Check out topic: What so many do not know....
What morons consider complete exoneration
May 6, 2019 17:34:09 #
Smedley_buzkill wrote:
What Morons Consider Complete Exoneration? ( I took the liberty of capitalizing the title properly).
Why, oh why, am I reminded of the Hillary Clinton hearings on Benghazi, on her emails, and numerous other scandals she has left her grimy little fingerprints all over?
Why, oh why, am I reminded of the Hillary Clinton hearings on Benghazi, on her emails, and numerous other scandals she has left her grimy little fingerprints all over?
Yet all that time and all that money, she was not guilty of anything..
Not even any helper was ever indicted..Wow.. she is so smart or the GOP is so stupid..
Or all they wanted was to keep her out of politics..
In that case all the lies worked..
May 6, 2019 17:43:35 #
bggamers wrote:
They don't make brains that small.you need to go buy a new brain
May 6, 2019 17:45:56 #
Kevyn wrote:
The nation deserves to hear Mueller testify before congress under oath, and transparency in Trumps dealings.
Via Hand Delivery
The Honorable William P. Barr
Attorney General of the United States
United States Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Ave. N. W.
Washington D.C. 20530
Dear Mr. Attorney General
I write on behalf of the Office of the President to memorialize concerns relating to the form of the Special Counsel's Office ("SCO") Report ("SCO Report" or "Report") and address executive privilege issues associated with its release.
The SCO Report suffers from an extraordinary legal defect: It quite deliberately fails to comply with the requirements of governing law. Lest the Report's release be taken as a "precedent" or perceived as somehow legitmating the defect, I write with both the President and future Presidents in mind to make the following points clear.
I begin with the SCO's stated conclusion on the obstruction question. The SCO concluded that the evidence "[prevent[ed] [it] from conclusively determining that no criminal occurred." SCO Report v.2. p2. But "conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred" was not the SCO's assigned task, because making conclusive determinations of innocence is never the task of the federal prosecutor.
What prosecutors are supposed to do is complete an investigation and then either ask the grand jury to return an indictment or decline to charge the case. When prosecutors decline to charge, they make that decision not because they have "conclusively determined that no criminal conduct occurred", but rather because they do not believe that the investigated conduct constitutes a crime for which all the elements can be proven to the satisfaction of a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. Prosecutors simply are not in the business of establishing innocence, any more than they are in the business of "exonerating" investigated persons. In the American justice system, innocence is presumed: there is never any need for prosecutors to "conclusively determine" it. Nor is there any place for such determination. Our country would be a very different (and very dangerous) place if prosecutors applied the SCO standard and citizens were obliged to prove "conclusively . . . that no criminal conduct occured.
Because they do not belong to our criminal justice vocabulary, the SCO's inverted-proof-standard and "exoneration" statements cn be understood only as political statements issuing from persons (federal prosecutors) who in our system of government are rightly expected never to be political in the performance of their duties. The inverted burden of proof knowingly embedded in the SCO's conclusion shows that the Special Counsel and his staff failed in their duty to act as prosecutors and only as prosecutors.
Second, and equally importantly: In closing its investigation, the SCO had only one job - to "provide the Attorney General with a confidential report explaining the prosecution or declination decisions reached by Special Counsel." 28 C.F.R 600.8(c). Yet the one thing the SCO was obliged to do is the very thing the SCO--intentionally and unapologetically - refused to do. The SCO made neither a prosecution decision nor a declination decision on the obstruction question. Instead, it transmitted a 182 page discussion on raw evidentiary material combined with its own inconclusive observations on the arguable legal significance of the gathered content. As a result, none of the Report's Volume II complied with the obligation imposed by the governing regulation to "explain the prosecution or declination decision reached."
The SCO instead produced a prosecutorial curiosity - part "truth commission" report and part law school exam paper. Far more detailed than the text of any known criminal indictment or declination memorandum, the Report is laden with factual information that has never been subjected to adversarial testing or independent analysis. That information is accompanied by a series of inexplicably inconclusive observations (inexplicable, that is, coming from a prosecutor) concerning possible applications of law to fact. This species of public report has no basis in the relevant regulation and no precedent in the history of special/independent counsel investigations.
An investigation of the President under a regulation that clearly specifies a very particular form of closing documentation is not the place for indulging creative departures from governing law. Under general prosecutorial principles, and under the Special Counsel regulation's specific language, prosecutors are to speak publically through indictments or confidentially in declination memoranda. By way of justifying this departure, it has been suggested that the Report was written with the intent of providing Congress with some kind of "road map" for congressional action. See, e.g. Remarks of House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler, 4/18/19 (Press Conference) If that was in fact the SCO's intention, it too serves as additional evidence of the SCO's refusal to follow applicable law. Both the language of the regulation an its "legislative" history make plain that the "closing documentation" language was promulgated for the specific purpose of preventing the creation of this sort of final report. Under a constitution of separated powers, inferior Article II officers should not be in the business of creating "road maps" for the purpose of transmitting them to Article I committees.
