Ok word police what now

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

From the Mueller report:

“If we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so.”

"The conclusion that Congress may apply obstruction laws to the President’s corrupt exercise of the powers of office accords with our constitutional system of checks and balances and the principle that no person is above the law.”

From Mueller yesterday:

"It explains that under long-standing Department policy, a President cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office. That is unconstitutional. Even if the charge is kept under seal and hidden from public view—that too is prohibited.
The Special Counsel’s Office is part of the Department of Justice and, by regulation, it was bound by that Department policy. Charging the President with a crime was therefore not an option we could consider."

"When (Mueller chooses his words very carefully, notice he did not say If) a subject of an investigation obstructs that investigation or lies to investigators, it strikes at the core of the government’s effort to find the truth and hold wrongdoers accountable."

Testimonials for the choice of Robert Mueller

"Robert Mueller is superb choice to be special counsel. His reputation is impeccable for honesty and integrity" – Newt Gingrich, May 18, 2017.

"I have a lot of confidence in Bob Mueller. I think it was a good choice" – Mitch McConnell, June 13, 2017.

"Robert Mueller is highly regarded by Republicans and Democrats" – John McCain, June 13, 2017.

"I have a lot of confidence in Bob Mueller. This is someone who will go to where the truth leads him" – Condoleezza Rice, June 28, 2017.

From the infamous Rudy spoken a year ago:
Rudy Giuliani on Wednesday claimed to CNN that special counsel Robert Mueller’s team told President Trump’s lawyers that they cannot indict a sitting president. “All they get to do is write a report,” Giuliani, who currently serves as a Trump lawyer, told CNN reporter Dana Bash. “They can’t indict. At least they acknowledged that to us after some battling, they acknowledged that to us.”

Now we get to watch them spin................................

I watch you keep spinning. If they had had confidence that the president clearly did commit a crime, they would have said so. There is nothing, no law, no tradition, that would have prevented them from saying so. In fact, the purpose of the investigation was exactly to say so if the evidence clearly led to that conclusion. The purpose of a prosecutorial investigation is to convict, not to exonerate. The American way, the American tradition, is that there is firstly a presumption of innocence. If conviction cannot be had, the presumption of innocence stands.

We are now, according to your spin, supposed to assume guilt and innocence must be proved.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

I watch you keep spinning. If they had had confidence that the president clearly did commit a crime, they would have said so. There is nothing, no law, no tradition, that would have prevented them from saying so. In fact, the purpose of the investigation was exactly to say so if the evidence clearly led to that conclusion. The purpose of a prosecutorial investigation is to convict, not to exonerate. The American way, the American tradition, is that there is firstly a presumption of innocence. If conviction cannot be had, the presumption of innocence stands.

We are now, according to your spin, supposed to assume guilt and innocence must be proved.

No, you are incorrect, the enabling legislation and DOJ rules calls out what is required and Mueller clearly lays out what he believed he could and could not do in the report.

What we are to do at this point is really simple, the House investigates and if needed impeaches the President.

Meanwhile Trump continues to obstruct the investigation, and it is justifiable in your mind because he's mad.

Others think he is covering things up.

Pay attention to Muellers closing statement:
"I will close by reiterating the central allegation of our indictments—that there were multiple, systematic efforts to interfere in our election.
That allegation deserves the attention of every American."

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

No, you are incorrect, the enabling legislation and DOJ rules calls out what is required and Mueller clearly lays out what he believed he could and could not do in the report.

Can you point out a DOJ rule that prohibited Mueller from concluding that Trump obstructed justice. A conclusion is not an indictment.

What we are to do at this point is really simple, the House investigates and if needed impeaches the President.

Who are "we"? You certainly seem to be part of that crowd. A different "we," would say that what we are to do at this point is really simple, it's over, move on.

Meanwhile Trump continues to obstruct the investigation, and it is justifiable in your mind because he's mad.

What "investigation" is Trump "obstructing"?

Others think he is covering things up.

"Others" think that Mueller, Schiff, Comey, Nadler, et al. are covering things up.

