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

[rjs330]

Nice dodge.

Trump is not Nixon. Nixon too was innocent until proven guilty according to the law. Nixon was pardoned before any chargesTrump is INNOCENT until proven guilty.

As I said, he may very well be guilty of obstruction. But, he may not be. My question stands. Do you not believe in the right of the presumption of innocence?

 

[rjs330]

I take the "innocent until proven guilty" to be with regards to the treatment of a person.
Treat them as if they are innocent. e.g. Don't bump their head when putting them into the police car, don't ruff them up a bit.

Basically, don't do the things that Candidate Trump was espousing on his campaign trail.
AND certainly don't call someone "crooked" in front of their name, and don't chant "lock her up", or "lock him up", especially if you are President or Attorney General or National Security Advisor, or a fan that goes to the Trump Extravagansa shows that he puts on, and then turns around on internet chat sites and tells people that Trump is innocent until proven guilty.

Trump's actual "innocence" or "guilt" is already in place. He either committed a crime or he didn't.
This isn't a Schrodenger's cat type scenario. Trump doesn't become guilty only once the judge finds him guilty. If you were to go down this route then we could complain about a Judge calling an innocent person guilty. Yeah, but he was innocent at the time you found him guilty.
This is non-sense.

The guy is either guilty or innocent, and the investigators and the legal system is working to find out, to discover, his guilt or innocence, rather than to create his guilt.

No, they don't. They, the judges, never tell the jury that the defendant is innocent; they say that he is presumed innocent at the start of the trial.

The presumption of innocence means the person is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt by the prosecution. The presumption if innocence means the person is to be considered innocent. Like I've said ive been in quite a few trials. And the instructions to the jury are always that. The defense hammers that home to the jury as well. If you struggle wothay concept I suggest you do some research on it to see what it means.

 

[rjs330]

For what it's worth, I did consider changing my post to say essentially what you did not long after making it because I figured someone was going to nitpick it. In the end I didn't, because while you're technically right, that's putting a very fine point on things for the purposes of this discussion.

Within the bounds of the law, Trump is innocent of any crime because he has not been proven guilty in court. However, the case has not gone to court, so neither is he proven not guilty. And the court of public opinion is not bound by our legal code - we have a body of evidence available to us, and according to that evidence, he certainly appears to be guilty of obstruction. As private citizens, we are entitled to draw our own conclusions based on that evidence and share them in the public sphere, and that's what is happening in this thread. We're all aware that in a strictly legal sense, Trump is still innocent, so continuing to belabor that point just makes you look desperate.

We all know that the court of public opinion is really a poor court. The public is often fed misinformation. They don't have all the facts or information. Often bias plays a large part in opinion as well.

Not being a Trump fan, I try and keep an open mind. Working in the justice system has also helped me see that things are not as often portrayed in the media. Evidence often seems to point one way, but once closely examined and all the facts are brought into play suddenly you realize it is not as cut and dried as first thought.

I keep belabering the point because people really struggle to understand this. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion of course. There were a TON of people who believed Trump collaberated with Russia. But ince all the facts we're in it turned out that he didn't.

 

[whatbogsends]

We all know that the court of public opinion is really a poor court. The public is often fed misinformation. They don't have all the facts or information. Often bias plays a large part in opinion as well.

Not being a Trump fan, I try and keep an open mind. Working in the justice system has also helped me see that things are not as often portrayed in the media. Evidence often seems to point one way, but once closely examined and all the facts are brought into play suddenly you realize it is not as cut and dried as first thought.

I keep belabering the point because people really struggle to understand this. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion of course. There were a TON of people who believed Trump collaberated with Russia. But ince all the facts we're in it turned out that he didn't.

The facts were that there was no provable criminal conspiracy with Russia. That doesn't mean they didn't collaborate with Russia. Some of the actions taken by Trump's campaign, such as the meeting in Trump tower, were illegal, but, just as in Hillary's case, Mueller didn't believe he could prove criminal intent beyond a reasonable doubt.

