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

a reply to: shooterbrody

Doesn’t New Zealand have like 6m people? We’ve got 7m here in Arizona. ETA: 20m if you count future deportees.

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: chr0naut

Nope
They cant do squat without probable cause
Every one here is presumed innocent bra

So they can't do squat.

Got it.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Agit8dChop
a reply to: chr0naut

So what are you saying exactly..

There wasn't enough evidence of collusion, but he's guilty because the evidence wasn't found?
or
He's guilty until its proven he's innocent?

as a fellow kiwi I thought we were a little more logical than this, I'm struggling with your position here.

There was evidence of communication between Russians and members of the Trump campaign, during the Trump campaign.

It doesn't fit the definition of collusion, and Trump himself was distanced from it.

So? There is evidence almost all politicians have talked with people from foreign countries, even those without good relationships with the US.

What does this prove?

Needless to say, no one was going to get convicted of collusion because it isn't a US Federal offense.

That's not what the dems, their media allies, and many posters on this board said. They told us the allegations in the dossier were real, and trump and his family members would go down for colluding with Russia. When they were proven wrong, they tried to change the definition and goal posts.

So, evidence was found of communications between the Trump campaign staff and Russians. At that time, Trump was denying strenuously those communications, which he knew were happening.

Much of those there is no proof trump had knowledge.

meanwhile dems were colluding by paying a foreign agent to work with kremlin agents to get fake dirt on trump, and lying for over a year about paying for it. Yet no investigation into them for some reason.

No one got charged with collusion because it isn't a Federal crime (have I said that enough yet for it to gain traction?).

Yes we know you have joined in with the #resistance talking points by changing the goal posts/ meanwhile you all forget to talk about the "collusion" the dnc and dems had with Russians.

But Trump clearly lied and acted guilty, repeatedly and publicly. He didn't collude (because its BS), he wasn't charged with anything. But he did lie to everyone.

Lying bad. the dems did it too. SO did the investigators such as Comey. So did intel heads such as brennan and clapper. So did the media.

Trump also wasn't the target of the Mueller investigation, for reasons that Mueller explains in the report. Yet Trump's "witch hunt" protestations seem to indicate that he thought that they were going to get something on him.

Garbage. Even the judge in the Manafort case acknowledged the whole investigation was about trying to get people to flip on trump. This was a witch hunt, and it will be investigated as the OP shows.

There were no FISA warrants against Trump or his family.

There was at least one we know of that granted access to communications within his campaign. I know as a trump hater you don't care if the intel community under Obama was used to spy on his rival; people concerned about fair elections should be very concerned though.

There were no loud allegations even from the legal and investigative side (that was all the press). There was no legal disruption to prevent Trump from doing his day to day work as President (despite the "how could he be effective when he was being targeted in a witch hunt" BS).

Absurd. The investigation and the media around it certainly affected Trumps ability to have his agenda passed.

But hey, as someone who doesn't believe there is a presumption of innocence in the US, I am not surprised you would think that Obamas admin spying on trumps campaign, and leaking to the press, and then the press spreading lies to hurt trump for two years is no big deal.

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Grambler

He is a foreigner .
He won't understsnd the concept to begin with.
His govt is all sunshine and bubbles.
They provide him with a good life.
What rights?

Being foreign doesn't preclude someone from an understanding of the US legal system.

He is either ignorant of the presumption of innocence standard, or intentionally misleading.

He has announced his dislike of trump, and favors a president that is less concerned with the US and its citizens, and more of a globalist.

So I believe this bias may lead to either his ignorance or misleading about the legal system.

I just find it humorous that someone commenting so much on the Mueller report doesn't even understand the most basic principals of the US legal system, and think everyone should be aware of that when reading his comments.

a reply to: chr0naut

Not without probable cause.
Cops have to watch all those presumed innocent people walk on by.

a reply to: PilSungMtnMan

You left out the hobbits and orcs.

originally posted by: chr0naut
There was evidence of communication between Russians and members of the Trump campaign, during the Trump campaign.