Pay attention to Muellers closing statement:
"I will close by reiterating the central allegation of our indictments—that there were multiple, systematic efforts to interfere in our election.
That allegation deserves the attention of every American."

I paid attention to Mueller's closing statement, as you request, focused on it like a laser, and noted that the "central allegation" was of their "indictments". That there were multiple, systematic efforts to interfere in our election being alleged in their "indictments". I noticed that the "allegation" which deserves every American's attention was a central part of their "indictments".

Did you notice that Trump was not part of those indictments? That Mueller concluded that there was not sufficient evidence to indict Trump on charges of systematic efforts to interfere in our election?

[scottw]

Originally Posted by detbuch

What "investigation" is Trump "obstructing"?

if you happen to disagree with a democrat or defend yourself from their vicious attacks in any way you are guilty of obstruction

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

I paid attention to Mueller's closing statement, as you request, focused on it like a laser, and noted that the "central allegation" was of their "indictments". That there were multiple, systematic efforts to interfere in our election being alleged in their "indictments". I noticed that the "allegation" which deserves every American's attention was a central part of their "indictments".

Did you notice that Trump was not part of those indictments? That Mueller concluded that there was not sufficient evidence to indict Trump on charges of systematic efforts to interfere in our election?

Hard to prove when you consistently obstruct, that is the goal of obstruction.
Why is it acceptable to some that Trump sought, received and welcomed aid from the Russians.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Hard to prove when you consistently obstruct, that is the goal of obstruction.

Well if you can't prove it, quit yapping about it. Your constant referring to unproven talking points are an obstruction to civil, reasonable, logical, rational, meaningful, and ultimately fruitful discussion.

Why is it acceptable to some that Trump sought, received and welcomed aid from the Russians.

That you consider this Trumpian exercise in sarcasm as proof that Trump sought aid from the Russians is a sad commentary on your ability to see what's what.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

If they had had confidence that the president clearly did commit a crime, they would have said so. There is nothing, no law, no tradition, that would have prevented them from saying so.

Mueller said specifically they wouldn't say so without an indictment as the accused would have no legal process to show otherwise.

Mueller essentially said we would have but we couldn't. Congress, you're up.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Mueller essentially said we would have but we couldn't. Congress, you're up.

where did he say that?

i thought he said, we can’t conclude there wasn’t a crime, and even if there was we can’t indict a sitting president, so congress you’re up.

he’s going to get impeached.

will be nice to get back to governing.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

i thought he said, we can’t conclude there wasn’t a crime, and even if there was we can’t indict a sitting president, so congress you’re up.

On obstruction he didn't say they couldn't conclude there was a crime, he said they decided not to make a judgement because of the DoJ guidelines which allow investigation and the preservation of evidence but not indictment of the President.

The case for obstruction is all there, it's why nearly a thousand former prosecutors have signed the letter stating just that.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

On obstruction he didn't say they couldn't conclude there was a crime, he said they decided not to make a judgement because of the DoJ guidelines which allow investigation and the preservation of evidence but not indictment of the President.

The case for obstruction is all there, it's why nearly a thousand former prosecutors have signed the letter stating just that.

...he might not be able to indict but he could certainly come to a conclusion or a judgment based on his exhaustive investigation and evidence as to whether Trump committed any crimes...that he's engaged is this sophistry is a reflection of his failure and frustrations and he's probably getting a lot of heat from the media and democrats who are similarly frustrated...sore loser democrats are really embarrassing themselves...can't wait for the impeachment and I'm begging the dems to subpoena Mueller to testify....he should answer a few questions...if there really is a case for obstruction then fire away...this should be really entertaining

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

...he might not be able to indict but he could certainly come to a conclusion or a judgment based on his exhaustive investigation and evidence as to whether Trump committed any crimes...

I think he was pretty clear in stating that rendering a judgement in a manner where the accused has no ability to put up a defense isn't fair and that Congress is the proper place to hear this out.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

I think he was pretty clear in stating that rendering a judgement in a manner where the accused has no ability to put up a defense isn't fair and that Congress is the proper place to hear this out.

oooh...more sophistry...Congress should here from Muller in the form of testimony and then from Trump in the form of impeachment....get it on!