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
So is Barr the Attorney General or Trumps personal lawyer?
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="KCfromNC" data-source="post: 73925765" data-attributes="member: 185615"><p>Feel free to quote anything from the report which you think supports your claims. I know they don't.</p><p></p><p>For example, it specifically says it doesn't address the question of collusion : </p><p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"><em>In evaluating whether evidence about collective action of multiple individuals constituted a crime, we applied the framework of conspiracy law, not the concept of “collusion.” In so doing, the Office recognized that the word “collud[e]” was used in communications with the Acting Attorney General confirming certain aspects of the investigation’s scope and that the term has frequently been invoked in public reporting about the investigation. But collusion is not a specific offense or theory of liability found in the United States Code, nor is it a term of art in federal criminal law. For those reasons, the Office’s focus in analyzing questions of joint criminal liability was on conspiracy as defined in federal law.</em></p><p></p><p>The facts behind my other claim make up the bulk of Volume II. It includes this bit :</p><p></p><p style="margin-left: 20px"><em>...if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment. </em></p><p></p><p>So yeah, I guess I do believe differently from you. But ignoring the reasons why won't make them go away.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="KCfromNC, post: 73925765, member: 185615"] Feel free to quote anything from the report which you think supports your claims. I know they don't. For example, it specifically says it doesn't address the question of collusion : [INDENT] [I]In evaluating whether evidence about collective action of multiple individuals constituted a crime, we applied the framework of conspiracy law, not the concept of “collusion.” In so doing, the Office recognized that the word “collud[e]” was used in communications with the Acting Attorney General confirming certain aspects of the investigation’s scope and that the term has frequently been invoked in public reporting about the investigation. But collusion is not a specific offense or theory of liability found in the United States Code, nor is it a term of art in federal criminal law. For those reasons, the Office’s focus in analyzing questions of joint criminal liability was on conspiracy as defined in federal law.[/I][/INDENT] The facts behind my other claim make up the bulk of Volume II. It includes this bit : [INDENT][I]...if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment. [/I][/INDENT] So yeah, I guess I do believe differently from you. But ignoring the reasons why won't make them go away. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Politics
American Politics
So is Barr the Attorney General or Trumps personal lawyer?
Top
Bottom