It doesn't fit the definition of collusion

Obviously, he's an international hotel mogul, he never hid this - he did deals with countries all over the world.

No matter how much you want it to be collusion... it isn't - by your own admission!

I still don't understand what you are going on about - I get the feeling you are just being difficult for a laugh - sad

originally posted by: chr0naut

Trump also wasn't the target of the Mueller investigation, for reasons that Mueller explains in the report. Yet Trump's "witch hunt" protestations seem to indicate that he thought that they were going to get something on him.

There were no FISA warrants against Trump or his family.

There were no loud allegations even from the legal and investigative side (that was all the press). There was no legal disruption to prevent Trump from doing his day to day work as President (despite the "how could he be effective when he was being targeted in a witch hunt" BS).

Your conveniently overlooking the fact that there was Trump surveillance,
the two hop rule. There was great negligence on the part of the FBI
in their failure to brief then candidate Trump on the Russian interference.

They also purposely neglected to inform him immediately once he took office.

The other gross abuse of power is in their use of "circular intelligence".

Add that all together - a string of extreme bullsheets.

1. The set up by James Comey, Peter Strzok "fix it and finish it"
and Lisa Page, they tampered with a judge, they entraped.

2. They failed to provide the same briefing to Trump that
they so courteously gave to criminal Hillary Clinton.

3. They used circular intelligence that was based on Russian
disinformation to obtain the FISA.

We are talking fruit of the poisonous tree planted in total bandini.

Just the tip of the iceberg.

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: chr0naut

So you mean you have been commenting on all of these threads about the mueller report, and you are unaware that in the us legal system there is a presumption of innocence?

That is unfortunate

Cite the statute, then.

Well the Us system is based on English common law. That has the tradition of the presumption of innocence, as I would think someone as invested in the US legal system and investigation such as you would know.

Its why you must be found guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt" criminally, because you are otherwise deemed innocent.

And although this was the norm from the founding of our constitution, there have been court cases that exactly laid this out.

Coffin v. United States, 156 U.S. 432 (1895)

…

The principle that there is a presumption of innocence in favor of the accused is the undoubted law, axiomatic and elementary, and its enforcement lies at the foundation of the administration of our criminal law ... Concluding, then, that the presumption of innocence is evidence in favor of the accused, introduced by the law in his behalf, let us consider what is 'reasonable doubt.' It is, of necessity, the condition of mind produced by the proof resulting from the evidence in the cause. It is the result of the proof, not the proof itself, whereas the presumption of innocence is one of the instruments of proof, going to bring about the proof from which reasonable doubt arises; thus one is a cause, the other an effect. To say that the one is the equivalent of the other is therefore to say that legal evidence can be excluded from the jury, and that such exclusion may be cured by instructing them correctly in regard to the method by which they are required to reach their conclusion upon the proof actually before them; in other words, that the exclusion of an important element of proof can be justified by correctly instructing as to the proof admitted. The evolution of the principle of the presumption of innocence, and its resultant, the doctrine of reasonable doubt, make more apparent the correctness of these views, and indicate the necessity of enforcing the one in order that the other may continue to exist.

en.wikipedia.org...

I warned people based on the Kavanaugh debacle that the democrats and others were attacking the concept of the presumption of innocence.

So thank you for feigning ignorance to do just that and proving me right.

Nah, I was just pointing out to several posters that the US isn't the only country where the presumption of innocence is basic to jurisprudence.

Some of them in their Constitutions and foundational documents, like our NZ Bill of Rights.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: chr0naut

So you mean you have been commenting on all of these threads about the mueller report, and you are unaware that in the us legal system there is a presumption of innocence?

That is unfortunate

Cite the statute, then.

Well the Us system is based on English common law. That has the tradition of the presumption of innocence, as I would think someone as invested in the US legal system and investigation such as you would know.

Its why you must be found guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt" criminally, because you are otherwise deemed innocent.

And although this was the norm from the founding of our constitution, there have been court cases that exactly laid this out.

