William Barr appoints U.S. attorney to investigate Russia probe origins

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: CynConcepts

See?

And yet.... you do know that it was stated in a letter so thats a start.

Mueller has not spoken to anyone and you know that

After reading Mueller's letter, I had considered that. So, I actually compared Barr's 4 page summary with the summaries Mueller had written and Barr had included with the report. Barr only shortened the summaries and did include the Mueller final conclusions and Inconclusions in his 4 page summary to Congress.

Common sense says that Barr's 4 page summary will not have all the details as a 10 page summary...just the same as a 10 page summary will not have all the details of a report over 400 pages long!

Edit add: the only difference was that Mueller's team refused to make a final conclusion on obstruction, which they know was their purpose. They did not have any real evidence and thus passed it off to Barr. It is unheard of in history to submit a final report without providing a conclusion. Barr determined that without evidence it naturally was not prosecutable nor impeachable. Sound determination based on the laws of America.


Added bolding emphasis for better comprehension of legal process.

a reply to: Sillyolme

Actually it was stated even if he was not a president he would not be charged. Try again.

a reply to: Sillyolme

Innocent until proven guilty, if they could conclusively conclude a crime was committed they would say so, they did not.

a reply to: RadioRobert

When he says, "this report does not conclude the President committed a crime, ..." that's all we need to know.

Sure if you wear blinders and have tunnel vision...

It is not going away no matter how many stars he wishes on.

And in the end... New York is waiting on him.

a reply to: Sillyolme

And in the end... New York is waiting on him.

In the end, the statute of limitations will all be up by the time he leaves office. LOL

a reply to: RadioRobert

He never had prosecutorial powers as long as that DOJ policy was in place. His hands were tied from the get go.

If he had been able to interview trump he might have had fewer reservations in indicting him none the less.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Sillyolme

Innocent until proven guilty, if they could conclusively conclude a crime was committed they would say so, they did not.

To be fair, I believe what is so confusing and being misinterpreted by many is in Mueller's summary listing of the 10 offenses that his Obstruction of Justice Volume 2 covered in their investigation.

He was summarizing the investigation. He wanted to have it easily accessible in list form that his team diligently investigated these 10 specific accusations. They did not find enough conclusive evidence so could NOT conclude that obstruction of justice had actually occurred.

a reply to: UKTruth

Actually there is no presumption of innocence in the public consciousness. And since they did not indict (charge) him he has no presumption of innocence in any legal sense either. Its all opinion at this point.
You are only "innocent until proven guilty" after you have been charged but before a trial.
Change that.... if you can... LOL

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: UKTruth

Actually there is no presumption of innocence in the public consciousness. And since they did not indict (charge) him he has no presumption of innocence in any legal sense either. Its all opinion at this point.
You are only "innocent until proven guilty" after you have been charged but before a trial.
Change that.... if you can... LOL

Fortunately one does not get punished based on "public consciousness".
Now based on the law, innocent until proven guilty. I know that's a huge inconvenience for the authoritarians and dictators on the left, but until you manage to turn the USA into China, it's an inconvenience you'll have to live with.

a reply to: Sillyolme

Its all opinion at this point.

Yes, yes...I agree with that 1 sentence. Thank goodness, opinions are meaningless in the absence of actual evidence legally.

Edit add: As I am sure you will agree too since many may have formed opinions of you based on your public posting history. Opinions are meaningless without actual evidence. Circumstantial evidence and hearsay does not make one a troll, bot, Russian, or boogeyman. Yes?

a reply to: Sillyolme

Actually there is no presumption of innocence in the public consciousness. 

Fortunately, we still do not punish people based on the mass delusions of "public consiousness" in this country.

And since they did not indict (charge) him he has no presumption of innocence in any legal sense either.

Actually, he and everyone else always has a presumption of innocence under the law. It's why they could not indict him. The state must meet it's burden with evidence. For an indictment the government needs to show that it is more likely than not a crime occurred (a preponderance of evidence). Otherwise, the government cannot bring you to trial. Because you are assumed to be innocent under the law.
Just like an investigator must show probable cause to search you or reasonable suspicion to detain you temporarily. They must do those things because you are presumed innocent unless the government can produce a threshold of evidence to take a legal step against you without your consent.