From the Mueller Report:

"The Office considered whether to charge Trump Campaign officials with crimes in connection with the June 9 meeting described in Volume I, Section IV.A.5, supra. The Office concluded that, in light of the government's substantial burden of proof on issues of intent ("knowing" and "willful"), and the difficulty of establishing the value of the offered information, criminal charges would not meet the Justice Manual standard that "the admissible evidence will probably be sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction." Justice Manual§ 9-27.220.
In brief, the key facts are that, on June 3, 2016, Robert Goldstone emailed Donald Trump Jr., to pass along from Emin and Aras Agalarov an "offer" from Russia's "Crown prosecutor" to "the Trump campaign" of "official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to [Trump Jr. 's] father." The email described this as "very high level and sensitive information" that is "part of Russia and its government's support to Mr. Trump-helped along by Aras and Emin." Trump Jr. responded: "if it's what you say I love it especially later in the summer." Trump Jr. and Emin Agalarov had follow-up conversations and, within days, scheduled a meeting with Russian representatives that was attended by Trump Jr., Manafort, and Kushner. The communications setting up the meeting and the attendance by high-level Campaign representatives support an inference that the Campaign anticipated receiving derogatory documents and information from official Russian sources that could assist candidate Trump's electoral prospects.
This series of events could implicate the federal election-law ban on contributions and donations by foreign nationals, 52 U.S.C. § 3012 l(a)(l )(A). Specifically, Goldstone passed along an offer purportedly from a Russian government official to provide "official documents and information" to the Trump Campaign for the purposes of influencing the presidential election. Trump Jr. appears to have accepted that offer and to have arranged a meeting to receive those materials. Documentary evidence in the form of email chains supports the inference that Kushner and Mana fort were aware of that purpose and attended the June 9 meeting anticipating the receipt of helpful information to the Campaign from Russian sources.
The Office considered whether this evidence would establish a conspiracy to violate the foreign contributions ban, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 ; the solicitation of an illegal foreignsource contribution; or the acceptance or receipt of "an express or implied promise to make a
185
U.S. Department of Justice Attomey Work Produet // Mtty CoHtttiH Mttterittl Proteetea Under Fea. R. Criffl. P. 6(e)
[foreign-source] contribution," both in violation of 52 U.S.C. § 3012l(a)(l)(A), (a)(2). There are reasonable arguments that the offered information would constitute a "thing of value" within the meaning of these provisions, but the Office determined that the government would not be likely to obtain and sustain a conviction for two other reasons: first, the Office did not obtain admissible evidence likely to meet the government's burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that these individuals acted "willfully," i.e., with general knowledge of the illegality of their conduct; and, second, the government would likely encounter difficulty in proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the value of the promised information exceeded the threshold for a criminal violation, see 52 U.S.C. § 30109(d)(l)(A)(i)."

It's not that the Trump campaign didn't work with Russia, it's that they may not have gotten anything substantial directly from Russia and they were largely unaware of the laws when they were violating them. That being said, given how much Trump and his campaign tried to hide that meeting, including the stated purpose of that meeting, from investigators, shows me that he knew what they were doing was wrong. Moreover, while many of Trump's high level staff were involved, I don't believe it has been proven that Trump, himself, had knowledge about the meeting in real time.

 

[DaisyDay]

The presumption of innocence means the person is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt by the prosecution.

No, it doesn't. It means the jury is supposed to assume - but not decide - that the defendant is innocent until after the evidence is presented. Presumed innocence and actual innocence are two different things.

The presumption if innocence means the person is to be considered innocent.

Yes, tentatively in court. It doesn't mean and can't mean that the person is actually, factually innocent if they actually, factually committed the crime. A person may be found "not guilty", but not "innocent" by extenuating circumstances or if there simply isn't sufficient evidence to convict them. This is in a criminal court - civil courts are different.

Like I've said ive been in quite a few trials. And the instructions to the jury are always that.

No, the judge does not say the defendant "is innocent", but to be "presumed innocent".

The defense hammers that home to the jury as well.

Well, sure, the defense says the person is either actually innocent or not guilty for reasons.

If you struggle wothay concept I suggest you do some research on it to see what it means.

I suggest you look into the difference between "presumed" and "actual" - you seem to be struggling grasp the difference (assuming, of course, that you're are trying to grasp the difference and not simply ignoring it for the sake of Donald).

 

[NotreDame]

You know I haven't said he did not commit a crime right? .

I have never accused or claimed you to have said Trump did not commit a crime. Rather, what I have been addressing is your persistent invocation of the legal standard of presumption of innocence, appropriate for a court room and a criminal trial, but misplaced as a response to those in this thread who, upon looking at the evidence, conclude Trump at least likely committed a crime.