Coffin v. United States, 156 U.S. 432 (1895)

…

The principle that there is a presumption of innocence in favor of the accused is the undoubted law, axiomatic and elementary, and its enforcement lies at the foundation of the administration of our criminal law ... Concluding, then, that the presumption of innocence is evidence in favor of the accused, introduced by the law in his behalf, let us consider what is 'reasonable doubt.' It is, of necessity, the condition of mind produced by the proof resulting from the evidence in the cause. It is the result of the proof, not the proof itself, whereas the presumption of innocence is one of the instruments of proof, going to bring about the proof from which reasonable doubt arises; thus one is a cause, the other an effect. To say that the one is the equivalent of the other is therefore to say that legal evidence can be excluded from the jury, and that such exclusion may be cured by instructing them correctly in regard to the method by which they are required to reach their conclusion upon the proof actually before them; in other words, that the exclusion of an important element of proof can be justified by correctly instructing as to the proof admitted. The evolution of the principle of the presumption of innocence, and its resultant, the doctrine of reasonable doubt, make more apparent the correctness of these views, and indicate the necessity of enforcing the one in order that the other may continue to exist.

en.wikipedia.org...

I warned people based on the Kavanaugh debacle that the democrats and others were attacking the concept of the presumption of innocence.

So thank you for feigning ignorance to do just that and proving me right.

Nah, I was just pointing out to several posters that the US isn't the only country where the presumption of innocence is basic to jurisprudence.

Some of them in their Constitutions and foundational documents, like our NZ Bill of Rights.

Nah, you were just implying presumption of innocence didn't apply in the US.

I proved you wrong and you changed the goal posts, just like with the Mueller report.

a reply to: Grambler

He is either ignorant of the presumption of innocence standard, or intentionally misleading. 

We just went through this last week. I can literally copy and paste my reply and it's just as relevant today... That eliminates the ignorance possibilities...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: RadioRobert

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: chr0naut

The presumption of innocence is a function of jurisprudence. It isn't universal.

In our nation it is, why is that so hard for you to understand?
You should research probable cause.

It's always fun to see a foreigner try to explain our legal system to others.

There are all sorts of legal thresholds to cross for criminality: "Reasonable suspicion" , "probable cause", "preponderance of evidence" , and "beyond reasonable doubt". The government is held by "semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit", and needs to demonstrate a corresponding standard of evidence for any non-consensual action against a citizen. Mueller spent two years and couldn't cross beyond "Reasonable suspicion" on obstruction. Even a symbolic indictment (or statement they had enough to indict, but could not because of the OLC guidelines)would only require a "preponderance of evidence".

A person suspected of a crime never needs to actively defend himself unless he wishes to stop action for which the state has already established it's burden. No one needs to exonerate himself or have investigators exonerate him in this country. That's not what investigators do here. There is no burden on the citizen unless the state meets it's threshold.
It doesn't mean Trump never committed a crime, but in the eyes of the law, he enjoys the presumption of innocence until the state meets its legal threshold. Still a long, long way from "this report does not conclude the President committed a crime" to "beyond a reasonable doubt" after two years of investigation.

a reply to: chr0naut

Nice
Just straight up lies.
Sorta like the trump 2014 court case...right?

Nothing further needed from you.

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Agit8dChop
a reply to: chr0naut

There was evidence of communication between Russians and members of the Trump campaign, during the Trump campaign.

It doesn't fit the definition of collusion, and Trump himself was distanced from it.

So? There is evidence almost all politicians have talked with people from foreign countries, even those without good relationships with the US.

What does this prove?

Trump lied. A stupid one at that because it was so inclusive but also so easy to check. And he did it over and over again 'till the truth became general knowledge.

A wiser country should at least hold leaders to a higher standard of dishonesty.

Needless to say, no one was going to get convicted of collusion because it isn't a US Federal offense.

That's not what the dems, their media allies, and many posters on this board said. They told us the allegations in the dossier were real, and trump and his family members would go down for colluding with Russia. When they were proven wrong, they tried to change the definition and goal posts.

