UHND.com - Notre Dame Football, Basketball, & Recruiting

Questions illustrate how complicated the ruling is and the technicalities of the law involved. What is the legal definition of collusion? Versus, what do reasonable people understand collusion, cooperation, and conspiracy to mean. The most frustrating thing for me is not that a wealthy and high placed official ( the highest official) did not get indicted or charged, but that no one is talking about his actions and behaviors. I don’t believe there is any factual dispute with the contacts and the embracing of Russian assistance during the campaign. I don’t think there is any dispute about bold face lying about negotiating business deals in Russia throughout the campaign. No dispute about Helsinki or the G7. Is there any doubts about Trumps attempts both direct and indirect to obstruct the investigation? Maybe, but Clinton was impeached for much less. There are two tiers of justice. This sleaze ball got off the hook but his actions make him the most illegitimate president in my lifetime. If you want to hang your hat on the fact that his Attorney General did not charge him that’s fine by me but not being indicted does not mean he is innocent

Go Irish

Al Sharpton claims that Trump can't win

(no message)

The polls are invariably wrong and someone different could emerge from the primaries

Mueller is yesterday's cable news click bait. Let it go.

(no message)

(no message)

committed due to the fact that a sitting prez couldn’t be charged. What he cleared up was that it wasn’t a situation where they had concluded that a crime had been committed but charges could not be brought due to immunity. They didn’t decide one way or another.

Even Barr’s own summary said that the report did not exculpate the president from having committed a crime. If the report had, he wouldn’t have written that. No decision was made one way or another. Now run along. You have the mindset of a ten year old.

the fact that a sitting prez couldn’t be charged.

Crawl back to yer hole.

you find second prosecutor in this country who ever said he didn't exculpate the defendant? WTF is it? Where is assumption of innocence? It's not justice, it's a political statement for a political process- impeachment. Scooter and you are stupid in first place by comparing IG investigation report to Mueller's pseudo criminal investigation report which is used for political purpose, not for the court.. But you're struggling in matching them. Next time, if it doesn't fit, just quit, stupid.

The reason he didn’t do the analysis to either indite or say there wasn’t sufficient evidence is that immunity. That’s what the phrase means. Again, crawl back into yer troll hole in St. Pete’s.

absolute presidential immunity. This Mueller exculpated Trump in Russian collusion regardless of absolute presidential immunity or OLC. We also have another Mueller in obstruction of justice investigation who has same defendant Trump. Unless you admit these 2 Muellers are not same person, just shut up because you're incapable of telling contradictions.

I know that you need it to be true, that The DOJ rules didn’t protect Trump. But it’s not, because they did.

Twist and spin away.


Link: https://www.cbsnews.com/video/why-mueller-didnt-charge-trump-with-obstruction/

...giving you the chance to misrepresent it and proving his bias.

Mueller also gave notice to Barr conflicting with that quote.

Mueller is who I said he was.

when he came out of the break. The sheep on this board still lap up what you say, and that includes Frank. You are not worth it. The Board is not worth it. And you are certainly not qualified to be a professor.

Your colleague James Carville successfully defended a rapist for 8 years, someone who also likely slept with teenage girls on the Lolita Express. You certainly know how to be dishonest. You've learned a lot from Carville.

“likely” slept with teenage girls. Yet, you daily defend a sex pervert who “likely” assaulted multiple women and has even bragged about it.

You have zero capacity for self analysis and zero credibility.

I guess it’s back to the octagon for me.

Mueller changed it and said that he misspoke......

So which is it?

Seriously. I would like to know, and I am not even sure what to google. Do you have a link? I'm not being accusatory. I am just in the dark.

Weeks before his testimony, Mueller was specifically told by Barr that if he found reasons to bring charges against the president that he could do so and not worry about the rule being discussed in the media that you can’t indict a sitting president (MSM was hedging their bets so that if Trump got off, they could say that it was only because of this rule)

When Mueller turned in his report, he to.d Barr and Rosenstein to their face (and my understanding g also in writing ) that the reason he did not bring charges against Trump was not because of this technical reason.

