I assumed he was responding to you. I was thinking that Mueller is/was Becket, but I can see Comey too.Who or what was that in response to? Seemed kind of random.
I assumed he was responding to you. I was thinking that Mueller is/was Becket, but I can see Comey too.Who or what was that in response to? Seemed kind of random.
Not feeling this one at all. At all.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.
What prosecution did the report recommend against the president, his family, or any member of the Trump campaign for campaign activities?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.
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.
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.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)
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.
. Despite whatever thing you have with other forum members
--- End of line (MCP)
I was thinking that Mueller is/was Becket,
I missed the Comey statement before Congress so thanks for that.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....
One of my favorite quotes of all time.is there no one to free me from this meddlesome priest
One of my favorite quotes of all time.
--- End of line (MCP)
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.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
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.
Did Mueller drop the ball and did he do it deliberately .
He knows better, but that is the kind of slimy snake he is.
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.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..'
so while I have had much fun and mirth tweaking Transporters Clown Nose over all of this .....
I've gotten quite the kick out of making you look like an ass....
Dude, how can you lack such self-awareness?I've gotten quite the kick out of making you look like an ass....
He's the pigeon at the chessboard.Dude, how can you lack such self-awareness?
You may get a kick out of it, but I cannot recall a single post where you actually made GURPS look like an ass.
If you feel like you do and that makes you feel better (about yourself), have at it. But the sad realization is that for all the electrons you continue to waste you got no game. None whatsoever, bra. Nada. Zilch.
Have a nice evening enjoying your visions of sugar plums and fairies dancing.
#Mirroring
--- End of line (MCP)
It’s not a question of ‘would’, it is a question of ‘could’. Mueller clearly says he COULD NOT indict the potus because of the OLC opinion. It is not cowardly to follow the law and hand the issue to the appropriate authority. Mueller followed the law and then he recommended that congress take it up from there.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.
Discussing the second volume on obstruction, Levin said it “doesn’t have a syllable of legal significance, there’s not a syllable of law in it,” stressing that “none of it has been tested in the court of law.”
“That’s why Mueller wrote this — this is a political document that he should never have written,” Levin said, comparing it to an editorial piece.
“This is an op-ed. This is a 200-page op-ed, that’s all this is,” he declared.
^^^And this.^^^“That is why we have a court of law,” Levin said. “That is why prosecutors, dammit, are not supposed to write essays like this.”
After highlighting the fact that no one is focused on volume one, which he said was legal and did cite law, and found no collusion, he unloaded on the obstruction angle.
“[Mueller] didn’t have an obstruction case against the president of the United States or he would have brought it,” Levin insisted, becoming increasingly animated. “I’m using plain English so even Joe Scarborough and Jake Tapper can understand this.”
“Volume two is crap!” he continued, slamming his hand on a copy of the report for added emphasis. “Volume two was written for slip and fall lawyer Nadler, slip and fall lawyer Schiff. That’s why he wrote it. He knew the media would run with it.”