Though some of the content of the dossier were false, some is still unverified but some is correct and now verified:

- Without doubt, Russia did have a campaign to interfere with the 2016 election.
- The Kremlin was behind the DNC e-mail hack, confirmed in the Mueller report.
- The Trump campaign agreed to minimize US opposition to Russia's incursions into Ukraine. This at the Republican National Convention in July 2016.
- Trump would lift sanctions against Russia. Days after the inauguration, State Department staffers were ordered to develop proposals for lifting sanctions. In January 2019, Trump's Treasury Department lifted the sanctions on companies formerly controlled by Oleg Deripaska.
- That Russian diplomat Mikhail KULAGIN was a Russian spy. This was later verified by US officials.
- Page's own testimony corroborated some of the dossier's facts.
- Botnets and porn traffic were used to infiltrate the DNC. Confirmed in the Mueller report.

You can't just throw out the whole dossier (as is being suggested by some) because there were some dodgy or unverified bits. You have to deal with each allegation on its own merits. The many individual allegations, regardless of source, is what the investigation was about.

So, evidence was found of communications between the Trump campaign staff and Russians. At that time, Trump was denying strenuously those communications, which he knew were happening.

Much of those there is no proof trump had knowledge.

Oh, except for the ones where we know Trump did know and that definitely occurred. But lets throw away all the national security affecting stuff because one or two bits didn't pan out.

meanwhile dems were colluding by paying a foreign agent to work with kremlin agents to get fake dirt on trump, and lying for over a year about paying for it. Yet no investigation into them for some reason.

Perhaps because it was no secret during the investigation that the dossier was initially paid for by 'The Washington Free Beacon', then the DNC started paying for the same info from Fusion GPS (but the DNC had no idea that Steele was working for Fusion GPS, and Steele didnt know he was getting paid from DNC money). After Trump was elected, the Director of Fusion GPS continued to fund Steele's research and the DNC stopped their funding.

No one got charged with collusion because it isn't a Federal crime (have I said that enough yet for it to gain traction?).

Yes we know you have joined in with the #resistance talking points by changing the goal posts/ meanwhile you all forget to talk about the "collusion" the dnc and dems had with Russians.


I'm honestly not.

The crimes of the DNC are a separate issue and don't absolve other crimes.

But Trump clearly lied and acted guilty, repeatedly and publicly. He didn't collude (because its BS), he wasn't charged with anything. But he did lie to everyone.

Lying bad. the dems did it too. SO did the investigators such as Comey. So did intel heads such as brennan and clapper. So did the media.

Yeah the media were the worst. Or perhaps the Russian who placed all those millions of fake news posts on Facebork. Or perhaps those who, knowing that it was all a bit suspect, continue to repeat the same BS they saw on 'TwitFace' during the campaign.

Trump also wasn't the target of the Mueller investigation, for reasons that Mueller explains in the report. Yet Trump's "witch hunt" protestations seem to indicate that he thought that they were going to get something on him.

Garbage. Even the judge in the Manafort case acknowledged the whole investigation was about trying to get people to flip on trump. This was a witch hunt, and it will be investigated as the OP shows.

Your honour, I present the Mueller report in my defense. Does it look like it was targeting Trump?

There were no FISA warrants against Trump or his family.

There was at least one we know of that granted access to communications within his campaign. I know as a trump hater you don't care if the intel community under Obama was used to spy on his rival; people concerned about fair elections should be very concerned though.

You do know that an extension to the the NSA limitations on data gathering of the entire populace are signed off periodically and were instigated on a Presidential Executive Order. If Trump is so incensed, why doesn't he just close it down? He has the power to do so, or Congress.

There were no loud allegations even from the legal and investigative side (that was all the press). There was no legal disruption to prevent Trump from doing his day to day work as President (despite the "how could he be effective when he was being targeted in a witch hunt" BS).

Absurd. The investigation and the media around it certainly affected Trumps ability to have his agenda passed.

