oldngray
nowhere special
You might want to read it yourself. Apparently you still don't know what it said.
this analogy will “make sense” to everyone
- Thread starter Babagounj
- Start date
oldngray
nowhere special
Allegations are not evidence.
oldngray
nowhere special
Justice Department rules forbid its lawyers from annunciating negative narratives about any person, absent an indictment.
How can that person properly defend himself without trial? This is why prosecutors like Mueller are prohibited from trying their cases in the court of public opinion.
If they have probable cause to levy charges, they should do so. If not, they must refrain from openly disparaging someone that our justice system presumes is innocent.
Gregg Jarrett: The two faces of Robert Mueller, and Trump's presumption of guilt
How can that person properly defend himself without trial? This is why prosecutors like Mueller are prohibited from trying their cases in the court of public opinion.
If they have probable cause to levy charges, they should do so. If not, they must refrain from openly disparaging someone that our justice system presumes is innocent.
Gregg Jarrett: The two faces of Robert Mueller, and Trump's presumption of guilt
floridays
Well-Known Member
Please, exactly refresh my memory.
I expect, from you, a list of the eleven crimes Mueller listed.
I also expect your response to be, "Who do you think you are to expect me or anyone to fulfill or respond to your expectations."
I expect you to take the easy way out.
Mueller could have named the crimes that Trump could be impeached for. Why didn't he?
What makes you think that? That’s the job of the House when forming articles of impeachment.
Seriously. You guys have Trump and his cronies looking like boy scouts in your heads.
Starr levelled 11 counts against Clinton. Mueller said yesterday that he has nothing to say beyond what's in the report. So where are the high crimes Trump committed?
I said he wasn't impeached for obstruction, but I'm clearly wrong on that. But what has that got to do with Trump? And really, if you're going to keep bringing up Bill, I'm going to bring up Hillary.
floridays
Well-Known Member
I prefer the legal system to produce justice, I expect nothing remotely resembling justice from politicians.
And I still expect your list of Mueller's 11 crimes Trump committed.
What does it have to do with Trump?
You suggested that Trump hadn’t shut Mueller down and thus there was no obstruction.
Obviously Clinton didn’t shut down Starr so that is not the standard by which obstruction is committed since you and I now agree that Clinton was indeed impeached for obstruction.
Doesn’t matter what you prefer, DOJ doesn’t do presidents. That’s for the constitution and congress to take care of.
floridays
Well-Known Member
Clinton was shown to have obstructed in civil cases against him.
You Sir are fighting a losing battle.
I have a simple question for you Sam.
If Trump obstructed justice, why was no one charged with obstruction?
He obviously had to use or entertain the help of others to obstruct since Mueller couldn't list one distinct instance of Trump personally obstructing.
I'm all ears. I'll wait for your answer while I wait for Schiff's proof of collusion.
What you are trying to have me believe is that as long as the president is good enough at obstructing, he can’t be charged with anything because he’s the president.
Turdferguson
Just a turd
A Sitting President’s Amenability to Indictment and Criminal Prosecution
Headnotes:
The indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would unconstitutionally undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions.
floridays
Well-Known Member
Still no list I see, just admit it doesn't exist.
As for the rest of what you wrote justice requires a prosecutor to indict or decline. In the case of a president Department of Justice policy is no indictment of a sitting president, not a special prosecutor reporting crimes to the Attorney General in his report. Mueller had no crimes to report and it took him 448 pages to say that.
Lacking a crime or crimes to report Mueller presented 448 pages of a political hit job and he offered eight more minutes, verbally, today.
If there is justice in this land Mueller has a lot of splainin to do.
There are various ways to obstruct. But more to the point Clinton committed crimes. There is no underlying crime with Trump to obstruct an investigation of. Trump wanting something done isn't the same as actually obstructing either.
And the Democrats going on about a threat to our democracy, etc, is ludicrous. Hillary actually obstructed justice. She also violated the Espionage Act. And if we could see the 33,000 emails she deleted we'd almost certainly see her selling access to her office and presumed presidency in exchange for fat speaking fees and huge donations to her foundation. And yet y'all act like nothing happened while lambasting Trump for resisting being characterized as a traitor. This is insanity.
floridays
Well-Known Member
Might, try that case before a judge or jury.
I had a cpa that liked to say mites are on chicken's asses.
She was from Mississippi.
From your article, first sentence:
Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s team found 10 instances where President Donald Trump’s conduct raised issues of possible obstruction of justice.
I don't notice Mueller's name in the by line, and if he thought a crime was committed by obstructing you can bet your ass it would have been highlighted in the report.
floridays
Well-Known Member
I said no one, not Trump exclusively.
You are the grammarian, I made it clear in the context.
Similar threads
