re: Report: Mifsud’s secret recording is the predicate for Durham criminal inquiry

In my post about the Mueller Report, and why no Trumpers were charged, I commented that I seemed to have remembered where someone else was not prosecuted because of lack of intent?

What does that remind you of?

I seem to remember it was something about emails.

quote:

---

In other words, they couldn't prove intent beyond a reasonable doubt.

---

quote:

---

In fact, they couldn't come within light years of that proof. But the legal result does not measure the stupidity of a prosecution's case. It simply determines guilt or . . . . what is that other word?

---

If you think that a failure to charge means anything other than that, then you are past your expiration date.

quote:

---

government has not obtained admissible evidence that is likely to establish the scienter requirement beyond a reasonable doubt.

---

quote:

---

In other words, they couldn't prove intent beyond a reasonable doubt.

---

um, i'm not talking about campaign finance violations, which that quote references.

Mueller Report page 195

quote:

---

Even assuming that the promised “documents and information that would incriminate
Hillary” constitute a “thing of value” under campaign—?nance law, the government would
encounter other challenges in seeking to obtain and sustain a conviction. Most signi?cantly, the
government has not obtained admissible evidence that is likely to establish the scienter requirement
beyond a reasonable doubt.

---

here is a much more applicable quote, about the subject i actually asked about:

quote:

---

the investigation did not
establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian
government in its election interference activities.

---

Page 10

quote:

---

My post was quoting the Mueller Report about the evidence they found and why they didn't charge anyone from the Trump campaign.

---

*for campaign finance violations

which have nothing to do with this thread, nor do they have to do with the question i asked you

quote:

---

if you believe that Mifsud was a Western asset, then explain how any of the theories linking Pap to Russia make sense

---

I didn't say he was a Western asset. I said the way the question was worded, it looked like it was suggesting Mifsud was not a Western asset.

That's why it didn't make sense to me.

quote:

---

Why don't you try doing a little reading and thinking on your own so you don't sound like a parrot? 

---

Says the lying tool that quoted incorrect and misleading sections of the Mueller report - that had nothing to do with the matter at hand - in an attempt to manipulate the argument. You failed.

I don't think I've ever seen you look more desperate and squirmy in a thread, and that says a LOT.

quote:

---

I said the way the question was worded, it looked like it was suggesting Mifsud was not a Western asset.

---

because the Mueller Report (and i am betting the FISA applications) said he was associated with Russia

because that's the only way an op makes sense

if he is a Western asset, then it doesn't make sense until you get to CT land

quote:

---

government has not obtained admissible evidence that is likely to establish the scienter requirement beyond a reasonable doubt. In other words, they couldn't prove intent beyond a reasonable doubt.

---

quote:

---

um, i'm not talking about campaign finance violations, which that quote references.

---

What in the hell are you talking about? The "quote" I posted was NOT even in response to a post you made.

I was responding a post by PHDogan. Here is PHDoogan's post I was responding to:

quote:

---

But texshidder, you agree that the Weismann Report concluded that, after nearly two years, they could find no evidence of coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia?

---

My response, which you seized on the opportunity to jump on, was to PHDoogan's question involving evidence of coordination. It didn't have anything to you with a post you made.

Also, even putting aside that my answer wasn't to your post, where do you get off with your
"I'm not talking about campaign finance violations, which that quote references."

Is there some reason you arbitrarily excluded evidence of campaign finance violations?

NO. It's just a bullshite way to try say that my answer is excluded so you can try to pull a chickenshite gothca?? Because there is NO basis to exclude evidence of campaign finance law violations from the discussion of evidence considered based on the Report.

In the PROSECUTION AND DECLINATION DECISIONS section of the Report, it discusses the evidence regarding the June 2016 Trump Tower. On page 185, the Report says:

quote:

---

The Office considered whether this evidence would establish a conspiracy to violate the foreign contributions ban, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371;

---

.

There is no doubt that the investigation/Report evaluated the sufficiency of evidence it had concerning the Trump Tower meeting as part of its investigation of Trump's campaign's potential coordination with Russia.

Your post makes absolutely no sense.

Take your bullshite gotcha and stick it.

quote:

---

Hey, dumbass, you're full of shite. That's what you get for listening to ShortyRob.

---

Sig dibs