Its all opinion at this point. 

Well, there are lots of opinions out there. Like butts. But some opinions smell far worse and are more full of crap than others.

You know, generally speaking and not at all referring to any specific member(s) of this fine public forum whose T&C's I agreed to...

a reply to: chr0naut

When did he deny that? How are we to know that it was really him?

WaPo claims to have talked to Kilimnick

So, a soldier, who went to spy school, was fluent in several languages, became a Russian citizen as an adult and who worked all over the world, from country to country, then becomes the confidant of someone close to a candidate US President, Isn't a little bit suspicious?

Maybe if he wasn't an employee of manaforts dating back long before his foray into the trump campaign. But the case being that he was an employee long before manafort was hired by trump and that trump had no contact with kilimnick and that manaforts dealings with kilimnick were pretty lame and tame as it pertains to the election. No it's not suspicious at all.

Obstruction:
Now I will point you towards a different sentence in your quoted paragraph:

The evidence we obtained about the President's actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgment.

Translation: we are unable to determine corrupt intent and therefore unable to charge.

Barr and rosenstein cleared this up for us. We don't have to make assumptions and guesses. Having been found to NOT have colluded with russia, trumps intent could not have been corrupt. Rather, it was understandable frustration with being falsely accused thta led trump to talk about things that mueller thought were obstruction.

If you don't believe barr and rosenstein, Dr. Dershowitz has another take on it. Even if his intent was corrupt, no action he took was illegal and therefore it cannot have been obstruction. You cannot obstruct justice by doing lawful activities (IE fire comey, talk about firing mueller, etc).

You're buying innuendo. You're disregarding presumption of innocence. You're disregarding the legal opinion of the actual prosecutor. You're disregarding the legal opinion of probably the premier legal scholar of our age. All so you can read a statement of inconclusiveness into a statement of guilt.

Quit with the mental gymnastics. Life makes much more sense when you do.

a reply to: Sillyolme

He never had prosecutorial powers as long as that DOJ policy was in place. His hands were tied from the get go. 

If he had been able to interview trump he might have had fewer reservations in indicting him none the less.

There was nothing stopping him from recommending an indictment or saying, "based on evidence gathered in this investigation, we conclude the President has committed a crime and would indict absent the LOC policy on indicating a sitting President."
I mean, other than a burden of evidence...

Instead they say, "this report does not conclude the President committed a crime, ..."

Wonder why that is...


He could have easily interviewed Trump. With a subpoena. And Trump would be advised to simply not answer questions. Which he could do. Because he has a presumption of innocence.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: RadioRobert
a reply to: chr0naut

Hahaha. No, actually, he held prosecutorial powers. That's the entire point of a Special Counsel. That's the raison d'etre of the Mueller appointment. To remove the investigative and prosecutorial powers from the chain of command at the DOJ.

Why do judges recuse themselves?

And, although he can raise indictments, he didn't actually try any of the cases. They were farmed out to judges.

He also can't prosecute a sitting President. He was making an argument that regular judges should have the power to try the case. It was also beyond the terms of reference of his appointment as special counsel since it was not directly related to his appointment brief and would probably need to be prosecuted at the behest of Congress.

No, he got a memo from Rod allowing him to pursue crimes arising from his investigation. Don't you remember arguing that gave Mueller a carte blanche against Manafort and co? Long term memory loss?

Judicial recusal has nothing to do with this? Are you just throwing in big words now? If you punch a cop, he's going to arrest you for assault and fill out a report. He doesn't watch you walk away because he recused himself. That's not how this works.

a reply to: Sillyolme

They cannot indict a sitting president but If he could charge him and bring him to trial he would.

Lol, that's not at all what it says!

Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime

OOPS.

a reply to: Dfairlite

Somebody giving you a hard time because you believe "Innocent unless proven guilty"?

a reply to: Dfairlite

"... this report does not conclude the President committed a crime ..." Really means, " the President committed a crime, but I cannot indict a sitting President. "

People really want you to believe this crap.

"I'm not convinced he's innocent" is not the same thing as "he's guilty".

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: carewemust

Nah, just silly forgetting how reading works.

Let's hope her party never re-gains control of U.S. government again. Obama's admin is in hot water because they assumed "guilty" unless proven innocent.