No Collusion!

[The Pendragon]

This might help:
https://medium.com/@dojalumni/statem...s-8ab7691c2aa1

It seems that hundreds of legal experts have signed.

The devil himself is whispering in your ear; save your soul by listening to Rachel.

Wow, All these posts and no citations from the report.


The one citation you did make was from several Legal experts that that confirm what you say, Two can play at that game I could find a lot of Legal experts that say the opposite, But I'll resist.


Here is the conclusion from Book 2 of the Mueller report.



"Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgmentthat would need to be resolved if we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgment."
-- It was a very hard decision for us to make so we decided to pass it off on the AG and DAG.

"At the same time, 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."
-- It's to difficult for us to resolve but we can't prove he didn't commit obstruction of justice.

"Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment."
-- We don't have any evidence the will hold up in a court of law.

"Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him."
-- We can't prove that the President committed a crime, But since we are not using traditional prosecutorial judgment, we'll take the position of the defense and tell you that we could not prove he did not do it.


We first see that Mueller is stepping out of his traditional role as Prosecutor as High-lighted in the first sentence. So he is refusing to make the Legal decision he was tasked to. ei... as we have been saying he did not do his job and left it to his boss the Attorney General, Mueller is not working for the Congress.

In the second sentence Mueller admits that he does not have the evidence that there was a crime committed. With no evidence of a crime being committed anything else is hogwash (Sorry, One Bad Pig). You can't be convicted of a crime that never happened.

The third sentence is eliminated by the second. It a crime did not exist you don't have to prove someone did it. It is just ludicrous to believe you have to prove no one did a crime that never happened.

The fourth sentence supports the second out right when a Prosecutor can't even that someone did not commit a crime that ends it for the investigation and he is saying he could not prove that a crime was committed. No Crime = No Guilt.

Mueller's Introduction was a nice History lessen but that is it. Although it does have a citation that's worth mentioning:

Attorney General a confidential report explaining the prosecution or declination decisions [the Special Counsel]
reached.

This supports what we have been saying about Who the report is for. It makes it clear that the report is not intended for Congress, but is intended for the Attorney General. Tass, JimL Please stop insisting that this was a report intended for Congress.

[firstfloor]

Fake news.

Not fake news;
https://www.alternet.org/2019/03/bar...tay-in-office/

[The Pendragon]

In the case concerning the POTUS it is not the (special) prosecutors job to prove his guilt either, it's to investigate, gather the facts and present them to the Congress. Learn it, love it.

JimL, It would help if you gave us a citation that you are correct. That the report is for Congress.

I've explained this to you before and you are still making the ascension with out disproving my point.


Here is my citation, It comes from the Introduction written for the Mueller Report Book 2 by Mueller as part of the report:

INTRODUCTION TO VOLUME II

, he . . . shall provide the Attorney General a confidential report explaining the prosecution or declination decisions [the Special Counsel]
reached.

I don't see Congress in this anywhere, I do see the Attorney General (ie.. Barr) mentioned.
By the way before you say that I took this out of context, I included the full paragraph. If you don't like that, you can cite anything I missed in the above paragraph.

[firstfloor]

Dear The Pendragon,

I disagree.

Yours Sincerely,
firstfloor

[The Pendragon]

Not fake news;


https://www.alternet.org/2019/03/bar...tay-in-office/

It's nice that you are still arguing this, But here is Mueller's conclusion on Obstruction from my post above yours:

Here is the conclusion from Book 2 of the Mueller report.



"Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgmentthat would need to be resolved if we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgment."
-- It was a very hard decision for us to make so we decided to pass it off on the AG and DAG.

"At the same time, 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."
-- It's to difficult for us to resolve be we can't prove he didn't commit obstruction of justice.

"Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment."
-- We don't have any evidence the will hold up in a court of law.

"Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him."
-- We can't prove that the President committed a crime, But since we are not using traditional prosecutorial judgment, we'll take the position of the defense and tell you that we could not prove he did not do it.


We first see that Mueller is stepping out of his traditional role as Prosecutor as High-lighted in the first sentence. So he is refusing to make the Legal decision he was tasked to. ei... as we have been saying he did not do his job and left it to his boss the Attorney General, Mueller is not working for the Congress.

In the second sentence Mueller admits that he does not have the evidence that there was a crime committed. With no evidence of a crime being committed anything else is hogwash (Sorry, One Bad Pig). You can't be convicted of a crime that never happened.

The third sentence is eliminated by the second. If a crime did not exist you don't have to prove someone did it. It is just ludicrous to believe you have to prove no one did a crime that never happened.

The forth sentence talks about supports the second out right when a Prosecutor can't even that someone did not commit a crime that ends it for the investigation and he is saying he could not prove that a crime was committed. No Crime = No Guilt.

Now see how helpful quoting the actual report is, Oh I guess it doe's not help your point. I guess you can't cite the report then.

[Mountain Man]

Not fake news;


https://www.alternet.org/2019/03/bar...tay-in-office/

I don't care about the opinion of some pundit. I want to see a quote from Barr himself that explicitly says or can be reasonably interpreted as him saying that the President is above the law.

[The Pendragon]

Dear The Pendragon,

I disagree.

Yours Sincerely,
firstfloor

Dear firstfloor,

Disagree with What the Mueller Report? My Citation?
You can disagree , but you still haven't proven that you are right, or proven that I was wrong.

Your disagreement dies on the vine.

Yours Truthfully,

The Pendragon

[firstfloor]

I don't care about the opinion of some pundit. I want to see a quote from Barr himself that explicitly says or can be reasonably interpreted as him saying that the President is above the law.

One recent example of Barrthink:

If the president feels a proceeding is unfounded, "the president does not have to sit there constitutionally and allow it to run its course. The president could terminate the proceeding and it would not be a corrupt intent because he was being falsely accused."

It is a fundamental principle in law that no man may adjudge his own case.

[Mountain Man]

I suspect there is some important context you neglected. Do you have a link?

[firstfloor]

I suspect there is some important context you neglected. Do you have a link?

Indeed I do.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/o...cal-presidency

[firstfloor]

Dear firstfloor,

Disagree with What the Mueller Report? My Citation?
You can disagree , but you still haven't proven that you are right, or proven that I was wrong.

Your disagreement dies on the vine.

Yours Truthfully,

The Pendragon

Your post was too long and I think that I had already answered those points. I suspect that this debate will not be settled until Mueller testifies to Congress.

[Mountain Man]

Indeed I do.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/o...cal-presidency

[firstfloor]

In his own case? No way!

[The Pendragon]

Your post was too long and I think that I had already answered those points. I suspect that this debate will not be settled until Mueller testifies to Congress.

So, You disagreed with my post without reading it, and can't tell me what parts you have already answered.

I guess we know now why you haven't quoted from the accrual report, it's to long.

I see nothing in my post that you have already addressed of answered, but you would not know that, because you didn't read it.

Come on are you really that Ignorant.

[The Pendragon]

MM, be careful your post is getting a little long and firstfloor may not be able to read it all.

MM, I guess I should be nicer to firstfloor, in a battle of wits he's unarmed.