Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Lack of evidence doesn't prove innocence. Barr says there's no evidence of collusion; but Trump and his team could have colluded, but were careful to cover their tracks. This would explain why so many of Trump's people lied to Congress and Trump obstructed.
Lack of evidence doesn't prove innocence. Police says there's no evidence of murder; but Elioot_CA could have committed murder, but were careful to cover his tracks.
A report has just been released by Barr and CBS is reporting that it absolute does exonerate the President. There is no evidence of collusion or obstruction.
That quote "While this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him" comes directly from Mueller's report.
IOW, there is evidence, just not enough at this time to bring charges. (No surprise there, not being allowed to interview the accused handicaps the investigators and/or prosecutors.)
"Does not conclude the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him."
That sentence doesn't make sense.
This relates to the obstruction charge. It looks, walks, quacks like a duck, but proving it is another matter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Originalist
A report has just been released by Barr and CBS is reporting that it absolutely does exonerate the President. There is no evidence of collusion or obstruction.
Wrong.
There IS evidence of OBSTRUCTION - but SC says it does NOT either PROVE or EXONERATE - and is probably insufficient to take to trial. Sorta like Hillary's emails.
It's that pesky "intent" issue again.
Re Russian Collusion, because Mueller was unable to get cooperation from witnesses on that issue, report concludes there was no Russian collusion.
We, of course, know otherwise. But proving it is an entirely different matter.
Dems probably will go back to manufacturing race riots now that the weather is warming up
My feeling exactly.
Except all their race baiting, their race riots, their marching around in pink vagina hats, their censoring conservatives at colleges and on social media, their 24/7 fake news and conspiracies, their hundreds of fake
right wing hate and racist hoaxes —— none of its working.....
Lack of evidence doesn't prove innocence. Police says there's no evidence of murder; but Elioot_CA could have committed murder, but were careful to cover his tracks.
Huh? You do know that when a court declares someone "not guilty" that is not the same as innocent, right?
Well, so much for the people on here accepting the Mueller report.
They all said they would accept it if there was no collusion, or obstruction, but as we all knew, they would never accept anything other than impeachment.
Well, so much for the people on here accepting the Mueller report.
Waa! Not My Special Counsel Weport! Waa!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tall Traveler
No obswuction!! No cowussion!! Waaa!!!
=)
Quote:
Originally Posted by shiftymh
One can also argue that this report does not exonerate Adam Schiff of child molestation.
Neither does his mealy mouthed face.
Ha ha Donna Brazillion has flipped her platinum wig! Dana Pirino just told Donna Brazilian "You'd better eat that crow quickly. It doesn't get any better while it sits around!"
Hard.
Core!
Beautiful Pueblo Colorado gurl!
Quote:
Originally Posted by prospectheightsresident
From Attorney General Barr's letter:
Quote:
Quote:
The Special Counsel's decision to describe the facts of his obstruction investigation without reaching any legal conclusions leaves it to the Attorney General to determine whether the conduct described in the report constitutes a crime. Over the course of the investigation, the Special Counsel's office engaged in discussions with certain Department officials regarding many of the legal and factual matters at issue in the Special Counsel's obstruction investigation. After reviewing the Special Counsel's final report on these issues; consulting with Department officials, including the Office of Legal Counsel; and applying the principles of federal prosecution that guide our charging decisions, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and I 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. Our determination was made without regard to, and is not based on, the constitutional considerations that surround the indictment and criminal prosecution of a sitting president.
There it is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by biscuitmom
Barr's letter doesn't say that. It quotes the report: "This investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities".
Which means they didn't find *sufficient* evidence to establish it.
In his letter, Barr tries to soften that statement in his letter by preceding it with his (Barr's) own paraphrase: "The Special Counsel did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with coordinated with the Russian government in its efforts to influence [the election].
Which noticeably dilutes Mueller's statement but it still doesn't say there's NO evidence.
Oh let em spin and flop.
Last edited by McGowdog; 03-24-2019 at 03:42 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
)
Not My Special Counsel Weport! Waa!