During the morning of Mueller’s testimony, he shocked the crowd when he answered a leading question from a Dem affirmatively that the only reason he didn’t bring charges was because of the rule preventing charges from being brought against a sitting president (implying that Trump would have been otherwise indicted).

In the afternoon session, Mueller opened it by clarifying that he had misspoke and that it was NOT the case that the only reason he didn’t indict Trump was because of this rule. Muellers words were intentionally used to hurt Trump.

The Dems in the MSM and on this board prefer to remember the morning testimony without the afternoon addition.

Hadn’t paid much attention either way.

Although this is from the examiner, it’s pretty nuanced.


Link: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/robert-mueller-provides-correction-to-testimony-about-not-charging-trump

....should make you question your news sources.

Your use of the word "only" is both correct and illuminating.

Mueller seemed to want to clear up any misunderstanding that he concluded that Trump committed a crime, and that the only reason he didn't indict was the rule. Mueller wanted to say that he did not reach a conclusion either way, and you certainly wouldn't indict if you hadn't concluded that Trump committed a crime. You are correct there. But Chris is too. Why did Mueller decide not to reach a conclusion? After all, isn't that what he was supposed to do? He didn't reach a conclusion because of the rule. He did, as I understand it, conclude that the individual elements of obstruction of justice had been met. He just refused to take it further, because he could not bring charges.

There really is no way to read it the way you guys are reading it. If Mueller felt like he didn't have enough evidence, he would have exonerated the President, and yet he went out of his way to clarify that he could not exonerate the president. He clearly felt that he did have enough evidence, but chose to stop short presenting a conclusion as to whether the President committed obstruction.

As for your comments about Barr telling Mueller to ignore the rule, that seems completely contradictory to his unsolicited love letter memo he wrote (for no legitimate purpose) explaining how the president couldn't be charged with obstruction of justice. Maybe Mueller felt he couldn't take a possible misreading of some conversation as a legitimate complete reversal of Barr's widely publicized memo.

I hate even talking about this stuff. I am trying to figure out who's information/belief bubble is less correct. I have to say I agree with Chris on this issue.

report to Barr which is in writing and his communication directly with Barr and Rosenstein in the same room at the same time both specifically state that the OLC was not the basis for not indicting (Barr wanted that clarified because he gave Mueller carte blanche on this issue).

Mueller lied. An advocate might argue that he was too out of it to know what he was saying and that he was suggestable, but he used slimy legalise designed to smear Trump even when he was not indicted. Period.

Mueller didn't even execute his duty - he deferred the decision to Barr. He then further violated trump's constitutional rights by claiming that "he could not exonerate him" when he didn't have the legal right to make such a judgment.
No other prosecutor in history has ever made such an outrageous smear. If he thought he was guilty - bring charges and let it go to trial. Mueller didn't do that.

You should do some of your own reading - and try a non liberal site to balance your information.

I am just shocked that neither you or Chris knew of this. It proves quite definitively that you are having your information culled and sculpted by your liberal news sources to form your opinions.

When I saw that, I knew that the game was up.

Incidentally, I based my decision on the actual quotes, not spins built on paraphrases. I don't know what Chris' newsite is, and certainly didn't rely on that. I saw the text of the walk-back.

(no message)

(no message)

I ask to learn more about it, and I'm the guy that "still arguing about this".

Shit, I didn't know what the argument was until Baron explained it to me.

(no message)

So yes, I am defensive because I f'ed up and wandered into crazytown.

(no message)

but you won't acknowledge it.

There is no DOJ rule that does not allow you make criminal referral or criminal recommendation. But I won't argue with you on that. The point is you are using a general statement from Mueller. Of course any president can be charged after he leaves office. This is just nonsense.

(no message)

(no message)