How? Indicate with figures like man hours spent, or the mechanism of bills not getting passed ,or something concrete.

But hey, as someone who doesn't believe there is a presumption of innocence in the US, I am not surprised you would think that Obamas admin spying on trumps campaign, and leaking to the press, and then the press spreading lies to hurt trump for two years is no big deal.

I never said that there is no presumption of innocence in US jurisprudence.

It is nearly universal in every code of laws, bill of rights, constitution or foundational legal framework. Right across the world and going back thousands of years into history. It is clause 11 of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

I was answering those who suggested that I did not understand such a basic principle because I'm not from the US where they have the principle of "innocent until proven guilty".

Remember, "Brawndo has electrolytes, it's what plants crave".

originally posted by: Agit8dChop

originally posted by: chr0naut
There was evidence of communication between Russians and members of the Trump campaign, during the Trump campaign.

It doesn't fit the definition of collusion

Obviously, he's an international hotel mogul, he never hid this - he did deals with countries all over the world.

No matter how much you want it to be collusion... it isn't - by your own admission!

Since you seem to be having some confusion about it, I do not want it to be collusion. At all. The use of the inappropriate term, 'collusion' is a deflection used by Trump from the consideration of far more serious crimes, which were the ones actually being investigated.

I still don't understand what you are going on about - I get the feeling you are just being difficult for a laugh - sad

Perhaps specific words have specific meanings?

originally posted by: chr0naut

Investigations are supposed to conclude whether there is a crime, or whether there isn't.

Fixed it for ya.

No. Investigations only aim to determine if there is enough evidence to satisfy the burdens placed on the government by the Constitution.

That's it. For a prosecutorial decision, they have enough evidence to reasonably conclude something took place. Or not.

One person says his neighbor hit him. The neighbor says he didn't. If there is not a preponderance of evidence suggesting the neighbor hit him, the report is closed unfounded or unsubstantiated. It doesn't mean the neighbor is innocent or a crime did not occur. That's not the purpose of the investigation.
The investigation determines whether or not the state has sufficient evidence that an individual committed a crime so it can act non-consenually against a citizen.
The citizen has no burden. If the police knock on his door, he is free to tell them to # off. Unless they have met their threshold of evidence, the police/government is powerless to interfere with the rights of the citizen. The citizen never has to provide evidence to the state to exonerate himself.

They only need a preponderance of evidence (more likely than not) to seek an indictment. The threshold is even lower to detain you temporarily (reasonable suspicion).

The Mueller report cannot conclude a crime occurred after two years of subpeonas, warrants, and interviews. That they also don't clear him of wrong-doing or may still have suspicions is meaningless if they cannot meet their thresholds of evidence. Ask O.J.

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: chr0naut

Nice
Just straight up lies.
Sorta like the trump 2014 court case...right?

Nothing further needed from you.

I can't remember, there were so many...

Oh wait a minute, that was the one where that Jamaican girl Alexia made claims against Trump Modelling but it got thrown out of court partly because Trump misfiled her H1-B visa and she was no longer an eligible under the jurisdiction of the court?

Also, had the case proceeded, it was pretty clear that Trump Modelling made false representation to her about payments and expenses. They only paid her $3,380.75 for three years work. Pretty scummy of them when she was led to expect $75,000 per annum.

a reply to: PilSungMtnMan

When those deportations start, I have a feeling most of Tucson and parts of Phoenix are going to end up like ghost towns.

ETA: presumption of innocence: en.m.wikipedia.org...

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Sillyolme
And when he tells you that it was the behavior of George Papadopolous in a London bar just like the investigation showed will any of you believe it or will you be waiting for the next investigation to start?

How’s that dossier you told us all was true looking?

Important FYI UPDATE: Without the Steele Dossier, the DOJ/FBI would NOT have obtained a FISA warrant to spy on Donald Trump, and there would have been NO appointment of a Special Counsel (Bob Mueller) to investigate President Trump.

So, the question is: Why is the FBI so damned committed to this Steele Dossier?

