Once again: NO COLLUSION

Yooper

Socket 1, Intel 80486
PREMO Member
That ain’t the way it works homeslice.

If you plan to rob a bank but are prevented from going through with it, it’s still a crime you ignorant ingrown sausage link.
Not feeling this one at all. At all.

If I'm sitting around at the bar obviously drunk and I tell friends I plan on driving home (which would be a crime if I did) and my friends stop me from doing so I've still committed a crime?

That doesn't appear to be how it works to me.... Could be wrong....

P.S. I gave you an "angry face" because this seems so off the mark for you. Despite whatever thing you have with other forum members I usually enjoy your posts. This is an example of a post that moves the needle from "Always" to "Usually."

P.P.S. Removed the "angry face." But my observations still stands.

--- End of line (MCP)
 
Last edited:

SailorGirl

Active Member
I assumed he was responding to you. I was thinking that Mueller is/was Becket, but I can see Comey too.
Yeah he was responding to me just now because I asked him whether he was quoting King Henry or Jim Comey - Jim Comey made a similar statement during his appearance before Congress. What I meant was who was he originally responding to because the comment seemed just out there/random. I have a lot of people on ignore - could have been he was responding to one of those people I guess.

Wait a minute - he was responding to you. It still seems out there - why is he making that remark to you - didn't seem like you said anything to merit that.

Wait another minute just re-read your post. My original thought was he meant you. Regardless Beckett got murdered when King Henry made that remark and became a Saint. If you get murdered maybe you'll be made a saint. Saint Stgislander. Nice Ring to it huh?

Obviously I've been drinking....
 
Last edited:

This_person

Well-Known Member
If you plan to rob a bank but are prevented from going through with it, it’s still a crime you ignorant ingrown sausage link.
What prosecution did the report recommend against the president, his family, or any member of the Trump campaign for campaign activities?
 

PsyOps

Pixelated
so Barr's summary was pretty far off.......
First and foremost barr said the OLC's statement on indicting a president was not part of Mueller's decision making process. It clearly was. Then there was plenty of evidence of obstruction provided.




If you read the introduction to Volume II it clearly describes that the SC can not make a call on obstruction because of the OLC's determination that a president can not be indicted. The report goes on to say that they cant even say if they would bring charges if permitted because it would be unfair since the POTUS wouldn't have a due process to refute those charges. The report then says that this is a question for congress to take up.
I agree. I see several of the instances that ammount to obstruction as detailed in the report. The analyses seem clear and fair.
If that's your interpretation of what I said, then I'd say you're off track.

My point wasn't whether Mueller would indict anyone; my point was that he was unable to come up with any criminality regarding obstruction. Barr simply took it step further, in consultation with Mueller, Rosenstein, and other legal scholars that there is no evidence that Trump obstructed. Mueller clearly and purposely left it up to congress to decide whether Trump obstructed. Mueller took the cowardly route.
 

Yooper

Socket 1, Intel 80486
PREMO Member
Not feeling this one at all. At all.

If I'm sitting around at the bar obviously drunk and I tell friends I plan on driving home (which would be a crime if I did) and my friends stop me from doing so I've still committed a crime?

That doesn't appear to be how it works to me.... Could be wrong....

P.S. I gave you an "angry face" because this seems so off the mark for you. Despite whatever thing you have with other forum members I usually enjoy your posts. Yes, so off the mark....

--- End of line (MCP)
My point is this: it takes concrete steps toward something criminal for there to be even a hint of "criminal." If that's what everyone is arguing over: one side saying there were "steps toward," thus criminal with the other side saying, "Nope" well I guess we have a difference of opinion.

What's annoying in all of this is the weaselly way Mueller wrote this up: he could not have been unaware of the repercussions. And this seems to me rather childish/juvenile for someone who supposedly had such stellar credentials: "Oy, since I can't get Trump on anything criminal, I just leave this bit of poison as revenge." Whatever respect I had for Mueller (and believe it or not, it was fairly substantial) is now long down the commode. The contrast between SP Ken Starr (i.e., leaving HRC out of the Vince Foster report b/c he was a gentleman and she was First Lady) and SP Mueller is LIGHT YEARS.

I'll come back later and update this post with the link, but Andrew McCarthy had a scathing piece in the NY Post (yesterday, I think), re: what he sees as Mueller's "proprietorial misconduct."

Update (McCarthy NY Post article link): https://nypost.com/2019/04/18/mueller-completely-dropped-the-ball-with-obstruction-punt/

Here are the last four paragraphs. But please click over and read the entire piece. It is WELL WORTH your time.
This is unbecoming behavior for a prosecutor and an outrageous shifting of the burden of proof: The constitutional right of every American to force the government to prove a crime has been committed, rather than to have to prove his or her own innocence.

This is exactly why prosecutors should never speak publicly about the evidence uncovered in an investigation of someone who isn’t charged. The obligation of the prosecutor is to render a judgment about whether there is enough proof to charge a crime. If there is, the prosecutor indicts; if there is not, the prosecutor remains silent.

If special counsel Mueller believed there was an obstruction offense, he should have had the courage of his convictions and recommended charging the president. Since he wasn’t convinced there was enough evidence to charge, he should have said he wasn’t recommending charges. Period.

Anything else was — and is — a smear. Worse than that, it flouts the Constitution.
--- End of line (MCP)
 
Last edited:

stgislander

Well-Known Member
Yeah he was responding to me just now because I asked him whether he was quoting King Henry or Jim Comey - Jim Comey made a similar statement during his appearance before Congress. What I meant was who was he originally responding to because the comment seemed just out there/random. I have a lot of people on ignore - could have been he was responding to one of those people I guess.