It's also plausable that people could look at the evidence and say I don't know if he did or didn't. I personally do not believe all the evidence is there or that it is all in

Okay. But there is some evidence available to the public, evidence acquired by a thorough investigation for obstruction/attempted obstruction of justice, and there is no rational problem for people to look at the evidence available to the public in the Report and concluding that evidence is incriminating. Of course, should additional evidence be revealed, which is of an exonerating nature, then people can and should adjust their claims. That is the nature of not being omniscient, our beliefs, claims, theories, including those based on evidence, are tentative, as their could always exist somewhere some evidence undermining the claim and the presently existing evidence.

A phrase famously attributed to Einstein, making the same point, is, "No amount of experimentation can every prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong." Or, as attributed to Karl Popper, “A million successful experiments cannot prove a theory correct, but one failed experiment can prove a theory wrong.”

 

[NotreDame]

Trump is not Nixon. Nixon too was innocent until proven guilty according to the law. Nixon was pardoned before any chargesTrump is INNOCENT until proven guilty.

As I said, he may very well be guilty of obstruction. But, he may not be. My question stands. Do you not believe in the right of the presumption of innocence?

Presumption of innocence is a legal standard in criminal trials. Why should such a presumption apply here, outside of the context of criminal trials?

 

[NotreDame]

The presumption of innocence means the person is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt by the prosecution. The presumption if innocence means the person is to be considered innocent. Like I've said ive been in quite a few trials. And the instructions to the jury are always that. The defense hammers that home to the jury as well. If you struggle wothay concept I suggest you do some research on it to see what it means.

The presumption if innocence means the person is to be considered innocent.

Hmm...I cannot find any legal sources equating the two as you have done above. A presumption of innocence is not the same as being innocent or to be considered as innocent. The presumption of innocence is logically related to the government's burden of proof to demonstrate the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, by admonishing the jury the defendant is presumed innocent and the government has the burden of proof to remove the presumption by presenting evidence establishing defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Taylor v. Kentucky, 436 U.S. 478, (1978). The phrase presumption of innocence can enhance the burden of proof by stating to the jury they should not presume guilt or culpability on the basis of an arrest, charges, and now a trial but instead to base their decision of guilt on the evidence presented during trial by the government.

Indiana's pattern jury instruction certainly does not support your statement.

Under the law of this State, a person charged with a crime is presumed to be innocent. This presumption of innocence continues in favor of the Defendant throughout each stage of the trial. You should fit the evidence presented to the presumption that the Defendant is innocent if you can reasonably do so.

If the evidence lends itself to two reasonable interpretations, you must choose the interpretation consistent with the defendant’s innocence. If there is only one reasonable interpretation, you must accept that interpretation and consider the evidence with all the other evidence in the case in making your decision.

To overcome the presumption of innocence, the State must prove the Defendant guilty of each element of the crime charged, beyond a reasonable doubt.

The Defendant is not required to present any evidence to prove his innocence or to prove or explain anything.
​

 

[RocksInMyHead]

We all know that the court of public opinion is really a poor court. The public is often fed misinformation. They don't have all the facts or information. Often bias plays a large part in opinion as well.

In this case we have the (minimally redacted) results of an official government investigation available to us. This isn't an opinion born of leaked snippets and wild speculation.

I keep belabering the point because people really struggle to understand this. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion of course. There were a TON of people who believed Trump collaberated with Russia. But ince all the facts we're in it turned out that he didn't.

I don't think anyone is struggling to understand anything here, except perhaps you. You keep trying to re-frame the discussion as a legal matter. It isn't. We're sharing our opinions. We know they're opinions, we know that everyone has slightly different opinions, and we're aware that they carry no legal weight.

People are not calling for Trump to be locked up immediately, except in jest (making references to Clinton). It's pretty clear that the consensus in this thread is that Trump should be put on trial in some way for his actions - whether that's through the political impeachment process or via criminal charges, assuming he loses the 2020 election. Or both, if he is successfully impeached.

 

[rjs330]

No, it doesn't. It means the jury is supposed to assume - but not decide - that the defendant is innocent until after the evidence is presented. Presumed innocence and actual innocence are two different things.


Yes, tentatively in court. It doesn't mean and can't mean that the person is actually, factually innocent if they actually, factually committed the crime. A person may be found "not guilty", but not "innocent" by extenuating circumstances or if there simply isn't sufficient evidence to convict them. This is in a criminal court - civil courts are different.

