When is Enough ,Enough?

[Giantone]

Simply put.............

Mueller: 'If we had confidence that the president had clearly not committed a crime, we would have said so'.


.........................The END

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by Giantone

Simply put.............



Mueller: 'If we had confidence that the president had clearly not committed a crime, we would have said so'.





.........................The END

So for you - our justice system is guilty until proven innocent (especially if we dont like you)

Fact is that while Mueller could not indict, he could have laid out the equivalent of proof beyond a reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute a crime and handed that to Congress for impeachment. There is no limit that says he could not lay bare evidence that proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump broke such and such law, and the fact that he did not means that Trump like every US Citizen should therefore receive the innocent until proven guilty nod.



Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

[sdskinsfan2001]

I'd say around 111 pages. Send this thread to hell.

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by sdskinsfan2001

I'd say around 111 pages. Send this thread to hell.

Nope...enough isn’t enough

Welcome back to winning CRed.

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

So for you - our justice system is guilty until proven innocent (especially if we dont like you)

Fact is that while Mueller could not indict, he could have laid out the equivalent of proof beyond a reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute a crime and handed that to Congress for impeachment. There is no limit that says he could not lay bare evidence that proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump broke such and such law, and the fact that he did not means that Trump like every US Citizen should therefore receive the innocent until proven guilty nod.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

Proof was laid out,DOJ polocies say you can not indite a sitting President . Spin all you want ,the man said he can not say he did not commit a crime !

[Giantone]

No he isn't bilking the US tax payers at all......................


https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/...224536672.html



The president is rarely in a building, save for the White House, that doesn’t have his name on it. And that is costing the American taxpayer more than $100 million, according to HuffPost. Trump’s recent visit to his golf course in Doonbeg, Ireland, contributed $3.6 million to that total.

The expenses for Trump’s trip included $1,023,940 for car and limo rentals, $10,866 to install temporary phone lines and an astounding $16,325 for the Secret Service to rent golf carts to follow the president while he played the links. And according to HuffPost, the jaunt to Ireland cost the State Department $1.5 million in contracts for the trip.

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

So for you - our justice system is guilty until proven innocent (especially if we dont like you)

Fact is that while Mueller could not indict, he could have laid out the equivalent of proof beyond a reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute a crime and handed that to Congress for impeachment. There is no limit that says he could not lay bare evidence that proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump broke such and such law, and the fact that he did not means that Trump like every US Citizen should therefore receive the innocent until proven guilty nod.



Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

https://www.yahoo.com/news/former-u-...185812955.html


Former U.S. Attorney Tells Congress Trump Committed ‘Multiple Crimes’

Politics
Former U.S. Attorney Tells Congress Trump Committed ‘Multiple Crimes’
The Daily Beast By Barbara McQuade,The Daily Beast Mon, Jun 10 2:58 PM EDT
Reactions Reblog on Tumblr Share Tweet Email

Andrew Harnik/AP
Statement as prepared for testimony before the House Judiciary Committee.

Chairman Nadler, Ranking Member Collins, and distinguished members of the Committee: Thank you for inviting me to speak with you today about lessons from the Mueller Report regarding obstruction of justice.

Overview of Testimony
The most significant finding in the Special Counsel’s Report is that Russia interfered with our election in “sweeping and systematic fashion.”

Through that lens, I will share 2 observations about the report—

What happened and why it matters.

First, the conduct described in the report constitutes multiple crimes of obstruction of justice, supported by evidence of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

If anyone other than a sitting president had committed this conduct, I am confident that he would be charged with crimes.

One thousand former federal prosecutors signed a letter agreeing that the president committed crimes.

Second, why it matters.

The obstruction described in the report created a risk to our national security because it was designed to prevent investigators from learning all of the facts about an attack on our country by a hostile foreign adversary.

hit the link to read more.............................

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by Giantone

https://www.yahoo.com/news/former-u-...185812955.html


Former U.S. Attorney Tells Congress Trump Committed ‘Multiple Crimes’

Politics
Former U.S. Attorney Tells Congress Trump Committed ‘Multiple Crimes’
The Daily Beast By Barbara McQuade,The Daily Beast Mon, Jun 10 2:58 PM EDT
Reactions Reblog on Tumblr Share Tweet Email

Andrew Harnik/AP
Statement as prepared for testimony before the House Judiciary Committee.

Chairman Nadler, Ranking Member Collins, and distinguished members of the Committee: Thank you for inviting me to speak with you today about lessons from the Mueller Report regarding obstruction of justice.

Overview of Testimony
The most significant finding in the Special Counsel’s Report is that Russia interfered with our election in “sweeping and systematic fashion.”

Through that lens, I will share 2 observations about the report—

What happened and why it matters.

