No Collusion!

[JimL]

Then the prosecution should have done a better job!

Trump hasn't been tried yet, CP.

[Cow Poke]

Actually, no.

Actually, yes.

A legal opinion must be based on the facts and prior caselaw; one that is not rather tends to be either overturned on appeal or gather a collection of negative references like "declined to follow."

[Cow Poke]

Trump hasn't been tried yet, CP.

Keep hoping, Jimmy.

[One Bad Pig]

...which in legal circles isn't even opinion; it's merely unsupported assertion.

[Cow Poke]

...which in legal circles isn't even opinion; it's merely unsupported assertion.

I'll go with that, mister picker of nit. ff's "opinion" was "unsupported assertion".

[JimL]

We'll tell you again, it is not a prosecutor's job to clear anyone. Maybe that's how it works in your country, that a person is presumed guilty until they are exonerated, but in that's not how it is in the US. Learn it, love it.

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.

[One Bad Pig]

I'll go with that, mister picker of nit. ff's "opinion" was "unsupported assertion".

Are you feeling okay? You don't usually brush off correction like this.

[Cow Poke]

Are you feeling okay? You don't usually brush off correction like this.

I apologize - I thought it was rather a nitpicky "correction", and, instead of saying "This is what's known in legal circles as an opinion" - I should have said "This is what's known as an opinion". My mistake.

[Mountain Man]

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.

Wrong. See my follow-up post:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post631443

And to add to that, it absolutely is the special counsel's job to prove guilt. In fact, that's his only job, and if he can't prove that the target of his investigation committed a crime then his job is finished. This is why certain ranking members in Washington are taking a hard look at the fact that Mueller concluded very early on that neither Trump nor his campaign had any illicit dealings with Russia yet chose to continue his investigation anyway.

[JimL]

Wrong. See my follow-up post:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post631443

And to add to that, it absolutely is the special counsel's job to prove guilt. In fact, that's his only job, and if he can't prove that the target of his investigation committed a crime then his job is finished. This is why certain ranking members in Washington are taking a hard look at the fact that Mueller concluded very early on that neither Trump nor his campaign had any illicit dealings with Russia yet chose to continue his investigation anyway.

Congres, (a co-equal branch) has oversight responsibility and so it is the job of Congress to examine the evidence and come to it's conclusion based on the evidence gathered by the special prosecutor. According to OLC policy, "The special prosecutor can not indict." a sitting president. A fact you continue to ignore! It seems what you want is a president who is above the law.

[lilpixieofterror]

It"s telling how you all seem to unconsciously admit to knowing the President is guilty, but defend it anyway because you think someone else got away with it. Seems to be a pattern with you people. Consciousness of guilt I'd call it! Really sad when your Country, when democracy itself is at stake. Long live King Trump!

[Cow Poke]

Congres, (a co-equal branch) has oversight responsibility and so it is the job of Congress to examine the evidence and come to it's conclusion based on the evidence gathered by the special prosecutor. According to OLC policy, "The special prosecutor can not indict." a sitting president. A fact you continue to ignore! It seems what you want is a president who is above the law.

This is why you have to pretend that policy and law are the same thing.

[Mountain Man]

Congres, (a co-equal branch) has oversight responsibility and so it is the job of Congress to examine the evidence and come to it's conclusion based on the evidence gathered by the special prosecutor. According to OLC policy, "The special prosecutor can not indict." a sitting president. A fact you continue to ignore! It seems what you want is a president who is above the law.

A couple of posts from a parallel thread that you might find of interest:

Nor is there any policy that would have prevented the special counsel from unambiguously stating that the president had committed a crime and recommending to his boss, the AG, that the president be indicted.

and

If there was clear proof that a crime had been committed then the AG could inform congress who could seek impeachment and removal from office, and then the former president could be indicted. But this is all a moot point as far as Trump is concerned because Mueller himself said that he could not conclude that the President had committed any crimes, and Barr, Rosenstein, and other DOJ officials affirmed this finding.

[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, Two problems with your statement.

1. Mueller is called the Special Prosecutor" not "Special Counsel", Star was a special "Special Counsel". To be specific, Mueller's Job is to get the evidence to prove that there was Collusion and Obstruction (ie... Evidence of Guilt), and he said himself that he did not find any relevant evidence to prove either.
2. The accrual scope of Mueller's team was to gather evidence and write a report to give to the AG or since that AG recused himself the ADG. when Barr was appointed that put AG Barr as the recipient of the report. Now comes the part that you keep missing, The purpose of the report was not to give to Congress, It was so that the AG (Barr) read it and made a decision on what action to take based on what the report said. The action of AG Barr's in this case make as much of the report available to the public as legally possible. And he even made as much of it available to the leading Members of Congress 99.9%. He also preformed his other duty to evaluate the report and come out with a his conclusion. This Investigation was not for the purpose of presenting anything to Congress.

I have already put these out and it has not been challenged. So JimL, until you can give a challenge that disproves my point you need to give your failed talking points back to MSNBC because they are not working for you. If you ignore me your still using a false premise and MM and CP have every right to call you ignorant of the issue and stupid for using failed talking points.

(By the way if your going to use talking points, put them in your own words don't just repeat then Word for Word off MSNBC)

You still have not addressed my previous post:

JimL, Tass, I'm make it easy for you. Instead of insulting me, you can destroy all of our cases by proving 1 little things.

Our case centers around the fact that a Prosecutor does not prove Innocence.
Give us you evidence that a Prosecutors job is to prove Innocence. Our case falls flat if you can.

If you can't you look stupid and ignorant every time you use that to prove your point.

It would also help your case if you can prove that Innocence needs to be proved in the Constitution. I believe it's "Innocent until Proven Guilty", though that one might be a little hard.

If you are "Innocent until Proven Guilty" and a prosecutor says I can't prove you guilty, then the prosecutor says, but I can't prove you Innocent either, the second statement is irrelevant because without evidence for showing Guilt or Innocence the default applies Innocent.

So, I guess I was wrong, if you can prove that a Prosecutor's Job is to prove Innocence, You still need to prove that the Constitution does not provide "Innocent until Proven Guilty". WOW, sucks to be on that side of the argument.

It appears that Tass and JimL are ignoring my post and leaving my Challenges to their talking points unanswered. I give you permission to repost them in answer to any of their Failed Arguments.

Tass I may be a "pretentious blowhard", but I am "the pretentious blowhard" that you are un-able to debate directly. I wear that title with pride.

[Cow Poke]

JimL, Two problems with your statement.

1. Mueller is called the Special Prosecutor" not "Special Counsel",...

There seems to be a lot of disagreement over this, so I dug up the actual letter where Rosenstein, indeed, appointed Mueller "Special Counsel". That doesn't actually benefit Jimmy's nutty arguments, however, because he still gets confused over impeachment and indictment.

special counsel.jpg