"If we had confidence that Trump did not commit a crime, we would have said so"

[Pommer]

Policy is not law. He could have made an allegation of a crime. He didn't. Policy is not law.

I read what he said. Policy is not law

Okay.
Let’s say Mueller had sought to bring an indictment against The President.
How might’ve that played out...in the courts?

 

[rjs330]

Ah, but because you pray at the altar of Trump, you may be unaware that there still exist people of principle. Mueller appears to be one of those people....he observes policies, he takes orders....

Apparently someone who defends the law now is a idolater. Interesting. I never voted for the man. I He's boorish and rude. I'm not fond of his lying and exaggerating. There is much to dislike about him personally. Quite frankly I wish we had a different president. But I don't hate the man. He supports some very good things. You on the other hand you hate him. You hate him and any conservative idea he might have. In fact you would hate any conservative president. It just happens this one makes too easy. The constant never ending attacks against him are abominable. And I defend the the law. I fight against hate. The way the left is now any conservative president would undergo this kind of attacks. It may be harder with someone who was less boorish, but the left would find something.

So to be clear. I do wish we had someone else as president who was a strong constitutional conservative. But I don't. So no. No idolatry here.

 

[Arcangl86]

Policy is not law. He could have made an allegation of a crime. He didn't. Policy is not law.

I read what he said. Policy is not law

He was legally required to follow Department of Justice policy.

 

[rjs330]

No, it's not the "end of story." Mueller's primary responsibility was to investigate Russian interference. He found plenty, despite your Golden Boy's continued denials and his attempt to discredit those findings by misrepresenting the investigation as being all about "Getting Trump."

Mueller found no collusion, collaberation between Trump and Russia. End of that story. He did find where Russia tried to influence the election. If Trump denies that Russia tried to influence the election then he's not being honest. But that's no surprise is it? He's not the most honest president we've ever had.
The mandate for Mueller was to find out if Russia tried to influence the election and if Trump and/or his campaign colluded or collaborated with them in doing so. Mueller was unable to show that Trump did that. End of that story. Period.

 

[rjs330]

Okay.
Let’s say Mueller had sought to bring an indictment against The President.
How might’ve that played out...in the courts?

I don't know. It didn't happen. You never know how something is going to play out in court. The prosecution has the burden of proof and the defendant is presumed innocent. If the prosecution is able to show guilt beynd a reasonable doubt then the defendant is found guilty. But it remains a fact that no one has actually alleged that Trump committed a crime. Mueller didn't, the FBI hasn't, the DOJ hasn't and Congress hasn't even started an impeachment proceeding alleging crimes. We've got a lot of talking heads and leftists on the internet accusing him but they are irrelevant. So right now Trump stand innocent. He is innocent until proven guilty.

Who knows, maybe that will change someday. But until someone actually files charges and he has his day in court he's an innocent man.

 

[Pommer]

I don't know. It didn't happen. You never know how something is going to play out in court. The prosecution has the burden of proof and the defendant is presumed innocent. If the prosecution is able to show guilt beynd a reasonable doubt then the defendant is found guilty. But it remains a fact that no one has actually alleged that Trump committed a crime. Mueller didn't, the FBI hasn't, the DOJ hasn't and Congress hasn't even started an impeachment proceeding alleging crimes. We've got a lot of talking heads and leftists on the internet accusing him but they are irrelevant. So right now Trump stand innocent. He is innocent until proven guilty.

Who knows, maybe that will change someday. But until someone actually files charges and he has his day in court he's an innocent man.

Come on!
Mueller would have been “fired for cause” and we all know it.

 

[stevil]

The mandate for Mueller was to find out if Russia tried to influence the election and if Trump and/or his campaign colluded or collaborated with them in doing so. Mueller was unable to show that Trump did that. End of that story. Period.

Where does it say "Trump and/or his campaign"?
It mentions the Trump campaign, it doesn't separate out Donald Trump and specifixally say that Trump himself is to be charged.
You are reaching for something that is not there, and also ignoring something that is there(Mueller's statement on why the president hasn't been considered to be charged)

If you need to reach and ignore for your position to be held, then your position in untenable.

 

[stevil]

Except for the Tweet where he admitted Russia helped him without his knowledge. Getting closer to the truth, unintentionally I'd guess.

He let that slip, but then he walked it back later.
Nice to see his colleges and supporters tolerant of him continuing to deny Russian interference.

Trump Admits Russia Helped Him Win, Denies It 20 Minutes Later
"“No,” he told reporters as he left Washington for Colorado. “Russia did not help me get elected "

 

[Allandavid]

Apparently someone who defends the law now is a idolater. Interesting. I never voted for the man. I He's boorish and rude. I'm not fond of his lying and exaggerating. There is much to dislike about him personally. Quite frankly I wish we had a different president. But I don't hate the man. He supports some very good things. You on the other hand you hate him. You hate him and any conservative idea he might have. In fact you would hate any conservative president. It just happens this one makes too easy. The constant never ending attacks against him are abominable. And I defend the the law. I fight against hate. The way the left is now any conservative president would undergo this kind of attacks. It may be harder with someone who was less boorish, but the left would find something.

So to be clear. I do wish we had someone else as president who was a strong constitutional conservative. But I don't. So no. No idolatry here.

You defend the law...? Great!

So you are in favour of Trump and his minions obeying legally issued sub poenas and court orders....?

 

[whatbogsends]

Assumption of criminal acts has little basis without substantial evidence to support a charge of a crime committed. It leaves the rule of law behind for the politics of public opinion. In this country a person is innocent until proven guilty beyond the shadow of doubt. And right now under the rule of law, as Barr points out, there is doubt a crime has even been committed.

