Originally posted by Mountain Man
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Civics 101 Guidelines
Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less
Christianity Today Op Ed
Collapse
X
-
-
Originally posted by rogue06 View PostYou are wasting your time. It is like trying to convince a flat earther. They just continue proclaiming that if you read the report in the proper manner[1] it clearly shows that Trump colluded with Putin.
1. I guess it involves squinting just so while setting your jaw a certain way and has something to do with secret decoder rings
You are banking on the idea that ALL of these interactions with the russians are somehow coincidental, and that they do not add up to cooperation with the Russians in spite of documented attempts to get dirt from them, like the Trump tower meeting, or the pre election attempt to establish a back channel to Putin.
There is no rational explanation for the evidence we have other that nefarious activities that fly in the face of the integrity of our election systems integrity, even though to this point Trump has managed to avoid being prosecuted for it.
It is the same with Ukraine. In spite of all the clear evidence that adds up to one and only one conclusion, you and yours put up impossible by the normal laws of probability and human nature 'alternate' explanations for those same conditions.
It just isn't possible for a person with the lawless. Narcissistic bent of Donald Trump to leave a trail like we saw exposed in the impeachment hearings and not have done what he is accused of.My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1
If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26
This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimLamebrain View PostMueller didn't charge Trump with anything, he simply turned the report over to Congress to adjudicate wherein Trumps new toadie stepped in and did the exonerating. That Trump obstructed Mueller is as evident as his obstruction in the corrupt Ukrainian scheme, corruption and obstruction is what he does.Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
Than a fool in the eyes of God
From "Fools Gold" by Petra
Comment
-
Originally posted by Mountain Man View PostThen why did the dirty cop testify under oath that his investigation was never impeded?My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1
If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26
This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19
Comment
-
Originally posted by oxmixmudd View PostBecause attempted obstruction, while a crime, is not necessarily always successful.Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
Than a fool in the eyes of God
From "Fools Gold" by Petra
Comment
-
Originally posted by Mountain Man View PostThere is no such thing as "attempted obstruction".
So a person can try to get in the way of an investigation. That is obstruction. But that attempt can fail to have its intended effect, meaning that even though the person engaged in obstruction, the investigation was not itself impeded.
For example, trump tried to get comey to swear loyalty to him, in effect to do what trump wanted in regards to the investigation. That was obstruction, he was actively trying g to get in the way of it through an appeal to comey. But comey did not play ball, obstruction failed. So then he fired comey. Obstruction attempt number 2. But hey, that didnt work out either. So there you have two counts of obstruction, but they failed. The investigation was not impededLast edited by oxmixmudd; 12-29-2019, 12:28 PM.My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1
If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26
This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19
Comment
-
Originally posted by oxmixmudd View PostSo let's see, I am not using legal terms here but your argument is such a legal term does not exist?
So a person can try to get in the way of an investigation. That is obstruction. But that attempt can fail to have its intended effect, meaning that even though the person engaged in obstruction, the investigation was not itself impeded.
For example, trump tried to get comey to swear loyalty to him, in effect to do what trump wanted in regards to the investigation. That was obstruction, he was actively trying g to get in the way of it through an appeal to comey. But comey did not play ball, obstruction failed. So then he fired comey. Obstruction attempt number 2. But hey, that didnt work out either. So there you have two counts of obstruction, but they failed. The investigation was not impeded
"Generally speaking, to obtain and sustain an obstruction conviction, the government would need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a person, acting with corrupt intent, engaged in obstructive conduct with a sufficient nexus to a pending or contemplated proceeding. In cataloguing the President's actions, many of which took place in public view, the report identifies no actions that, in our judgment, constitute obstructive conduct, had a nexus to a pending or contemplated proceeding, and were done with corrupt intent, each of which, under the Department's principles of federal prosecution guiding charging decisions, would need to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to establish an obstruction-of-justice offense."Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
Than a fool in the eyes of God
From "Fools Gold" by Petra
Comment
-
Originally posted by Mountain Man View PostI'll let the Depart of Justice answer this one:
"Generally speaking, to obtain and sustain an obstruction conviction, the government would need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a person, acting with corrupt intent, engaged in obstructive conduct with a sufficient nexus to a pending or contemplated proceeding. In cataloguing the President's actions, many of which took place in public view, the report identifies no actions that, in our judgment, constitute obstructive conduct, had a nexus to a pending or contemplated proceeding, and were done with corrupt intent, each of which, under the Department's principles of federal prosecution guiding charging decisions, would need to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to establish an obstruction-of-justice offense."
