- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
0
Posted on 4/19/19 at 10:20 am to Antonio Moss
quote:
Fourth, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment. The evidence we obtained about the President's actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.
This statement right here voids everything. They are assuming they have to prove innocence beyond a reasonable doubt. It is the other way around, and they have to prove guilt. They are obviously conflicted (even with their extreme bias); therefore, Trump is cleared.
Barr basically stated this yesterday as the point of an investigation like this is to determine yes or no. He stated it clearly did not warrant guilt in any sense of the idea of obstruction.
It concerns me that people are so stupid to support the democrats and media spewing their garbage.
This post was edited on 4/19/19 at 10:21 am
Posted on 4/19/19 at 10:22 am to DawgfaninCa
The entire investigation was made up bullshite lies started from lies and declass FISA will put the Dems dick in the dirt. You cannot obstruct something that was bullshite from the start .
This post was edited on 4/19/19 at 10:23 am
Posted on 4/19/19 at 10:29 am to DawgfaninCa
quote:
The Dums are now claiming the real reason why Mueller didn't indict President Trump for obstruction was because of the DOJ's policy that a POTUS can't be indicted while in office.
They are even claiming the Mueller report's main conclusion was that there was enough evidence of obstruction not to exonerate President Trump from an obstruction charge.
Boy, I can't wait to hear Barr's and Mueller's response to that claim.
It was literally the 1st question asked yesterday and Barr said it had nothing to do with anything.
Posted on 4/19/19 at 10:34 am to TrueTiger
quote:
In the U.S.A. everyone is exonerated until convicted
Posted on 4/19/19 at 10:36 am to Antonio Moss
quote:
This isn't true.
Mueller clearly exonerated Trump on the charges of conspiracy and states that could if he exonerate Trump on obstruction, he would have.
I didn't say a prosecutor WON'T or will never. Clearly, when you investigate something, you may exonerate them along the way.
It's simply not your goal or in your job description. His job description is to discover if there is evidence of wrongdoing and if it's enough to act on
Posted on 4/19/19 at 10:37 am to DawgfaninCa
quote:
The Dums are now claiming the real reason why Mueller didn't indict President Trump for obstruction was because of the DOJ's policy that a POTUS can't be indicted while in office. They are even claiming the Mueller report's main conclusion was that there was enough evidence of obstruction not to exonerate President Trump from an obstruction charge.
18 U.S.C. § 1503 defines "obstruction of justice" as an act that "corruptly or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, influences, obstructs, or impedes, or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration of justice."
If there is a way to monetize a word a smart person would lock "endeavoring" down ASAP....we gonna hear a lot of that phrase in the next couple of years....I already checked...its already a website...
Posted on 4/19/19 at 10:37 am to TrueTiger
quote:
that, and the fact that there was no crime to "obstruct" the investigation of
There wouldn't have to be an underlying crime for someone to be guilty of obstruction. Think Martha Stewart. If Trump was merely trying to avoid indictments for him or his staff, or trying to avoid the discovery of embarrassing facts, he could be guilty of obstruction.
Obstruction is a crime because it hampers a legal investigation and shows contempt for the legal process, not just because it is an attention to cover up a crime.
I'm not saying Trump is guilty of anything, I just don't think the failure to find an underlying crime resolves an issue.
OTOH, I think it would be hard to convince a jury that there was obstruction if there was no crime. In Martha Stewarts case, I think someone committed a crime, just not Martha.
Posted on 4/19/19 at 10:37 am to DawgfaninCa
Throw it on the pile with the other "Democrats claim"
Makes good compost
Makes good compost
Posted on 4/19/19 at 10:40 am to germandawg
quote:If there is a way to monetize a phrase a smart person would lock "the due administration of justice" down ASAP....
If there is a way to monetize a word a smart person would lock "endeavoring" down ASAP....
Posted on 4/19/19 at 10:41 am to DawgfaninCa
And everyone of those that say such should be pressed to start impeachment.
Posted on 4/19/19 at 10:41 am to Antonio Moss
quote:
Fourth, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment. The evidence we obtained about the President's actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.
That means, based on all of the evidence and because the applicable legal standards for an obstruction of justice charge were not met, Mueller concluded he could not indict President Trump for obstruction.
Mueller's final conclusion does not state he had enough evidence to indict President Trump for obstruction of justice but that he isn't indicting the POTUS because a sitting POTUS can't be indicted for obstruction.
That means there was not evidence that proved President Trump committed a crime and that the applicable legal standards required Mueller not to indict President Trump for obstruction..
Posted on 4/19/19 at 10:42 am to Dday63
quote:
There wouldn't have to be an underlying crime for someone to be guilty of obstruction.
I haven't read the elements of the crime, admittedly, but I don't think that shouting your innocence and calling bullshite on the investigation qualifies.
Posted on 4/19/19 at 10:46 am to DawgfaninCa
quote:
That means, based on all of the evidence and because the applicable legal standards for an obstruction of justice charge were not met, Mueller concluded he could not indict President Trump for obstruction.
Mueller's final conclusion does not state he had enough evidence to indict President Trump for obstruction of justice but that he isn't indicting the POTUS because a sitting POTUS can't be indicted for obstruction.
You're drawing a conclusion that specifically states he would not draw.
Posted on 4/19/19 at 10:46 am to DawgfaninCa
The only way to stop all of this is to change the subject. As has been pointed out by others on this board, there needs to be rapid, massive investigations, indictments, prosecutions and trials of the Democrats and FBI/DOJ officials that started all of this. Otherwise, you’re looking at another 18 months of hyperventilation.
Posted on 4/19/19 at 10:50 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
quote:If there is a way to monetize a word a smart person would lock "endeavoring" down ASAP....If there is a way to monetize a phrase a smart person would lock "the due administration of justice" down ASAP....
true dat...is there a way to monetize a word or phrase? Damn I wish I were 20 and technologically savvy....
Posted on 4/19/19 at 10:50 am to germandawg
quote:
endeavors
"Endeavor" means "to attempt to achieve".
Continuing to proclaim one's innocent is not endeavoring to influence, obstruct or impede.
Posted on 4/19/19 at 10:52 am to DawgfaninCa
quote:
"Endeavor" means "to attempt to achieve". Continuing to proclaim one's innocent is not endeavoring to influence, obstruct or impede.
I'm not passing judgement....I am merely suggesting that "endeavoring" is gonna be a very popular word...along the lines of "collusion"...in the next couple of years....
Posted on 4/19/19 at 10:53 am to DawgfaninCa
Got to love those Dems. They have no more Russians to grasp at so now they want to pull a Flynn on Trump. Process crime. Still a one big fake news pile of shite that they desperately want obstruction for a bullshite investigation that found no collusion. Obstructing a legal action. Nice.
Posted on 4/19/19 at 10:54 am to Antonio Moss
quote:
That means, based on all of the evidence and because the applicable legal standards for an obstruction of justice charge were not met, Mueller concluded he could not indict President Trump for obstruction.
Mueller's final conclusion does not state he had enough evidence to indict President Trump for obstruction of justice but that he isn't indicting the POTUS because a sitting POTUS can't be indicted for obstruction.
quote:
You're drawing a conclusion that specifically states he would not draw.
I'm just stating what Mueller's final conclusion stated.
Page 3 of 11
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News