BoltProspects Community Forums  

Go Back   BoltProspects Community Forums > Miscellaneous > The Room

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #18771  
Old 07-25-2019, 03:01 PM
WaiverWire's Avatar
WaiverWire WaiverWire is offline
Steven Stamkos' One Timer
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Tampa
Posts: 7,333
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aapbolt View Post
Mueller stated in the hearings that the report did not exonerate trump. I wonder if trumps speech last night scared some people, especially when he told these young people that Article 2 of the Constitution lets him do what ever he wants.
It is not the job of a prosecutor to "exonerate". Under our criminal justice system one is innocent until proven guilty.

It would be like me looking into a murder and I wrote a report stating that I could not "exonerate" aapbolt of the crime. Part One of the report should had said they found insufficient evident that a crime was committed.

Mueller did no one a service when he and his team failed to even look at the possible obstruction violations. They should had looked at them and if there was an offense state that there was one or state like they should had done in Part One......there was insufficient evidence to file a charge. Or he could state DOJ policy as to why he was not charged.

With the lack of knowledge Mueller showed one could think that this team did this on purpose in order to drag the White House through more hell.

Last edited by WaiverWire; 07-25-2019 at 03:06 PM.
  #18772  
Old 07-25-2019, 05:06 PM
Donnie D's Avatar
Donnie D Donnie D is offline
Steven Stamkos' One Timer
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Sarasota
Posts: 9,900
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by WaiverWire View Post
Or he could state DOJ policy as to why he was not charged.

With the lack of knowledge Mueller showed one could think that this team did this on purpose in order to drag the White House through hell.
That’s exactly what he did. He said that he could not indict him per DOJ policy. He then detailed multiple occasions when Trump obstructed justice. He said that Trump could be indicted after he left office or that congress could impeach him.

He didn’t drag Trump through hell. He documented Trumps criminality.
__________________
I have something in common with the President. Trump just complained that his life was so much better before he became President. Mine too!
  #18773  
Old 07-25-2019, 06:01 PM
pete's Avatar
pete pete is offline
BP Staff
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 14,393
Default

Like Harry Truman said, tell the truth and they’ll think it’s hell.
__________________
S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-Stammermeter 2019-2020: 29
  #18774  
Old 07-25-2019, 08:27 PM
Puckhead's Avatar
Puckhead Puckhead is offline
Steve F**king Yzerman
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reno, NV
Posts: 2,649
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by WaiverWire View Post
It is not the job of a prosecutor to "exonerate". Under our criminal justice system one is innocent until proven guilty.

It would be like me looking into a murder and I wrote a report stating that I could not "exonerate" aapbolt of the crime. Part One of the report should had said they found insufficient evident that a crime was committed.

Mueller did no one a service when he and his team failed to even look at the possible obstruction violations. They should had looked at them and if there was an offense state that there was one or state like they should had done in Part One......there was insufficient evidence to file a charge. Or he could state DOJ policy as to why he was not charged.

With the lack of knowledge Mueller showed one could think that this team did this on purpose in order to drag the White House through more hell.
The only thing you missed mentioning is the “deep state”.
  #18775  
Old 07-25-2019, 09:18 PM
Bolthed's Avatar
Bolthed Bolthed is offline
Cooper's Law
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Gainesvegas!
Posts: 4,980
Default

He’s a rube. Just as dumb as the rest of em.
__________________
“Could I had posted cite a site?” — WWW dot Trump makes you dumb dot RU
  #18776  
Old 07-25-2019, 09:30 PM
WaiverWire's Avatar
WaiverWire WaiverWire is offline
Steven Stamkos' One Timer
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Tampa
Posts: 7,333
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Donnie D View Post
That’s exactly what he did. He said that he could not indict him per DOJ policy. He then detailed multiple occasions when Trump obstructed justice. He said that Trump could be indicted after he left office or that congress could impeach him.

He didn’t drag Trump through hell. He documented Trumps criminality.

That is not what he said Donnie. In his clarification to start round 2 he stated that they listed the possible obstruction, but they did not even look into these allegations because of the DOJ rule. He listed obstruction incidents in Part 2, but they did not even bother to look to see if they were criminal. In other words no round table discussion. I found that very strange as they did not do what they did when they looked into the "conspiracy/collusion" in Part 1 as they never mentioned the DOJ rule. So why not look at the obstruction? He could always had said nothing there or he would had indicted but did not because of the DOJ rule.