On top of that there are Trump's job approval numbers backed by a booming economy and historically low unemployment across the board. To impeach a president charges of a crime, not just allegations, must be put forth and job approval numbers in the tank. "Political" evidence from the opposition, belief or opinion that doesn't stand under scrutiny of the rule of law is baseless for the proceedings of impeachment especially when half the public approves of what he's doing.

It's been a smear campaign from the beginning and still is. The people get that. Now, if Biden continues his rhetoric of stopping the fighting, advocating peace and refrains from going off the deep end of hatred for Trump then I do believe he just might give Trump a run for his money come 2020. Thing is, I don't think his base would be happy with the offering of an olive branch.

This post is awash in alternate facts, from the claim that there's not substantial evidence of a crime, to nonsense about impeachment and approval numbers.

The people are starting to understand just how corrupt Trump is, and how he is dismissive of the rule of law and the Constitution.

 

[rjs330]

Come on!
Mueller would have been “fired for cause” and we all know it.

What if... Doesn't count. You don't know what would have happened. The fact is it didn't.

 

[rjs330]

Where does it say "Trump and/or his campaign"?
It mentions the Trump campaign, it doesn't separate out Donald Trump and specifixally say that Trump himself is to be charged.
You are reaching for something that is not there, and also ignoring something that is there(Mueller's statement on why the president hasn't been considered to be charged)

If you need to reach and ignore for your position to be held, then your position in untenable.

It doesn't have to mention Trump by name. It didn't mention a lot of names. How many names of the people they charges were mentioned in the directive? Wasn't Trump part of the Trump campaign? Honestly. The logical tango the left does is pretty amazing. If Trump would have collaborated he wouldn't have been mentioned? You can dance if you want to.

 

[rjs330]

He let that slip, but then he walked it back later.
Nice to see his colleges and supporters tolerant of him continuing to deny Russian interference.

Trump Admits Russia Helped Him Win, Denies It 20 Minutes Later
"“No,” he told reporters as he left Washington for Colorado. “Russia did not help me get elected "

When has Trump ever been articulate? Honestly it's not surprising he stumbled over his words. He does that all the time. If he was was a masterful speaker and never screwed up his words or sentences then maybe we could talk. The left is just always so ridiculous when it comes to this stuff. Trump screws up his words and he likes lies lies. Then he screws up his words and it supports what you like then he's totally being honest. What dishonest here is the left again.

 

[rjs330]

You defend the law...? Great!

So you are in favour of Trump and his minions obeying legally issued sub poenas and court orders....?

Yes if they are found to be legal. Just cause a subpoena is issued doesn't mean it's demands are legal. You can fight a subpoena. You can fight a court order. That's part of the legal system. And you could take it to the Supreme Court. If the Supreme Court rules that the demands of the subpoena and the court orders are to be obeyed then yes I would say that Trump would have to comply.

 

[Allandavid]

Yes if they are found to be legal. Just cause a subpoena is issued doesn't mean it's demands are legal. You can fight a subpoena. You can fight a court order. That's part of the legal system. And you could take it to the Supreme Court. If the Supreme Court rules that the demands of the subpoena and the court orders are to be obeyed then yes I would say that Trump would have to comply.

Great! I eagerly await your ringing statements of support as these orders and sub poenas are upheld through the various stages of deliberation...!

We can count on that, can’t we.....?

 

[Allandavid]

When has Trump ever been articulate? Honestly it's not surprising he stumbled over his words. He does that all the time. If he was was a masterful speaker and never screwed up his words or sentences then maybe we could talk. The left is just always so ridiculous when it comes to this stuff. Trump screws up his words and he likes lies lies. Then he screws up his words and it supports what you like then he's totally being honest. What dishonest here is the left again.

I see...

So when he says “I can’t see why it would be Russia” (interfering in US elections)...

When he says “We are in love”....”I like him a lot”....when speaking about the murderer Kim....

When he says “it’s all a hoax” (investigation of Russian interference)...

Is he just “screwing up” his words...?

 

[USincognito]

His sycophants who lap up his every word and believe it no matter how hugely dishonest. But you're right that it would be nice if we had the luxury of not paying that man a dang bit of attention. Unfortunately on account of the job we don't. Donald's earned all that of negative news coverage from around the world.

Send me a PM. I need to give you a moderation heads up on part of this post.

 

[USincognito]

Policy is not law. He could have made an allegation of a crime. He didn't. Policy is not law.

I read what he said. Policy is not law

Stop repeating that like a mantra! Did you even listed to his press briefing the other day or read any of the content of the report? Do you even understand how DOJ works (low key, not sensationalist)? He said it wouldn't be fair to state a conclusion about someone he couldn't even charge with a crime.

Mueller revealed why he didn't charge Trump with obstruction, and it directly contradicts what Barr told the public

Mueller's report lays out three main reasons why prosecutors didn't indict Trump or suggest he should be charged:

• They adhered to the OLC's 1973 decision that a sitting president cannot be indicted.
• They believed that if their report suggested Trump could face federal charges without actually bringing them, it would not be fair because there would be no trial, and he wouldn't have an opportunity to clear himself.
• Mueller did not consider filing a sealed indictment against Trump out of fear that it would be leaked and significantly impede his ability to govern.

 

[USincognito]

these so called prosecutors...

You got any so-called evidence to support your slander?

 

[Allandavid]

You got any so-called evidence to support your slander?

Perhaps he could peruse this list and indicate the “so called” individuals....?

https://protectdemocracy.org/update/statement-by-former-federal-prosecutors/