No, the judge does not say the defendant "is innocent", but to be "presumed innocent".

Well, sure, the defense says the person is either actually innocent or not guilty for reasons.

I suggest you look into the difference between "presumed" and "actual" - you seem to be struggling grasp the difference (assuming, of course, that you're are trying to grasp the difference and not simply ignoring it for the sake of Donald).

No, it doesn't. It means the jury is supposed to assume - but not decide - that the defendant is innocent until after the evidence is presented. Presumed innocence and actual innocence are two different things.


Yes, tentatively in court. It doesn't mean and can't mean that the person is actually, factually innocent if they actually, factually committed the crime. A person may be found "not guilty", but not "innocent" by extenuating circumstances or if there simply isn't sufficient evidence to convict them. This is in a criminal court - civil courts are different.

No, the judge does not say the defendant "is innocent", but to be "presumed innocent".

Well, sure, the defense says the person is either actually innocent or not guilty for reasons.

I suggest you look into the difference between "presumed" and "actual" - you seem to be struggling grasp the difference (assuming, of course, that you're are trying to grasp the difference and not simply ignoring it for the sake of Donald).

I don't know why you are arguing with me on this. It appears that you and I agree on the presumption of innocence. The jury is told that they have to presume the defendant in innocent until the case and evidence is presented. And the evidence has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the person is guilty of the crime.
Here's the problem you and most of the leftiats on this forum have.. You have determined that Trump is guilty of something when you don't have all the facts. It's the old court of public opinion thing. Your opinion is worthless where it comes to the actual guilt or innocence of Trump. You can run around all day and say he's guilty, but it doesn't matter until some actually brings a charge against him.

We are talking about legal standards. In legal standing Trump is presumed innocent. In the your personal court of opinion you may believe he's guilty. But that doesn't mean he is. Some may believe he's innocent. But that doesn't mean he is. Your opinion has a very large bias and Im very skeptical of it and the other haters just because of the bias. I don't think you could be objective at all in this case.

 

[stevil]

It's not that the Trump campaign didn't work with Russia, it's that they may not have gotten anything substantial directly from Russia and they were largely unaware of the laws when they were violating them.

That being said, given how much Trump and his campaign tried to hide that meeting, including the stated purpose of that meeting, from investigators, shows me that he knew what they were doing was wrong.

At the time of the lying and the hiding and the coverup of this meeting, they were aware they were being investigated for inappropriate/illegal interactions with Russia. I guess it is possible that at the time the meeting occurred, these politically inexperienced people didn't know of the legal implications, but once the "witch hunt" was in place then they were scared and trying to cover up and hide everything to do with Russia contact. Which made them look guilty as hell and made some of them commit the crime of lying to the investigators.

Moreover, while many of Trump's high level staff were involved,

It seems the Trump campaign team believed they were going to get something of considerable value.
Sending so many high level staff.

I don't believe it has been proven that Trump, himself, had knowledge about the meeting in real time.

The investigation wasn't focused on Trump himself. It wasn't a witch hunt.

 

[rjs330]

Presumption of innocence is a legal standard in criminal trials. Why should such a presumption apply here, outside of the context of criminal trials?

Because you shouldn't claim someone is guilty. Your not the judge or jury. And in this case he hasn't even been accused of a crime. People hate Trump so bad that they say he's guilty of a crime when he hasn't even been accused of one yet.

Why would you want to claim guilt of crime when there hasn't actually been a criminal investigation or accusation?

 

[rjs330]

The facts were that there was no provable criminal conspiracy with Russia. That doesn't mean they didn't collaborate with Russia. Some of the actions taken by Trump's campaign, such as the meeting in Trump tower, were illegal, but, just as in Hillary's case, Mueller didn't believe he could prove criminal intent beyond a reasonable doubt.

