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

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: Agit8dChop

That's good. I hope they get unrestricted access and security clearance and can clean this mess up once and for all.

(Will the same people who complained about the Mueller investigation costs do the same thing here too?)

Wow is that really you Chr0?

We were saying NO Collusion why keep going after DJT ,wasting money, when it was CLEAR the HRC campaign was soliciting Steele and the fake Dossier.

We need to go get them and not drag our feet like Mueller.

You keep using that 'collusion' word as if someone could have been charged of it in a Federal court.

Use the right word.

What is the right word, what was the initial crime being investigated that is chargeable?

The brief for the investigation by the Special Counsel outlines the purpose and limitations of the investigation.

As per the Mueller report, Page 2, paragraph 3, "In evaluating whether evidence about collective action of multiple individuals constituted a crime, we applied the framework of conspiracy law, not the concept of "collusion." "

The correct word to use is "conspiracy".

Why do Americans pronounce muller wrong?

Good God it's annoying.

Meuller is the ew sound just too difficult to pronounce?

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: Agit8dChop

That's good. I hope they get unrestricted access and security clearance and can clean this mess up once and for all.

(Will the same people who complained about the Mueller investigation costs do the same thing here too?)

Wow is that really you Chr0?

We were saying NO Collusion why keep going after DJT ,wasting money, when it was CLEAR the HRC campaign was soliciting Steele and the fake Dossier.

We need to go get them and not drag our feet like Mueller.

You keep using that 'collusion' word as if someone could have been charged of it in a Federal court.

Use the right word.

What is the right word, what was the initial crime being investigated that is chargeable?

The brief for the investigation by the Special Counsel outlines the purpose and limitations of the investigation.

As per the Mueller report, Page 2, paragraph 3, "In evaluating whether evidence about collective action of multiple individuals constituted a crime, we applied the framework of conspiracy law, not the concept of "collusion." "

The correct word to use is "conspiracy".

You sure you wanna use that word? Because "conspiracy" describes a secret plot that may or may not be illegal. "Collusion" is always an illegal or fraudulent plot.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: chr0naut

Well, I think the truth finally came out! You hate the US because Trump quit letting you run roughshod over it.

Nice to know. MAGA, I say! MAGA!

TheRedneck

No, I don't hate the US. There are things I like about it and there are things I dislike about it. This has been explained in previous posts.

The thing is, you do seem to see the world as only extremes.

Consider that, If I don't like getting a drip of petrol on my pants at the petrol pump (and face it, it happens sometimes), it doesn't mean I have a hatred of the Petroleum companies.

However, the inability to see nuances of opinion, and to paint the world as a series of absolutes, indicates a cognitive maturity level less than the average 12 year old.

Grey Area Cognition

originally posted by: canuckster
Why do Americans pronounce muller wrong?

Good God it's annoying.

Meuller is the ew sound just too difficult to pronounce?

I don't know, why do people spell Color wrong?

originally posted by: canuckster
Why do Americans pronounce muller wrong?

Good God it's annoying.

Meuller is the ew sound just too difficult to pronounce?

According to Wikipedia it's pronounced /ˈmʌlər/. That means you're pronouncing it wrong.

a reply to: chr0naut

Well, no collusion, no conspiracy, no obstruction, and no lies by Barr. We shall see if the same holds true for the other side.

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: Agit8dChop

That's good. I hope they get unrestricted access and security clearance and can clean this mess up once and for all.

(Will the same people who complained about the Mueller investigation costs do the same thing here too?)

Wow is that really you Chr0?

We were saying NO Collusion why keep going after DJT ,wasting money, when it was CLEAR the HRC campaign was soliciting Steele and the fake Dossier.

We need to go get them and not drag our feet like Mueller.

You keep using that 'collusion' word as if someone could have been charged of it in a Federal court.

Use the right word.

What is the right word, what was the initial crime being investigated that is chargeable?

The brief for the investigation by the Special Counsel outlines the purpose and limitations of the investigation.

As per the Mueller report, Page 2, paragraph 3, "In evaluating whether evidence about collective action of multiple individuals constituted a crime, we applied the framework of conspiracy law, not the concept of "collusion." "

The correct word to use is "conspiracy".

You sure you wanna use that word? Because "conspiracy" describes a secret plot that may or may not be illegal. "Collusion" is always an illegal or fraudulent plot.

Collusion isn't a Federal crime. Just isn't.

Here's a definition of Collusion (from Wikipedia): "Collusion is a secret cooperation or deceitful agreement in order to deceive others, although not necessarily illegal, as a conspiracy. A secret agreement between two or more parties to limit open competition by deceiving, misleading, or defrauding others of their legal rights, or to obtain an objective forbidden by law typically by defrauding or gaining an unfair market advantage is an example of collusion. It is an agreement among firms or individuals to divide a market, set prices, limit production or limit opportunities.[1] It can involve "unions, wage fixing, kickbacks, or misrepresenting the independence of the relationship between the colluding parties".[2] In legal terms, all acts effected by collusion are considered void."

Trump would know about collusion, because it is a business related misdemeanour, but it isn't a Federal crime.

As Mueller said, the word is "conspiracy". Here's a definition (again from Wikipedia): "A conspiracy is a secret plan or agreement between persons (called conspirers or conspirators) for an unlawful or harmful purpose, such as murder or treason, especially with political motivation,[1] while keeping their agreement secret from the public or from other people affected by it. In a political sense, conspiracy refers to a group of people united in the goal of usurping, altering or overthrowing an established political power. Depending on the circumstances, a conspiracy may also be a crime, or a civil wrong."

Which do you think is applicable to someone making agreement with an enemy state to influence the election?

a reply to: chr0naut

As per the Mueller report, Page 2, paragraph 3, "In evaluating whether evidence about collective action of multiple individuals constituted a crime, we applied the framework of conspiracy law, not the concept of "collusion." "

Of course it is - the word "collusion" was a red herring from the start.

Read Peter Strzok's texts again - look no further for proof on a criminal conspiracy.

Speaking of....

Why does Assange have an American flag over his mouth in your avatar?

I ask because Sweden is the country pressing him on rape. Ecuador
had him arrested and jailed. The U.K. has imprisoned him.

Maybe it is just an oversight that none of those flags are shown
"silencing" him? Not sure, but it seems you have singled out the
wrong country? Why so much disdain for The United States?

Maybe it is just a facade?

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: chr0naut

Well, no collusion, no conspiracy, no obstruction, and no lies by Barr. We shall see if the same holds true for the other side.

The Mueller report doesn't conclude that there was no collusion. Nor does it conclude that there was no conspiracy. Nor does it conclude that there was no obstruction.

Please feel free to correct me and point me to the section which says those things.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: chr0naut

Well, no collusion, no conspiracy, no obstruction, and no lies by Barr. We shall see if the same holds true for the other side.

The Mueller report doesn't conclude that there was no collusion. Nor does it conclude that there was no conspiracy. Nor does it conclude that there was no obstruction.

Please feel free to correct me and point me to the section which says those things.

Investigations are supposed to conclude whether there is a crime, not whether there isn't. Feel free to point to a section that recommends prosecution.

a reply to: chr0naut

No, I don't hate the US. There are things I like about it and there are things I dislike about it. This has been explained in previous posts.

The only thing I have observed you liking about the Unites States is hating on it. That you seem to enjoy quite a lot. At least now I understand why. One thing still confuses me, and that is that everything I have read outside of your posts seems to place New Zealand and the US as good friends, with good trade, and no foreign aid like we dole out to countries that hate us.

And yes, I have read those posts. They contradict every other post you make, at least 10:1. So, are you lying 10% of the time and hate the US, or 90% and secretly like it?

The thing is you do seem to see the world as only extremes.

That depends. Most of my opinions are quite involved, if people take time to read them. However, when someone twists facts the way you do, I find it is an exercise in futility to try and talk sense to them; it is much more enjoyable to simply trigger them over and over... you know all about that, obviously. I can even credit you for teaching me the technique.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: burntheships
a reply to: chr0naut

As per the Mueller report, Page 2, paragraph 3, "In evaluating whether evidence about collective action of multiple individuals constituted a crime, we applied the framework of conspiracy law, not the concept of "collusion." "

Of course it is - the word "collusion" was a red herring from the start.

Read Peter Strzok's texts again - look no further for proof on a criminal conspiracy.

Speaking of....

Why does Assange have an American flag over his mouth in your avatar?

I ask because Sweden is the country pressing him on rape. Ecuador
had him arrested and jailed. The U.K. has imprisoned him.

Maybe it is just an oversight that none of those flags are shown
"silencing" him? Not sure, but it seems you have singled out the
wrong country? Why so much disdain for The United States?

Maybe it is just a facade?

Perhaps it is all the calls for extradition and that a court has unconstitutionally convicted him, without any representation on his part and also outside of the the jurisdiction of the court. The court is in contempt of the US constitution and of International law.

But you, as a US citizen, are probably unaware that in May 2002, the US withdrew its acceptance of the Rome statute, under which the International Criminal Court had been created, threatening to release – by military force if necessary – any indicted US citizens who might come to be legitimately held at The Hague. In August 2002, the US threatened to withdraw aid from countries that refused to recognise the immunity of US military personnel from ICC prosecution. Even the US-based Human Rights Watch described this as “blackmail”.

The US continues to withhold recognition of the ICC, which it openly demeans, having revoked the visa of its chief prosecutor, Fatou Bensouda, this month (April 2019), merely for declaring the ICC’s intention to investigate US servicemen and CIA personnel for their possible roles in war crimes and other abuses.

In a speech in Washington last September, the US national security adviser, John Bolton, described the court as “invalid” and “antithetical to our nation’s ideals”. He said the US would “… provide no assistance to the ICC … We will let the ICC die on its own … for all intents and purposes, the ICC is dead to us.”

The US has now become a rogue state by international law.

Wikileaks has released information revealing the criminal activities of US operatives who have been detained, and it is for this reason that the US is attempting to suppress Wikipedia releases both within the US and internationally.

As such, it is entirely appropriate that the graphic suggests that the US is primary in suppression of free speech that Wikileaks represents. Such a suppression of is also against the US Constitutional freedoms and UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, although it could be argued that Assange is not a US resident or citizen, it is clear that the path taken by the US authorities is clearly illegal both within their jurisdiction, and internationally.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: chr0naut

Well, no collusion, no conspiracy, no obstruction, and no lies by Barr. We shall see if the same holds true for the other side.

The Mueller report doesn't conclude that there was no collusion. Nor does it conclude that there was no conspiracy. Nor does it conclude that there was no obstruction.

Please feel free to correct me and point me to the section which says those things.

Mueller's job was not to conclude innocence. He was trying to determine if there was enough evidence to even bring a case. There was not. Given that innocent until proven guilty is a rather important consept in a civilised and free society, Muellers report means that Trump and his campaign are innocent. End of story. Don't like it? Go live in China.

originally posted by: TheSteppenwolf

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: chr0naut

Well, no collusion, no conspiracy, no obstruction, and no lies by Barr. We shall see if the same holds true for the other side.

The Mueller report doesn't conclude that there was no collusion. Nor does it conclude that there was no conspiracy. Nor does it conclude that there was no obstruction.

Please feel free to correct me and point me to the section which says those things.

Investigations are supposed to conclude whether there is a crime, not whether there isn't. Feel free to point to a section that recommends prosecution.

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

Fixed it for ya.

a reply to: chr0naut

Well that was a long answer full of your opinions.

You still skirted the issue of Sweden and the rape charges
and the U.K. who has imprisoned Assange, much like
you skirt that those who are attacking Barr are hypocrites.

And that might include you! It seems you are not only
attempting to de-legitimize President Trump, now you
are trying to do the same with the United States.

Curiously, for being a citizen of another country,
your narrative closely parallels that of the loony
leftists who have literally lost their ability to
think rationally and base thought on facts
rather than feelings.

"In my mind" they say Donald Trump is not a legitimate
president.

"In your mind" ?

Am I right?

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: chr0naut

Well, no collusion, no conspiracy, no obstruction, and no lies by Barr. We shall see if the same holds true for the other side.

The Mueller report doesn't conclude that there was no collusion. Nor does it conclude that there was no conspiracy. Nor does it conclude that there was no obstruction.

Please feel free to correct me and point me to the section which says those things.

Mueller's job was not to conclude innocence. He was trying to determine if there was enough evidence to even bring a case. There was not. Given that innocent until proven guilty is a rather important consept in a civilised and free society, Muellers report means that Trump and his campaign are innocent. End of story. Don't like it? Go live in China.

Full text: New Progress in the Judicial Protection of Human Rights in China

In 1966, during its "Cultural Revolution" the Peoples Republic of China inscribed into the "Criminal Procedure Law of the PRC" an actual statute that covers the judicial presumption of innocence in a trial.

Please cite to me, the statute in US law, that defines presumption of innocence?

originally posted by: TheSteppenwolf

originally posted by: canuckster
Why do Americans pronounce muller wrong?

Good God it's annoying.

Meuller is the ew sound just too difficult to pronounce?

According to Wikipedia it's pronounced /ˈmʌlər/. That means you're pronouncing it wrong.

www.pronouncenames.com...

dbl