Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Politics
American Politics
Here it is: The Mueller report is out.
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="NotreDame" data-source="post: 73869373" data-attributes="member: 212558"><p>Just as a beginning point, the excerpt you cited doesn’t come close to contradicting my statement. Neither is the except inconsistent with my statement. To the contrary, my statement IS consistent with the excerpt.</p><p></p><p>The excerpt you cited is stating 1.) they declined to make a prosecutorial judgment, which is to say they are declining to say they believe Trump obstructed justice or attempted to obstruct justice and 2.) the phrase “<em>we did not draw ultimate conclusions about the President 's conduct” </em>is a restatement of number one, and/or a corollary of number one. That’s logical since, if they had made “ultimate conclusions” about Trump’s conduct, then rationally they could and should have reached a prosecutorial judgment and <em>3.) “<em>The evidence we obtained about the President's actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgment,” </em></em>yeah, but this does not suggest there is not some evidence of obstruction. Mueller is very clear the evidence is problematic because SOME of the evidence is innocent, some of the evidence is incriminating, and taking into consideration the applicable legal standards for obstruction of justice, the evidence just does not confidently support obstruction.<em><em> </em></em></p><p><em><em></em></em></p><p>The problem of conflicting evidence, and the evidence not satisfactorily supporting obstruction, is compounded by the ambiguity of where the line is drawn between Article 2 power to govern executive branch agencies and when that power constitutes obstruction.<em><em> </em></em></p><p><em><em></em></em></p><p>Furthermore, AG Barr said the OLC/DOJ guideline did not and was not the basis in which Mueller declined to make a prosecutorial judgment regarding obstruction of justice. As AG Barr said, it was not a “but for” the OLC/DOJ guideline, then Mueller would have made a prosecutorial judgment. In other words, Mueller chose not to say Trump obstructed justice, translation, it is too hard to make a criminal case of obstruction, hence, I make no judgment.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="NotreDame, post: 73869373, member: 212558"] Just as a beginning point, the excerpt you cited doesn’t come close to contradicting my statement. Neither is the except inconsistent with my statement. To the contrary, my statement IS consistent with the excerpt. The excerpt you cited is stating 1.) they declined to make a prosecutorial judgment, which is to say they are declining to say they believe Trump obstructed justice or attempted to obstruct justice and 2.) the phrase “[I]we did not draw ultimate conclusions about the President 's conduct” [/I]is a restatement of number one, and/or a corollary of number one. That’s logical since, if they had made “ultimate conclusions” about Trump’s conduct, then rationally they could and should have reached a prosecutorial judgment and [I]3.) “[I]The evidence we obtained about the President's actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgment,” [/I][/I]yeah, but this does not suggest there is not some evidence of obstruction. Mueller is very clear the evidence is problematic because SOME of the evidence is innocent, some of the evidence is incriminating, and taking into consideration the applicable legal standards for obstruction of justice, the evidence just does not confidently support obstruction.[I][I] [/I][/I] The problem of conflicting evidence, and the evidence not satisfactorily supporting obstruction, is compounded by the ambiguity of where the line is drawn between Article 2 power to govern executive branch agencies and when that power constitutes obstruction.[I][I] [/I][/I] Furthermore, AG Barr said the OLC/DOJ guideline did not and was not the basis in which Mueller declined to make a prosecutorial judgment regarding obstruction of justice. As AG Barr said, it was not a “but for” the OLC/DOJ guideline, then Mueller would have made a prosecutorial judgment. In other words, Mueller chose not to say Trump obstructed justice, translation, it is too hard to make a criminal case of obstruction, hence, I make no judgment. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Politics
American Politics
Here it is: The Mueller report is out.
Top
Bottom