From the Mueller Report:

"The Office considered whether to charge Trump Campaign officials with crimes in connection with the June 9 meeting described in Volume I, Section IV.A.5, supra. The Office concluded that, in light of the government's substantial burden of proof on issues of intent ("knowing" and "willful"), and the difficulty of establishing the value of the offered information, criminal charges would not meet the Justice Manual standard that "the admissible evidence will probably be sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction." Justice Manual§ 9-27.220.
In brief, the key facts are that, on June 3, 2016, Robert Goldstone emailed Donald Trump Jr., to pass along from Emin and Aras Agalarov an "offer" from Russia's "Crown prosecutor" to "the Trump campaign" of "official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to [Trump Jr. 's] father." The email described this as "very high level and sensitive information" that is "part of Russia and its government's support to Mr. Trump-helped along by Aras and Emin." Trump Jr. responded: "if it's what you say I love it especially later in the summer." Trump Jr. and Emin Agalarov had follow-up conversations and, within days, scheduled a meeting with Russian representatives that was attended by Trump Jr., Manafort, and Kushner. The communications setting up the meeting and the attendance by high-level Campaign representatives support an inference that the Campaign anticipated receiving derogatory documents and information from official Russian sources that could assist candidate Trump's electoral prospects.
This series of events could implicate the federal election-law ban on contributions and donations by foreign nationals, 52 U.S.C. § 3012 l(a)(l )(A). Specifically, Goldstone passed along an offer purportedly from a Russian government official to provide "official documents and information" to the Trump Campaign for the purposes of influencing the presidential election. Trump Jr. appears to have accepted that offer and to have arranged a meeting to receive those materials. Documentary evidence in the form of email chains supports the inference that Kushner and Mana fort were aware of that purpose and attended the June 9 meeting anticipating the receipt of helpful information to the Campaign from Russian sources.
The Office considered whether this evidence would establish a conspiracy to violate the foreign contributions ban, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 ; the solicitation of an illegal foreignsource contribution; or the acceptance or receipt of "an express or implied promise to make a
185
U.S. Department of Justice Attomey Work Produet // Mtty CoHtttiH Mttterittl Proteetea Under Fea. R. Criffl. P. 6(e)
[foreign-source] contribution," both in violation of 52 U.S.C. § 3012l(a)(l)(A), (a)(2). There are reasonable arguments that the offered information would constitute a "thing of value" within the meaning of these provisions, but the Office determined that the government would not be likely to obtain and sustain a conviction for two other reasons: first, the Office did not obtain admissible evidence likely to meet the government's burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that these individuals acted "willfully," i.e., with general knowledge of the illegality of their conduct; and, second, the government would likely encounter difficulty in proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the value of the promised information exceeded the threshold for a criminal violation, see 52 U.S.C. § 30109(d)(l)(A)(i)."

It's not that the Trump campaign didn't work with Russia, it's that they may not have gotten anything substantial directly from Russia and they were largely unaware of the laws when they were violating them. That being said, given how much Trump and his campaign tried to hide that meeting, including the stated purpose of that meeting, from investigators, shows me that he knew what they were doing was wrong. Moreover, while many of Trump's high level staff were involved, I don't believe it has been proven that Trump, himself, had knowledge about the meeting in real time.

In other words they have nothing. They didn't find admissible evidence. That sounds an awedul lot like they didn't find evidence that would support a charge. Thus, they found nothing to show there was collaberation. They also couldn't prove there was collaberation because they couldn't show value. Bottom line is they didn't find that that they did anything wrong!

That's the whole point!

 

[RocksInMyHead]

I don't know why you are arguing with me on this. It appears that you and I agree on the presumption of innocence. The jury is told that they have to presume the defendant in innocent until the case and evidence is presented. And the evidence has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the person is guilty of the crime.

I think everyone in this thread agrees with this statement. However, it's irrelevant to the discussion.

We are talking about legal standards. In legal standing Trump is presumed innocent. In the your personal court of opinion you may believe he's guilty. But that doesn't mean he is. Some may believe he's innocent. But that doesn't mean he is.

Again, no arguments.

Your opinion has a very large bias and Im very skeptical of it and the other haters just because of the bias. I don't think you could be objective at all in this case.

Well, then it's a good thing that none of us are the judges in Trump's nonexistent case, and that none of us are on the jury.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Because you shouldn't claim someone is guilty. Your not the judge or jury. And in this case he hasn't even been accused of a crime. People hate Trump so bad that they say he's guilty of a crime when he hasn't even been accused of one yet.

Why would you want to claim guilt of crime when there hasn't actually been a criminal investigation or accusation?

No one here is claiming guilt, simply the appearance of guilt. Just like people say that they think OJ did it - despite the fact that he was acquitted.

 

[SimplyMe]

Because you shouldn't claim someone is guilty. Your not the judge or jury. And in this case he hasn't even been accused of a crime. People hate Trump so bad that they say he's guilty of a crime when he hasn't even been accused of one yet.

Why would you want to claim guilt of crime when there hasn't actually been a criminal investigation or accusation?

This is quite a double standard you have. You earlier stated, "To be consistent I never said Clinton was guilty. I said she committed crimes." So how is it, did Clinton "commit crimes" even though she has never been charged (despite the fact that she can be charged by Barr) yet Trump is completely innocent, there are no crimes, because he has never been charged (and can't be charged per DoJ policy)?

What is crazier, when you claim someone committed crimes, you are stating guilt. You try to weasel out of it by claiming you are just saying the person committed "crimes" -- except her you argue that Trump can't have committed crimes since he hasn't been "accused" (just as Hillary hasn't be "accused" by the legal system). It's not just a double standard but a whole series of tying yourself in knots in order to double speak your way out of your dilemma.

In other words they have nothing. They didn't find admissible evidence. That sounds an awedul lot like they didn't find evidence that would support a charge. Thus, they found nothing to show there was collaberation. They also couldn't prove there was collaberation because they couldn't show value. Bottom line is they didn't find that that they did anything wrong!

That's the whole point!

And again, this doesn't work with what you claim about Clinton. Again, you claim Clinton committed crimes, just that Comey said she wouldn't be prosecuted (which, as you also point out, isn't his decision -- any federal prosecutor could indict her, particularly Barr) because there was no intent. Yet, you still claim Clinton committed "crimes" based on the opinions of some lawyer on the Internet.

Yet, here we have a very similar case -- again the investigator determined violations of the law occurred but that he could not prove intent, so the acts can't be prosecuted. So which is it, is it like Clinton where they "committed crimes" but can't be prosecuted, or is it like you claim in the above post -- that "they didn't find that that they did anything wrong" (including Clinton)? You can't (at least logically) have it both ways. Either Clinton and Trump's family all committed crimes, but can't be prosecuted, or none of them committed crimes.

 

[rjs330]

No one here is claiming guilt, simply the appearance of guilt. Just like people say that they think OJ did it - despite the fact that he was acquitted.

When someone claims he committed a crime I believe it infers that he is guilty. Does it not?

 

[rjs330]

This is quite a double standard you have. You earlier stated, "To be consistent I never said Clinton was guilty. I said she committed crimes." So how is it, did Clinton "commit crimes" even though she has never been charged (despite the fact that she can be charged by Barr) yet Trump is completely innocent, there are no crimes, because he has never been charged (and can't be charged per DoJ policy)?

What is crazier, when you claim someone committed crimes, you are stating guilt. You try to weasel out of it by claiming you are just saying the person committed "crimes" -- except her you argue that Trump can't have committed crimes since he hasn't been "accused" (just as Hillary hasn't be "accused" by the legal system). It's not just a double standard but a whole series of tying yourself in knots in order to double speak your way out of your dilemma.



And again, this doesn't work with what you claim about Clinton. Again, you claim Clinton committed crimes, just that Comey said she wouldn't be prosecuted (which, as you also point out, isn't his decision -- any federal prosecutor could indict her, particularly Barr) because there was no intent. Yet, you still claim Clinton committed "crimes" based on the opinions of some lawyer on the Internet.

Yet, here we have a very similar case -- again the investigator determined violations of the law occurred but that he could not prove intent, so the acts can't be prosecuted. So which is it, is it like Clinton where they "committed crimes" but can't be prosecuted, or is it like you claim in the above post -- that "they didn't find that that they did anything wrong" (including Clinton)? You can't (at least logically) have it both ways. Either Clinton and Trump's family all committed crimes, but can't be prosecuted, or none of them committed crimes.

Umm... The FBI stated she committed crimes. They have not said the same thing about Trump.

 

[USincognito]

But no evidence of that was turned up either!

STATEMENT BY FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTORS

That's all it takes for the people who are still fighting the 2016 election campaign ...

This trope is so tiresome.

 

[SimplyMe]

When someone claims he committed a crime I believe it infers that he is guilty. Does it not?

That's odd... I quoted in the post above where you had stated, "To be consistent I never said Clinton was guilty. I said she committed crimes."

So which is it, were you bearing false witness then (when you stated you believed that Clinton had committed crimes but made it sound as if you didn't think she was guilty) or are you being dishonest now -- when you say committing a crime is saying they are guilty?