That answer is simple. In October 2016, they needed the dossier to get the FISA warrant. They needed the 2016 FISA warrant to cover-up for all of the unauthorized and illegal surveillance activity that was already underway throughout 2016.

The FBI, and later the Mueller team, were/are strongly committed to, and defending, the formation of the Steele Dossier and its dubious content. Once they had the dossier in hand the FBI proceeded forward for an ex post facto FISA warrant.

Full content here: theconservativetreehouse.com... sa-submission/

The DOJ/FBI depended on the Steele Dossier for justifying so many actions and requests, it has become as important as a cement arch's "Keystone".

If the Dossier is determined to be substantially false by A.G. Barr's investigators, everything related to "get Trump" is retroactively blown to smithereens. Arrests, pardons, lawsuits, and more, will flow like water.

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: chr0naut

So you mean you have been commenting on all of these threads about the mueller report, and you are unaware that in the us legal system there is a presumption of innocence?

That is unfortunate

Cite the statute, then.

Well the Us system is based on English common law. That has the tradition of the presumption of innocence, as I would think someone as invested in the US legal system and investigation such as you would know.

Its why you must be found guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt" criminally, because you are otherwise deemed innocent.

And although this was the norm from the founding of our constitution, there have been court cases that exactly laid this out.

Coffin v. United States, 156 U.S. 432 (1895)

…

The principle that there is a presumption of innocence in favor of the accused is the undoubted law, axiomatic and elementary, and its enforcement lies at the foundation of the administration of our criminal law ... Concluding, then, that the presumption of innocence is evidence in favor of the accused, introduced by the law in his behalf, let us consider what is 'reasonable doubt.' It is, of necessity, the condition of mind produced by the proof resulting from the evidence in the cause. It is the result of the proof, not the proof itself, whereas the presumption of innocence is one of the instruments of proof, going to bring about the proof from which reasonable doubt arises; thus one is a cause, the other an effect. To say that the one is the equivalent of the other is therefore to say that legal evidence can be excluded from the jury, and that such exclusion may be cured by instructing them correctly in regard to the method by which they are required to reach their conclusion upon the proof actually before them; in other words, that the exclusion of an important element of proof can be justified by correctly instructing as to the proof admitted. The evolution of the principle of the presumption of innocence, and its resultant, the doctrine of reasonable doubt, make more apparent the correctness of these views, and indicate the necessity of enforcing the one in order that the other may continue to exist.

en.wikipedia.org...

I warned people based on the Kavanaugh debacle that the democrats and others were attacking the concept of the presumption of innocence.

So thank you for feigning ignorance to do just that and proving me right.

Nah, I was just pointing out to several posters that the US isn't the only country where the presumption of innocence is basic to jurisprudence.

Some of them in their Constitutions and foundational documents, like our NZ Bill of Rights.

Nah, you were just implying presumption of innocence didn't apply in the US.

I proved you wrong and you changed the goal posts, just like with the Mueller report.

Although you can provide me with legal precedent, you still haven't produced an actual legal statute regarding the principle of assumption of innocence in a court of law.

And in regard to the US accruing to itself English Law, it is still evolving and changing, probably in ways inappropriate the the US.

By tying your law to English Law and assuming that vague generality is good enough, you are also incorporating Islamic Shariah Law, which is merging into English Law - something that I'm sure you would not find acceptable in US courts.

Islamic law is adopted by British legal chiefs - The Telegraph

The independent review into the application of sharia law in England and Wales Presented to Parliament by the Secretary of State for the Home Department by Command of Her Majesty February 2018

originally posted by: chr0naut
'collusion' is a deflection used by Trump from the consideration of far more serious crimes, which were the ones actually being investigated.

Funny, I could have sworn every democratic affiliated media organisation said collusion about 1200 times per day.
So did Nadler, Pelosi, Schiff, Hillary, Comey, Brennan..

and yet, its just a made up word Trump used to deflect from his real crimes... which were in fact not found in the special counsel.

sense = 0