Underestimating the competition is not a sign of intelligence. Maybe you should try a little harder to figure out how your tribe lost an election to the "Orange Turd" instead of childishly running people down and engaging in name calling.
Mueller to speak today!
- Thread starter Lone Clone
- Start date
Underestimating the competition is not a sign of intelligence. Maybe you should try a little harder to figure out how your tribe lost an election to the "Orange Turd" instead of childishly running people down and engaging in name calling.
What does any of that have to do with Mueller? He's not a grand juror. He's a federal prosecutor and he told you...directly...that "the Office did not find evidence likely to prove
beyond a reasonable doubt...."
You are right that it isn't a statute. It's from the Justice Manual covering...you know...federal prosecutors. Which is what Mueller actually IS. And it says: "The attorney for the government (that would be Mueller) should commence or recommend federal prosecution if he/she believes that the person's conduct constitutes a federal offense, and that the admissible evidence will probably be sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction (which would require a belief by that federal prosecutor that the evidence is compelling beyond a reasonable doubt...which is - again - exactly what Mueller told you.)."
He won't say so. He doesn't think he can under OLC guidelines. Even if he was asked if the evidence would be sufficient to indict and convict someone not named POTUS, I don't think he would answer since that would have the same effect as saying the president should be indicted. Yeah...Ned Stark sounds about right. He might be the only guy with unwavering principles in the whole mess.
I don't think he would answer a hypothetical like that, just on principle.
"Likely" and "probably" sufficient to get a conviction is "probable cause." If Mueller had stated "there was not proof beyond a reasonable doubt" he would have been operating under his own personal heightened burden and you'd have a point. As it stands, Mueller is simply stating no probable cause.
That's simply incorrect, Joe. He VERY CLEARLY was speaking specifically about Barr not releasing the summary earlier. I can understand why you would pretend not to grasp this, since you are among those who have been raging for weeks about how Barr intentionally held the summaries in order to give the world time to get the wrong information.
Here is what Mueller said today:
At one point in time I requested that certain portions of the report be released. The Attorney General preferred to make the entire report public all at once. We appreciate that the Attorney General made the report largely public. I do not question the Attorney General’s good faith in that decision.
Couldn't be clearer for any honest reader. And if the clarity weren't enough in itself, there is the fact that there would be no reason on Earth for Mueller to say he believed Barr acted in good faith if all he was talking about was releasing the report.
Interestingly trump won by childishly running people down and engaging in name calling
And we still have 10 documents Mueller passed off to SDNY DC AND Va AGs. We have yet to hear from those investigations. Its definite not over yet.
My understanding is that while the DoJ can't indict the president, others can. Anybody know differently?
Ummm...there's plenty of evidence of the attempt. You didn't post "Evidence...LOL"...you posted "'Attempted'...LOL".
You stupidly tried to make the case that the "attempt" somehow isn't criminal. You shouldn't do that. People will think you're stupid.
You're really bad at this. Try harder.
Umm...no...he isn't. He explicitly said so. You torturing what he said to the point of stupidity doesn't change that. When Mueller says "the Office did not find evidence likely to prove beyond a reasonable doubt...." he's telling you they didn't have...you know...evidence likely to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. Had he said they didn't have evidence likely to prove probable cause...see...that would mean they wouldn't go for even an indictment.
But a prosecutor doesn't operate that way. A prosecutor doesn't even seek an indictment unless they think they already have...again..."evidence likely to prove beyond a reasonable doubt....". No point in getting that indictment if...you know...you have no idea if you can get - and sustain - a conviction. Which requires that the evidence rise to a level...what's the phrase?...oh yeah..."likely to prove beyond a reasonable doubt....".
Which is what the Justice Manual kinda said...in black and white. You should stop.
Quite true. And none of us should emulate the current POTUS. It is unfortunate that I have to say that.
I am late to this party so someone else might have responded but you are mistaken on one point. The DOJ CAN explicitly say if Trump did not commit a crime. They cannot explicitly say that he did commit a crime.
This is the element that requires critical thinking which might explain why some here are having a hard time.
Again, he neither refers to Barr's "memo", nor his letter.
Which is what I'd stated.
The "good faith" was in releasing the report, only. Which is what his last sentence states: "that decision".
They can explicitly state "we found no evidence of obstruction", or "incomplete evidence" for further prosecution/investigation.
Don’t you think a more sane R like Kasich would have a better chance of keeping the WH, especially if the Ds nominate a Bernie type? If I was a con, I’d welcome the chance to ditch Trump.
You are correct, that’s what impeachment is, an indictment.
Would I prefer that, yes. Would it happen? Nfw. If the gop impeached Trump, 10-20 million voters would stay home. Mitch and Co know this.
And that's why I'd prefer not going forward with impeachment. Keep him in and use all this against him. He's going to have a tough time winning the rust belt again which he needs for re-election. I'm not sure about Florida, but I'd bet Iowa will flip, not that we have many votes.
Last edited:
Whenever I go fishing for the big fish I use my special artificial lure. It is an irresistible bait. I call it "The Mueller".
FBI Director Robert Mueller: Oversaw the Biggest Coverup in U.S. History—9/11
MUELLER REPORT: Deep State’s Attempt to Control the Narrative and Coerce the POTUS
Mueller knows that the Alt Media has published hundreds of exposés on his career as a Deep State hitman and cover-up artist. That he was the FBI’s point-man who covered up the greatest crime on U.S. soil committed on September 11, 2001 has become common knowledge. Therefore, he knows his days are numbered before he is prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. How does anyone willfully cover up the U.S. government sponsored, false flag 9/11 attacks and get away with it?!
http://stateofthenation2012.com/?
MUELLER REPORT: Deep State’s Attempt to Control the Narrative and Coerce the POTUS
Mueller knows that the Alt Media has published hundreds of exposés on his career as a Deep State hitman and cover-up artist. That he was the FBI’s point-man who covered up the greatest crime on U.S. soil committed on September 11, 2001 has become common knowledge. Therefore, he knows his days are numbered before he is prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. How does anyone willfully cover up the U.S. government sponsored, false flag 9/11 attacks and get away with it?!
http://stateofthenation2012.com/?
Well if we nominate a Bernie type against anyone but Trump, 10-20 million Ds are going to vote R. The GOP is missing an opportunity to take the high ground and unite the nation behind someone who could actually get something on your agenda done. I guess I’ll just be grateful.
There is sense in categorizing the section of people supporting the Orange Turd, the 40%, or whatever percentile as a level of low or no information people that live in the conservative bubble of media news that is not based on fact-based information.
I have posted before on the efforts of conservative media to deliberately counter mainstream media irrespective of the issues, which the right wing has not only embraced, but must conform to. There are no gatekeepers in the right to test the truth of anything or any accusations. Fake News to the left means something that is untrue. Fake news to the right means something not in agreement.
Last edited:
