Impeachment Collection

  • Thread starter Thread starter Theo520
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Guinness said:
Nobody has been charged with colluding with Russia to effect the outcome of the election or obstruction of justice.
Click to expand...
Really? You must live on a different planet.
Guinness said:
Anybody can declare anything. That doesn’t give it any legal weight. You act like 800 is some significant number, but it’s not.
Click to expand...
I am sorry, but you have absolutely no idea about the significance of statistical sampling. A sample of 800 is hugely significant. But to know that it is necessary to know mathematical statistics.
Guinness said:
The statement that Mueller gave contradicts what he allegedly told to Barr when presenting the report.
Click to expand...
Allegedly. 🙂 And the alleged words he used when presenting the report lose in the face of the actual words he used last night.
 
Economist said:
Really? You must live on a different planet.
Click to expand...
Name one.
Economist said:
I am sorry, but you have absolutely no idea about the significance of statistical sampling. A sample of 800 is hugely significant.
Click to expand...
A letter written by a group of self selected people isn’t a random statistical sample.
Economist said:
And the alleged words he used when presenting the report lose in the face of the actual words he used last night.
Click to expand...
There have been a lot of words allegedly attributed to Trump that he denies with his actual words. Do you give him the same benefit of the doubt?
 
Last edited:
Theo520 said:
Can you reference where the report claims there “is sufficient evidence?”
Innuendo is not sufficient.
Click to expand...
The way I read it is that President is not “not guilty” of obstruction, but since Mueller didn’t think he could charge him, he didn’t make an actual decision on each of the ten “episodes” of possible obstruction that he listed in volume II. He said to do so would, in effect, accuse him of a crime without a means for the President to clear himself. I think that was an honorable thing to do.

However, many lawyers and former prosecutors have opined that they would charge at least one or more of the “episodes”.
 
PaulinVA said:
He said to do so would, in effect, accuse him of a crime without a means for the President to clear himself.
Click to expand...
By saying he would have charged him but couldn’t, that is exactly what he did. He accused the President of committing a crime, but denies the President his day in court where he would have to prove it. In the US, there is a presumption of innocence. Mueller has turned that on it’s head by presuming guilt and saying Trump has to prove he’s not guilty. It’s incredibly dishonorable and he should probably be disbarred for it.
 
Last edited:
Guinness said:
A letter written by a group of self selected people isn’t a random statistical sample.
Click to expand...
It does not need to be random to be significant. But you really need to study statistics and sampling methods, because you are simply not qualified to make proclamations about it.
Guinness said:
There have been a lot of words allegedly attributed to Trump that he denies with his actual words. Do you give him the same benefit of the doubt?
Click to expand...
Not, if the “alleged” words are recorded and ready to be reviewed at your convenience.
 
Not a chance. This is the democrats way of still acting like spoiled children. This is their way of saying “look at us!” They can’t stand not being in control and having power.
They will frame this as something they have to do for the American
people. They Don’t know how sick and tired we are of all of them.
 
Guinness said:
By saying he would have charged him but couldn’t, that is exactly what he did.
Click to expand...
No, he did not say that. His words were: “Since the DOJ policy does not allow to charge the president with federal crimes, the possibility of charging was not even an option.” He did not say that if he could have charged Trump, he would have.

And he never mentioned Trump by name in those sentences. He spoke in general terms that it would be unfair to charge anyone who is not in the position to defend himself.
 
Guinness said:
By saying he would have charged him but couldn’t, that is exactly what he did. He accused the President of committing a crime, but denies the President his day in court where he would have to prove it. In the US, there is a presumption of innocence. Mueller has turned that on it’s head by presuming guilt and saying Trump has to prove he’s not guilty. It’s incredibly dishonorable and he should probably be disbarred for it.
Click to expand...
I agree that by saying “he’s non “not guilty””, Mueller inferred he could be guilty of obstruction. I think most people figured that out on their own.

He was sort of leaving breadcrumbs for Congress and US Attorneys.

Was he dishonorable doing that? I could argue either side.
 
I know nothing about this source, but if it’s genuine, Nixon was, indeed, indicted. If you open the documents themselves, they certainly look authentic.

digg.com

The Criminal Indictment Of President Nixon For Watergate Has Finally Been Unsealed | Digg

A trove of documents related to Special Prosecutor Leon Jaworski's Watergate investigation were unsealed today, including a criminal indictment approved by a grand jury against Richard Nixon on four criminal counts.
digg.com digg.com
 
There are those who put derangement over country.
While we recognize that the subject did not actually steal any horses, he is obviously guilty of trying to resist being hanged for it.
Click to expand...
 
I just think this is humorous.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...ne-you-read-my-report/?utm_term=.9e2908a81828

Someone spoke to me at length about how they loved the report and the green things that were cut out and the red things and the yellow things, and it slowly dawned on me that he had mixed up my report and “The Very Hungry Caterpillar.”

Anyway, this press conference is for those of you who did not read the book, which, I assume, is all of you. Please put on your listening ears.

On the obstruction of justice question, just so we are clear, let me try this one more time:

If the president had NOT obstructed justice, I would have SAID that he did not obstruct justice. The fact that I didn’t say he did NOT obstruct justice — oh, no, your eyes are glazing over. Let me try this again.
 
PaulinVA said:
If the president had NOT obstructed justice, I would have SAID that he did not obstruct justice. The fact that I didn’t say he did NOT obstruct justice — oh, no, your eyes are glazing over. Let me try this again.
Click to expand...
That’s not what he said.
And as set forth in the report, after that investigation, if we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so. We did not, however, make a determination as to whether the president did commit a crime.
Click to expand...
He does not here say the president committed a crime. In fact, he says they made no determination. No determination is not the same as making a determination.
They made no determination. In other words, there was no determination that a crime was committed. In America, at least until progressives take over, that means no indictment and a presumption of innocence.
The job of the prosecutor is to prosecute or not. Mueller chose not because of insufficient evidence.
 
Why wasn’t the Star report so constrained in laying out and supporting grounds for impeachment?
 
JonNC said:
The job of the prosecutor is to prosecute or not. Mueller chose not because of insufficient evidence
Click to expand...
Correct. But his mandate was still to remove Trump from office by whatever means he could, which is why he suggested impeachment to the Dems in congress after he realized he could pin no crime on Trump.
 
No, you guessed wrong. Blumenthal has earned the “Stolen Valor” Award!
 
PaulinVA said:
40.png
Theo520:
Why wasn’t the Star report so constrained in laying out and supporting grounds for impeachment?
Click to expand...
They were operating under different laws?
Click to expand...
Mueller said “unconstitutional “. I’m not aware that it has changed since then.

But you reveal Mueller’s deception. The ILC rule does not prevent him for recommending prosecution. He himself to Barr it could be challenged.
There are no charges because there is no crime.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top