Wait a minute - he was responding to you. It still seems out there - why is he making that remark to you - didn't seem like you said anything to merit that.

Wait another minute just re-read your post. My original thought was he meant you. Regardless Beckett got murdered when King Henry made that remark and became a Saint. If you get murdered maybe you'll be made a saint. Saint Stgislander. Nice Ring to it huh?

Obviously I've been drinking....
I missed the Comey statement before Congress so thanks for that.

Yeah, Gurps was making a roundabout comparison to my saying Trump's minions didn't follow his suggestions.

Unfortunately, being made a saint back then didn't mean all that much. Build a church or two and you are a saint. Besides, I just checked with King Gilligan. I don't think murder is in the cards for me.

Awwww... drinking!!! I want some. :buddies:
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
One of my favorite quotes of all time.

--- End of line (MCP)
so while I have had much fun and mirth tweaking Transporters Clown Nose over all of this .....

136547


what is your take on this repeated 'destruction of evidence' Claim

no connotation is given on the claim of 'intentional' message deletion

Like 'person or person's deleted messages after the investigation started

or the intentional use of apps using end to end encryption that cannot easily be recovered if at all ie WhatsApp or Telegram

or auto expiring messages like Snap Chat

it all smacks of surreptitious clams after the fact ..... why are you afraid tom talk to the police - aka why are you using these apps if you are doing NOTHING Illegal
 

SailorGirl

Active Member
I missed the Comey statement before Congress so thanks for that.

Yeah, Gurps was making a roundabout comparison to my saying Trump's minions didn't follow his suggestions.

Unfortunately, being made a saint back then didn't mean all that much. Build a church or two and you are a saint. Besides, I just checked with King Gilligan. I don't think murder is in the cards for me.

Awwww... drinking!!! I want some. :buddies:
Gilligan. Now he's the real saint.
 

Yooper

Socket 1, Intel 80486
PREMO Member
so while I have had much fun and mirth tweaking Transporters Clown Nose over all of this .....

View attachment 136547

what is your take on this repeated 'destruction of evidence' Claim

no connotation is given on the claim of 'intentional' message deletion

Like 'person or person's deleted messages after the investigation started

or the intentional use of apps using end to end encryption that cannot easily be recovered if at all ie WhatsApp or Telegram

or auto expiring messages like Snap Chat

it all smacks of surreptitious clams after the fact ..... why are you afraid tom talk to the police - aka why are you using these apps if you are doing NOTHING Illegal
I updated my earlier post with the NY Post article link & snippet. Here it is again, because I think this is a CRUCIAL bit of opining about how dangerous this all is.

Here's the McCarthy NY Post article (link): https://nypost.com/2019/04/18/mueller-completely-dropped-the-ball-with-obstruction-punt/

Here are the last four paragraphs. As I've previosly mentioned, PLEASE click over and read the entire piece. It is WELL WORTH your time.
This is unbecoming behavior for a prosecutor and an outrageous shifting of the burden of proof: The constitutional right of every American to force the government to prove a crime has been committed, rather than to have to prove his or her own innocence.

This is exactly why prosecutors should never speak publicly about the evidence uncovered in an investigation of someone who isn’t charged. The obligation of the prosecutor is to render a judgment about whether there is enough proof to charge a crime. If there is, the prosecutor indicts; if there is not, the prosecutor remains silent.

If special counsel Mueller believed there was an obstruction offense, he should have had the courage of his convictions and recommended charging the president. Since he wasn’t convinced there was enough evidence to charge, he should have said he wasn’t recommending charges. Period.

Anything else was — and is — a smear. Worse than that, it flouts the Constitution.
This is my answer to what may be your questions: the "Snapchat, etc. J'accuse" is BS - both irrelevant and an outrageous/cynical bit of theater.

Yes, it is a mess.

--- End of line (MCP)
 
Last edited:

Hijinx

Well-Known Member
Did Mueller drop the ball and did he do it deliberately .

Mueller. McCabe, Comey, all part of the Deep State in the FBI.

Mueller tried hard to find collusion, but he just couldn't do it but he left an open end to his investigation.
Why? Because he is pals with the guilty parties. I*f he were honest he would have admitted his TDS and recused himself.
Instead he did his best and couldn't get anywhere with collusion so he set up Trump for obstruction.

He knows better, but that is the kind of slimy snake he is.
 

Grumpy

Well-Known Member
The little bit I have read of the report has way too many weasel words that allow the naysayers to continue this hoax. Words matter and he left alot of his investigation dangling in 'we could not find whatever' sentences rather than 'we found no whatever..'
 

Yooper

Socket 1, Intel 80486
PREMO Member
Did Mueller drop the ball and did he do it deliberately .

He knows better, but that is the kind of slimy snake he is.
The little bit I have read of the report has way too many weasel words that allow the naysayers to continue this hoax. Words matter and he left alot of his investigation dangling in 'we could not find whatever' sentences rather than 'we found no whatever..'
If anyone is fine or supports Mueller's legal and ethical mischief (nay, malfeasance), well then, I guess now we know who the Bolshies are.

This is a travesty for the ages.

The burden of proof is on the State. The State could not meet the necessary threshold. Professional discretion would leave it there. But this has been neither professional nor discreet.

"And we'll know they are Bolshies by their glee, by their glee. Yes, we'll know they are Bolshies by their glee."

--- End of line (MCP)
 
Top