drive by a bias.
"Not sufficient" could mean anything from nothing to insufficient.
So while it offers hope to anti-Trumpettes that the presumed
evidence is in the direction away from nothing, they really don't
know. They're just elevating their hopes to the level of facts.
shmogie
Well-Known Member
There was no evidence of collusion, none, and that was why the entire thing started in the first place. No evidence means that the FISA warrants were obtained by false evidence.
Obstruction of justice is a high bar to reach, and is complicated. We know that Trump never invoked executive privilege which the previous three presidents did. We know that Mueller never complained about not receiving documents he wanted, and many hundreds of thousands of pages were shared by the White House.
Obstruction of Justice is based upon criminal intent. Knowing that what you are doing is clearly understood as a criminal act.
The Justice Department has reviewed the entire Mueller report, and has determined that there is insufficient to make a case.
Insufficient most likely means means that the element of criminal intent is not present.
Democrat hitters like Schiff and Knadler have, for two years, insisted that there was a plethora of evidence to prove collusion by Trump and his campaign with the Russians.
They are sewer dwelling bald faced liars. 2 years, 25 million dollars, 17 full time lawyers, a large number of investigators. 500 witnesses interviewed, hundreds of search warrants served all make their lies hugely apparent.
averageJOE
zombie
Please. Just stop with Russiagate. Mainstream media and democrats are just grasping at straws at this point.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
I have a great deal of faith in Mueller but much less so with Barr, especially since the latter wrote a 19 page summary while the investigation was still in progress that said there was no evidence of collusion or obstruction.
The report must be put forth or the "cloud of doubt" will still remain over this administration and Barr. Plus, I do believe Mueller needs to report to the House because all we really have at this point is Barr's four-page summary.
Also, we do not know exactly why Mueller concluded that Trump has not been exonerated on the issue of obstruction, which is contrary to what Trump has claimed.
IOW, this is not over yet, although I truly wish it was.
The report must be put forth or the "cloud of doubt" will still remain over this administration and Barr. Plus, I do believe Mueller needs to report to the House because all we really have at this point is Barr's four-page summary.
Also, we do not know exactly why Mueller concluded that Trump has not been exonerated on the issue of obstruction, which is contrary to what Trump has claimed.
IOW, this is not over yet, although I truly wish it was.