|
Replies: 20
| visibility 1
|
All-In [42154]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 38241
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Looks like he made it pretty clear...
May 29, 2019, 11:15 AM
|
|
That they believe the president committed at least one crime but they couldn't indict a sitting president. So, well, confirmation that he's a crook.
|
|
|
|
 |
Heisman Winner [119704]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 54475
Joined: 6/24/09
|
Sounded more like he was assplaining to Dems
May 29, 2019, 11:19 AM
|
|
That it’s futile to keep up their BS war on the Prez....
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [93668]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95419
Joined: 12/25/09
|
It was ambigious for a reason.
May 29, 2019, 11:22 AM
|
|
IT's exactly like his report. There's nothing new here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [31894]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 37182
Joined: 11/22/03
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [93668]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95419
Joined: 12/25/09
|
Re: Looks like he made it pretty clear...as mud.***
May 29, 2019, 11:23 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [13360]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 9886
Joined: 1/23/06
|
Re: Looks like he made it pretty clear...
May 29, 2019, 11:27 AM
|
|
He knows what he’s doing... trying to take intent out of a president that requires intent.
Ironically the opposite of what happened with Hill-dawg.... putting intent into a president that doesn’t require intent.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [93668]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95419
Joined: 12/25/09
|
Can you say that so simply that even a country boy can...
May 29, 2019, 11:33 AM
|
|
understand? I think I agree with you, that makes me kinda dumb since I'm not exactly sure what you mean.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [13360]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 9886
Joined: 1/23/06
|
Re: Can you say that so simply that even a country boy can...
May 29, 2019, 12:16 PM
|
|
I’ll try.
The only way to get to obstruction against Trump is if you take intent out of the equation. If Trump was trying to interfere and obstruct the investigation there needed to be intent and in a certain sense motive. That the problem. There was no crime to cover up- thus there’s no motive or intent to obstruct. Trump didn’t want the investigation because it’s intrusive, distracting, and horrible PR... not because he did anything wrong with Russia. Dems are trying to say he was obstructing because they can’t let themselves believe he’s not guilty.
Conversely, Hillary was let off the hook by Comey when he inserted intent into her obstruction investigation. The problem there is that intent isn’t a factor when dealing with classified info. There was clear obstruction with deleting emails, smashing phones, destroying servers, etc etc.
Just ironic, if you ask me, that intent seems to be the tool by witch the scales are being swayed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [93668]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95419
Joined: 12/25/09
|
There is one consistence between Comey's handling of...
May 30, 2019, 9:23 AM
|
|
Hillary's crime and Mueller's handling of Trump's investigation. Both assumed a false narrative by claiming exoneration was part of their job.
I agree with the intent motive factor. I think I was first to mention it by citing a SCOTUS ruling of 0-9 against Weissman's investigation into an obstruction case which was overturned by the SCOTUS.
Without an underlying crime it's near impossible according to Alan Dershowitz.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [46825]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30731
Joined: 8/11/15
|
I think he is making his intentions clear.
May 29, 2019, 11:34 AM
|
|
There was crimes committed. The DOJ can't indict a sitting president so he punted it to Congress because they have the power to do something about it.
It is obviously NOT a nothing burger like Barr claimed
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [40344]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 23465
Joined: 7/13/12
|
I don’t disagree
May 29, 2019, 11:42 AM
|
|
It just begs the question of “if they believe he obstructed justice, why didn’t they openly say they came to that conclusion?”
By not coming to a conclusion I feel like the punt to Congress wasn’t actually complete.
I just told Mrs fluff that it’s cool to see in real time how the govt actually works
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [46825]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30731
Joined: 8/11/15
|
I have no idea what the answer to that question is.
May 29, 2019, 11:43 AM
|
|
Or why phrase it so vaguely like they did in the report "If we believed the president didn't commit whatever we would have stated it here."
Sounds like they were trying to CYA
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [40344]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 23465
Joined: 7/13/12
|
I guess we will have to wait and see what happens***
May 29, 2019, 11:47 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1907]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 3154
Joined: 11/11/17
|
Re: I don’t disagree
May 29, 2019, 11:52 AM
[ in reply to I don’t disagree ] |
|
Mueller said why- To make a charge of obstruction without the benefit of being able to defend it with a trial is not legally right. That is what it boils down to NOT being able to indict a sitting POTUS. Nothing more or less, he said it very clearly, at least to my ears.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [22387]
TigerPulse: 99%
Posts: 31281
Joined: 11/30/98
|
He explained that in his statement.
May 29, 2019, 11:52 AM
[ in reply to I don’t disagree ] |
|
He said it would be unconstitutional to make a determination that he was guilty if the accused could not defend himself in court.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [15492]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 18413
Joined: 12/10/14
|
Re: I don’t disagree
May 30, 2019, 11:32 AM
[ in reply to I don’t disagree ] |
|
It just begs the question of “if they believe he obstructed justice, why didn’t they openly say they came to that conclusion?”
By not coming to a conclusion I feel like the punt to Congress wasn’t actually complete.
I just told Mrs fluff that it’s cool to see in real time how the govt actually works
They explain it in the report. Because a sitting President cannot be indicted while in office, to openly declare that he had committed a crime would be unfair. Because the President, who can't be indicted, could not defend himself or attempt to clear his name in a trial, which is the forum accorded to every American who have been charged with something. "I'm confident that I'll be vindicated at trial" is a statement we've heard numerous times by people who have been charged with something.
As a result, the Report stated that they 'drew no conclusion that the President committed a crime." The list of potential obstruction episodes is merely a recitation of events as opposed to a charging document.
Remember, according to Mueller, they referred the obstruction issue to Congress for investigation. As he said yesterday, the criminal justice system is not the venue for determining the question, rather, according to the Constitution, only Congress can charge the President.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [49171]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 27599
Joined: 8/10/02
|
...Trump is a liar. So now it's official.
May 29, 2019, 11:51 AM
|
|
kinda seemed like it for quite a while.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1405]
TigerPulse: 54%
Posts: 3412
Joined: 1/10/13
|
Re: Looks like he made it pretty clear...
May 29, 2019, 11:59 AM
|
|
He's referring it to Congress and he wasn't that vague. He just didn't expressly say he was referring it to them because that wasn't within his authority and Congress does not need a referral to proceed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [31894]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 37182
Joined: 11/22/03
|
I agree with the first part of your statement...
May 30, 2019, 3:15 PM
|
|
but the 2nd part isn't right...at least not if you subscribe to the innocent until proven guilty philosophy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [42154]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 38241
Joined: 11/30/98
|
OJ is innocent until proven guilty.
May 30, 2019, 10:06 PM
|
|
Mother ###### is still a murderer, IMO.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [31894]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 37182
Joined: 11/22/03
|
Oh ok....lol***
May 30, 2019, 10:08 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 20
| visibility 1
|
|
|
50