Here is he clarifying what he meant to say to Rep Lieu question:

Quote:
And when he suggested to Rep. Ted Lieu of California Wednesday morning that the special counsel's investigation did not charge Trump because of Justice Department guidelines against indicting a sitting President, he then clarified the remark at the start of the afternoon session.


"I'd like to go back to one thing that was said this morning by Mr. Lieu who said and I quote, 'You didn't charge the President because of the (Office of Legal Counsel) OLC opinion.' That is not the correct way to say it," Mueller said. "As we say in the report and as I said at the opening, we did not reach a determination as to whether the President committed a crime."
https://www.nbc-2.com/story/40828104...ublic-hearings


This is why Barr, Rosenstein and DOJ Office of Ethics look at the listed incidents of obstruction and ruled there were no violations.


Now the below is just how I see it.

Mueller could had look at each incident and done the same. Lets take the Comey firing. Comey served at will. There was no need to give a reason to fire him as he served at the will of the President.

You have to look at each act and see if he was within his power as President.

Instead we have Mueller and his team sidestepping the job that they were given to do and failed to do it. It there was a charge they should had said so.


Here is a fact check to that very issue from 04/2019.

https://www.factcheck.org/2019/04/wh...t-obstruction/


Quote:
Mueller, however, refrained from recommending prosecution, saying that there were “difficult [legal] issues that would need to be resolved,” in order to reach a conclusion that the crime of obstruction of justice was committed by Trump.
Quote:
Mueller emphasized, however, that his analysis of the evidence did not clear the president of obstruction. Said Mueller: “[i]f 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, we are unable to reach that judgment.”
When prosecution lawyers can not agree if a crime was or was not committed they always have to declare that there is not enough evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt to charge, and thus no charge should be filed.

Last edited by WaiverWire; 07-25-2019 at 10:02 PM.
  #18777  
Old 07-25-2019, 09:45 PM
WaiverWire's Avatar
WaiverWire WaiverWire is offline
Steven Stamkos' One Timer
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Tampa
Posts: 7,333
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Puckhead View Post
The only thing you missed mentioning is the “deep state”.
oh please, even Mueller admitted under oath that they didn't even bother to take up if the issue was or wasn't there a case for obstruction.

His report lists 11 incidents and why they may had been obstruction. But as he said yesterday day they stopped there. They did not discuss and/or kick around the table what law was violated or if he was within his rights. Instead he used the DOJ rules as to why they didn't bother to determine if any law was violated. in other words he kicked the can down the road.

He could had said we determined this act was a violation under this law or that law and then stated the DOJ policy and so we did not indict.

In other words Mueller didn't do his job.
  #18778  
Old 07-25-2019, 10:07 PM
Donnie D's Avatar
Donnie D Donnie D is offline
Steven Stamkos' One Timer
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Sarasota
Posts: 9,900
Default

It’s like talking to a rock.
__________________
I have something in common with the President. Trump just complained that his life was so much better before he became President. Mine too!
  #18779  
Old 07-26-2019, 11:38 AM
WaiverWire's Avatar
WaiverWire WaiverWire is offline
Steven Stamkos' One Timer
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Tampa
Posts: 7,333
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Donnie D View Post
It’s like talking to a rock.
Just because Mueller listed 11 incidents that could be possible obstruction does not mean it was obstruction. Yes you can read each incident and claim there was a violation of law, but you also have to look at all the facts and as to why.

I do not know why it is so hard for you to understand that Mueller admitted that they did not take the time to look at these 11 incidents in depth to determine if a crime had accord because of the DOJ rules/policy. He also admitted that there could be a plausible explanation that would not make these incidents a crime.

One thing is clear. Mueller did us all a disservice when he punted.
  #18780  
Old 07-26-2019, 12:42 PM
Donnie D's Avatar
Donnie D Donnie D is offline
Steven Stamkos' One Timer
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Sarasota
Posts: 9,900
Default

One last time for the people not named WW.

He listed 11 cases of obstruction of justice. He said that if he could exonerate Trump, he would. He also made it clear that Trump could not be indicted because he was President. Only a Dear Leader lover could not accept that this meant that he wanted to indict but was precluded by the DOJ opinion

Since he could not indict, he could not state that Trump should be indicted because without an indictment there was no way for Trump to formally defend himself.

He said that Trump was guilty in every way possible, without saying it.
__________________
I have something in common with the President. Trump just complained that his life was so much better before he became President. Mine too!
Closed Thread

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:56 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2005-2008, BoltProspects.com. All Rights Reserved.