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.new...439716%3famp=1My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1
If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26
This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19
Comment
-
Originally posted by oxmixmudd View PostDOJ has been compromised far to much by Barr to be trustworthy on this issue.
"After reviewing the Special Counsel's final report on these issues; consulting with Department officials, including the Office of Legal Counsel; and applying the principles of federal prosecution that guide our charging decisions, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and I have concluded that the evidence developed during the Special Counsel's investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense."
And let's look at a curious statement that Mueller made during his press conference: "As I set forth in the report after that investigation, if we had had confidence that the President clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so."
This would suggest, then, that if they had confidence that the Trump clearly did commit a crime, then they would have said so, but they didn't. Instead, they say quite plainly that "this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime".
To summarize the summary, there's no "there" there.Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
Than a fool in the eyes of God
From "Fools Gold" by Petra
Comment
-
Originally posted by Mountain Man View PostThen why did the dirty cop testify under oath that his investigation was never impeded?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Mountain Man View PostI'll let the Depart of Justice answer this one:
"Generally speaking, to obtain and sustain an obstruction conviction, the government would need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a person, acting with corrupt intent, engaged in obstructive conduct with a sufficient nexus to a pending or contemplated proceeding. In cataloguing the President's actions, many of which took place in public view, the report identifies no actions that, in our judgment, constitute obstructive conduct, had a nexus to a pending or contemplated proceeding, and were done with corrupt intent, each of which, under the Department's principles of federal prosecution guiding charging decisions, would need to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to establish an obstruction-of-justice offense."
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostThat sounds like it came from the mouth of the corrupt Atty Gen. Barr himself. Is that correct?
Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
Than a fool in the eyes of God
From "Fools Gold" by Petra
Comment
-
Originally posted by Mountain Man View PostNo, that is not correct. It came from the honorable Attorney General William Barr, the honorable Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, and other Department of Justice officials, including the Office of Legal Counsel.
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimLamebrain View PostNo, it came from the top dog in the DOJ, the Atty. Gen, who has proven himself to be anything but honorable, who simply had his underlings sign on to it.
"After reviewing the Special Counsel's final report on these issues; consulting with Department officials, including the Office of Legal Counsel; and applying the principles of federal prosecution that guide our charging decisions, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and I have concluded that the evidence developed during the Special Counsel's investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense."
It was a team effort, kiddo.Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
Than a fool in the eyes of God
From "Fools Gold" by Petra
Comment
-
Originally posted by Mountain Man View PostBarr didn't reach this decision on his own. Even Rod Rosenstein, who is no friend of Trump, signed off on the conclusion. Again, I'll let the Department of Justice answer:
"After reviewing the Special Counsel's final report on these issues; consulting with Department officials, including the Office of Legal Counsel; and applying the principles of federal prosecution that guide our charging decisions, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and I have concluded that the evidence developed during the Special Counsel's investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense."
And let's look at a curious statement that Mueller made during his press conference: "As I set forth in the report after that investigation, if we had had confidence that the President clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so."
This would suggest, then, that if they had confidence that the Trump clearly did commit a crime, then they would have said so, but they didn't. Instead, they say quite plainly that "this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime".
To summarize the summary, there's no "there" there.My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1
If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26
This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by carpedm9587, Yesterday, 08:13 PM
|
5 responses
29 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Diogenes
Yesterday, 09:35 PM
|
||
Started by eider, Yesterday, 12:12 AM
|
8 responses
72 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by eider
Yesterday, 11:25 PM
|
||
Started by Cow Poke, 06-15-2024, 12:53 PM
|
35 responses
173 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Stoic
Yesterday, 10:43 PM
|
||
Started by Diogenes, 06-14-2024, 08:57 PM
|
60 responses
318 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Diogenes
Yesterday, 03:19 PM
|
||
Started by carpedm9587, 06-14-2024, 11:25 AM
|
53 responses
313 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Ronson
Yesterday, 11:27 AM
|
Comment