With the release of the SCO Report, and despite all the foregoing, the President has followed through on his consitent promise of transparency. He encouraged every White House staffer to cooperate fully with the SCO and, so far as we are aware, all have done so. Voluntary interviews included Counsel to the President, two Chiefs of Staff, the Press Secretary, and numerous others. In addition approximately 1.4 million pages of documents were provided to the SCO. This voluntary cooperation was given on the understanding (reached with the SCO) that information gathered directly from the White House or White House staffers and having to do with Presidential communications, White House deliberations, law enforcement information, and perhaps other matter may be subject to a potential claim of executive privilege and, for that reason, would be treated by the SCO as presumptively privileged. Volume II of the report contains a great deal of presumptively privileged information, largely in the form of references to, and descriptions of, White House staff interviews with the SCO. It also includes reference to presumptively privileged documentary materials.
The President is aware that, had he chosen to do so, he could have withheld such information on executive privilege grounds, basing such an assertion on the established principle that to permit release of such information might have a chilling effectt on a President's advisors, causing them to be less than fully frank in providing advice to the President. Notwithstanding his right to assert such a privilege, and with a measure of reluctance born of concern for future Presidents and their advisors, the President has in this instance elected not to assert executive privilege over any of the presumptively privileged portions of the report. As a consequence, not a single redaction in the Report was done on advice or at the direction of the White House.
The President therefore wants the following features of his decision to be known and understood:
(1) His decision not to assert privilege is not a waiver of executive privilege for any other material or for any other purpose;
(2) His decision to permit disclosure of executive-privileged portions of the report does not waive any privileges or protections for the SCO's underlying investigative materials such as, for example, FBI Form 302 witness interview summaries and presumptively privileged documants made available to the SCO by the White House.
(3) His decision does not affect his abilities as President to instruct his advisors to decline to appear before congressional committees to answer questions on these same subjects. It is one thing for a President to encourage complete cooperation and transparency in a criminal investigation conducted largely within the Executive Branch: It is something else entirely to allow his advisors to appear before Congress, a coordinate branch of government, and answer questions relating to their communications with the President and with each other. The former course reflected the President's recognition of the importance of promoting cooperations with a criminal investigation. The latter course creates profound separation of powers concerns and - if not defended aggressively - threatens to undermine the integrity of Executive Branch deliberations. The President is determined to protect from congressional scrutiny not only the advice rendered by his own advisors, but also by advisors to future Presidents.
A great deal is said these days about the rule of law and the importance of legal norms. In that spirit, and mindful of the frenzied atmosphere accompanying the Report's release, the following should not be forgotten. Government officials, with access to classified information derived from a counterintelligence investigation and from classified intelligence intercepts, engaged in campaign of illegal leaks against the President. Many of those leaks were felonies. They disclosed the identity of a U.S. person in violation of his civil rights; they misused intelligence for partisan political purposes; and they eroded public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of our intelligence services. The criminal investigation began with a breach of confidentiality executed by a very senior adminstration official who was himself an intelligence service chief. This leak of confidential information, personally directed by the former Director of the FBI, triggered the creation of the SCO itself - precisely what he intended to do.
Not so long ago, the idea that a law enforcement official might provide the press with confidential governmental information for the proclaimed purpose of prompting a criminal investigation of an identified individual would have troubled Americans of all political persuasions. That the head of our country's top law enforcement agency has actually done so to the President of the United States should frighten every friend of individual liberty. Under our system of government, unelected Executive Branch officers and intelligence agency personnel are supposed to answer to the person elected by the people - the President - and not the other way around. This is not a Democratic or a Republican issue; it is a matter of having a government responsible to the people - and, again, not the other way around. In the partisan commotion surrounding the released Report, it would be well to remember that what can be done to a President can be done to any of us.
These leaks and this investigation also caused immense and continuing interference with the functioning of the Executive Branch. Our constitution makes the President the sole constitutional officer "for whom the entire Nation votes, and who represents the entire Nation both domestically and abroad. As a result, "interference with President's ability to carry out his public responsibilities is constitutionally equivalent to interference with the ability of the entirety of Congress, or the Judicial Branch, to carry out its public obligations. It is inarguable that the now-resolved allegation of "Russian collusion" placed a cloud over the Presidency that has only begun to lift in recent weeks. The pendency of the SCO investigation plainly interferred with the President's ability to carry out his public responsibility to serve the American people and to govern effectively. These very public and widely felt consequences flowed from, and were fueled by, improper disclosures by senion government officials with access to classified information. That this continues to go largely unremarked should worry all civil libertarians, all supporters of investigative due process, and all believers in limited and effective government under the Constitution.
I respectfully ask you to include a copy of this letter in the Department's records relating to the SCO investigation.