First, the conduct described in the report constitutes multiple crimes of obstruction of justice, supported by evidence of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

If anyone other than a sitting president had committed this conduct, I am confident that he would be charged with crimes.

One thousand former federal prosecutors signed a letter agreeing that the president committed crimes.

Second, why it matters.

The obstruction described in the report created a risk to our national security because it was designed to prevent investigators from learning all of the facts about an attack on our country by a hostile foreign adversary.

hit the link to read more.............................

Prosecutors prosecute, it's not unsurprising that they see the burden of reasonable doubt met. Let's get 1000 former defense lawyers to agree that a crime of obstruction was committed based on the Mueller report (including the exculpatory evidence within that the Daily Beast did not delve into).

Personally, if the House wants to impeach him, I think they should. They should call Mueller to testify about the report and allow the evidence to be viewed cross-examined.

And if in the end, the burden of proof is met, the Senate should execute it's duties aside from political partisanship.

But I stand by the fact that until he is found guilty by the Senate, our system of justice demands that everyone acknowledge that Trump has not been found guilty (regardless if 10,000 prosecutors swore on a stack of 10,000 Bibles and said it was enough), and is therefore innocent - not just "not charged".

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

Prosecutors prosecute, it's not unsurprising that they see the burden of reasonable doubt met. Let's get 1000 former defense lawyers to agree that a crime of obstruction was committed based on the Mueller report (including the exculpatory evidence within that the Daily Beast did not delve into).

Personally, if the House wants to impeach him, I think they should. They should call Mueller to testify about the report and allow the evidence to be viewed cross-examined.

And if in the end, the burden of proof is met, the Senate should execute it's duties aside from political partisanship.

But I stand by the fact that until he is found guilty by the Senate, our system of justice demands that everyone acknowledge that Trump has not been found guilty (regardless if 10,000 prosecutors swore on a stack of 10,000 Bibles and said it was enough), and is therefore innocent - not just "not charged".

I see your point yet my question is was Hillary considerd "innocent" during the 8 House investigations that took place ,that found much less than here?

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by Giantone

I see your point yet my question is was Hillary considerd "innocent" during the 8 House investigations that took place ,that found much less than here?

It's funny, I was going to bring up HC but was sure you would label it as a deflection.

As far as I know, HC has never been regarded as anything but innocent from the media, the fbi - even the ones tasked to investigate her, and the 48.2% of the electorate that elected her. Perhaps, the other 46.1% found enough doubt to chant lock her up because they didn't trust the political bureaucracies that simply chase the political winds - dems investigate reps and reps investigate dems while they both parties do the same damn thing, or because the sight of an ex-president meeting on the tarmac with a leading prosecutor gave the image of a tainted investigation.

But is there anyone who thinks that the Mueller probe didn't look under every rock, turn over every possible lead with the express intent to prove that Trump was first involved with the Russians and barring being able to prove that that they would prove that he committed obstruction. The team put together was as motivated as any to get every angle, and they had every dollar they wanted, they had access to crazy high level activity, they had every surveillance trick and trap available to them, and they still put together a very refutable 10 points of possible obstruction.

So for the TL;DR crowd, HC investigations were first political (thus questionable) and secondly rushed and clearly biased FBI investigators with
DOJ friendly actors. Trump investigations on the other hand were first highly motivated well funded long term FBI / DOJ employees and now comes the political hack jobs.

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

It's funny, I was going to bring up HC but was sure you would label it as a deflection.

As far as I know, HC has never been regarded as anything but innocent from the media, the fbi - even the ones tasked to investigate her, and the 48.2% of the electorate that elected her. Perhaps, the other 46.1% found enough doubt to chant lock her up because they didn't trust the political bureaucracies that simply chase the political winds - dems investigate reps and reps investigate dems while they both parties do the same damn thing, or because the sight of an ex-president meeting on the tarmac with a leading prosecutor gave the image of a tainted investigation.

But is there anyone who thinks that the Mueller probe didn't look under every rock, turn over every possible lead with the express intent to prove that Trump was first involved with the Russians and barring being able to prove that that they would prove that he committed obstruction. The team put together was as motivated as any to get every angle, and they had every dollar they wanted, they had access to crazy high level activity, they had every surveillance trick and trap available to them, and they still put together a very refutable 10 points of possible obstruction.

So for the TL;DR crowd, HC investigations were first political (thus questionable) and secondly rushed and clearly biased FBI investigators with
DOJ friendly actors. Trump investigations on the other hand were first highly motivated well funded long term FBI / DOJ employees and now comes the political hack jobs.

I see your argument and I reverse it , Hillary was always assumed to be guilty and trump has been proven to be guilty just not allowed to be prosecuted ,it's no hack job.Nothing even close to what the republicans did to do to Hillary.