Sincerely,
Emmett Flood
WHSC
Check out topic: OPP Poll:..........Guns VS Fentanyl..
May 6, 2019 17:50:09 #
May 6, 2019 18:39:44 #
permafrost wrote:
Yet all that time and all that money, she was not guilty of anything..
Not even any helper was ever indicted..Wow.. she is so smart or the GOP is so stupid..
Or all they wanted was to keep her out of politics..
In that case all the lies worked..
Not even any helper was ever indicted..Wow.. she is so smart or the GOP is so stupid..
Or all they wanted was to keep her out of politics..
In that case all the lies worked..
All that time and money, and Trump not guilty of anything. Wow. Is he so smart or are Democrats so stupid?
May 6, 2019 19:21:09 #
Smedley_buzkill wrote:
All that time and money, and Trump not guilty of anything. Wow. Is he so smart or are Democrats so stupid?
You know the answer to that without asking. He is not that smart so it has to be the alternative. Being stupid is a hallmark trait of the democrats.
May 6, 2019 19:44:11 #
Smedley_buzkill wrote:
All that time and money, and Trump not guilty of anything. Wow. Is he so smart or are Democrats so stupid?
Damn Smedley,,,, you can do better the simply repeat someone else line...
May 6, 2019 20:34:31 #
permafrost wrote:
Damn Smedley,,,, you can do better the simply repeat someone else line...
Hillary isn't president, so that version of Air Force One was never produced.
May 7, 2019 01:50:49 #
bggamers
Loc: georgia
Blade_Runner wrote:
They don't make brains that small.
thats bad when your brain size drops below pea brain hadnt thought of that thanks good laugh 
May 7, 2019 04:36:53 #
permafrost wrote:
Damn Smedley,,,, you can do better the simply repeat someone else line...
Twin Engine ? Is that what Hillary is flying around on, going to these speaking tours, that they have to give the tickets away to ? Geez, I feel bad for her. I knew times were hard for the Clintons, but that is a damn shame. The way you guys have abandoned that old lady is frightening. The least you could do is buy some discount tickets and give them away to friends and family.
May 7, 2019 09:08:42 #
son of witless wrote:
Twin Engine ? Is that what Hillary is flying around on, going to these speaking tours, that they have to give the tickets away to ? Geez, I feel bad for her. I knew times were hard for the Clintons, but that is a damn shame. The way you guys have abandoned that old lady is frightening. The least you could do is buy some discount tickets and give them away to friends and family.
Lady Hillary is busy writing more books and occasional responding to some question from the media.
She is in her sunset years but doing very well.
It seems only the right wingers think about her any more so you do have a small point.
May 7, 2019 09:15:41 #
Kevyn wrote:
The nation deserves to hear Mueller testify before congress under oath, and transparency in Trumps dealings.
Im giving you ⭐️⭐️ today for your obsession tactics saying nothing yet again..
Perhaps a coloring book and crayons are in order???
May 7, 2019 12:45:34 #
woodguru wrote:
Impeachment isn't a court of law nor do crimes have to go through a trial, the evidence Mueller came up with and reported does just fine, then Trump will be indicted and prosecuted.
Unfortunately, impeachment does not need any crime or actual wrongdoing. Impeachment only requires a sufficient majority in the House of Representatives to outvote those few rational members of your party and a claim that "something" is a a high crime or misdemeanor.
May 7, 2019 12:54:08 #
woodguru wrote:
Which is why using the report as a guideline and talking to the people who provided testimony about obstruction needs to be done so the public can make up their minds.
If those republican senators want to know what Mueller has done it starts with seeing the unredacted report and looking deeper into the evidence.
If those republican senators want to know what Mueller has done it starts with seeing the unredacted report and looking deeper into the evidence.
So, the 448 page Mueller report is merely a guideline? Mueller, his dozens of lawyers and professional FBI agents and 35 million dollars AND his 448 page report overlooked something that sharp eyed politicians will find after looking through millions of pages of evidence? Please!!!!!!!! Most of these moo roons have not even looked at the almost completely un-redacted report available to them, they are not going to look through the supporting documentation and, by the way, "so the public can make up their minds"? The vast majority of the public could care less about the supporting documentation and those that do recognize the futility of beating a dead horse.
May 7, 2019 19:21:04 #
permafrost wrote:
Lady Hillary is busy writing more books and occasional responding to some question from the media.
She is in her sunset years but doing very well.
It seems only the right wingers think about her any more so you do have a small point.
She is in her sunset years but doing very well.
It seems only the right wingers think about her any more so you do have a small point.
Bill and his Lady are bombing big time on their speaking tour. She can write books and have her $ KaBillionaire buddies buy 10 million copies, ship them to a landfill and get on the Best Seller List, but apparently they cannot pay people to show up and listen to her and her hubby sling the shinola.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.