Start on page 24, stupid fuck.
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5955290-Mueller-Report-Volume-II-Obstruction.html
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Poll: More support impeaching Trump than Nixon at start of Watergate
- Thread starter Cinnabar
- Start date
Start on page 24, stupid fuck.
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5955290-Mueller-Report-Volume-II-Obstruction.html
"Prosecutors were unable to determine what became of the data or if Deripaska received it. Kilimnik, in an email exchange on Thursday with Bloomberg News, said he had no ties to Russian intelligence and didn’t pass along detailed polling data.
Well, good thing Kiliminik can be trusted, right?
I mean, if you can't trust the word of a Russian spy, then who can you trust!??
LOL!
So, you moved the bar here. Whether or not anything came from Manafort sharing polling data with Russians doesn't change the fact that he shared polling data with Russians.
If I conspire to rob a bank, but am not successful, I'm still guilty of conspiracy to rob the bank.
From Truth Detector:
“NO ONE got fired. NO ONE destroyed evidence. NO ONE refused to cooperate. NO ONE shut down the investigation NO ONE chose not to release the entire report. NO ONE exercised executive privilege.
Page 173 V I: Ultimately, the investigation did not establish that the Campaign coordinated or conspired with the Russian government in its election-interference activities.
Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and I have concluded that the evidence developed during the Special Counsel's investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense.”
Case closed.
“NO ONE got fired. NO ONE destroyed evidence. NO ONE refused to cooperate. NO ONE shut down the investigation NO ONE chose not to release the entire report. NO ONE exercised executive privilege.
Page 173 V I: Ultimately, the investigation did not establish that the Campaign coordinated or conspired with the Russian government in its election-interference activities.
Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and I have concluded that the evidence developed during the Special Counsel's investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense.”
Case closed.
“I never got any in-depth polling data,” Kilimnik said. “This is the main issue being misinterpreted. As someone who worked with Paul on political campaigns for over 10 years I was very much interested in the U.S. presidential race. The notion that I got detailed polling data on several key states is simply nonsense. I did not share it with anyone.”
If you cannot trust the word of a Russian spy, then who can you trust, amirite?!?!?
Can you show me where in his report he said that he had probable cause to indict a sitting president but because of the limitations of the Department of Justice he couldn't indict him? The OLC opinion didnt set a limit for including this type of statement in the report
Mueller believed it did, which is why he left the question to Congress.
From Truth Detector:
“NO ONE got fired. NO ONE destroyed evidence. NO ONE refused to cooperate. NO ONE shut down the investigation NO ONE chose not to release the entire report. NO ONE exercised executive privilege.
Page 173 V I: Ultimately, the investigation did not establish that the Campaign coordinated or conspired with the Russian government in its election-interference activities.
Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and I have concluded that the evidence developed during the Special Counsel's investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense.”
Case closed.
Thanks for posting the Barr lie. This is what Mueller actually said.
“As set forth in the report, after the investigation, if we had confidence that the president did not clearly commit a crime, we would have said so. We did not.”
A conviction in the Senate has already been precluded.
McConnell- “case closed.”
The Democrats can rant and yell til hell freezes over and there will be no conviction in the Senate.
Pelosi knows this...veremos.
Senate cowards.
In America, insufficent proof to pursue obstruction means that you are innocent.
The bedrock of American jurisprudence, innocent until proven guilty.
Your massive ignorance is noted.
Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and I have concluded that the evidence developed during the Special Counsel's investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense.”
Well, it's not up to Barr or Rosenstein...it's up to Congress.
In America, insufficent proof to pursue obstruction means that you are innocent.
Where does it say that in the statutes?
Also, this isn't a regular court of law; this is a Special Counsel investigation and subsequent impeachment proceeding, followed by a Senate trial.
None of that is within the Justice System. It's entirely within the Legislative Branch.
Learn the Constitution, dipshit.
Page 173 V I: Ultimately, the investigation did not establish that the Campaign coordinated or conspired with the Russian government in its election-interference activities.
Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and I have concluded that the evidence developed during the Special Counsel's investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense.”
Case closed.
If it’s not up to Barr, why is the House demanding that he testify?
Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and I have concluded that the evidence developed during the Special Counsel's investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense.”
Case closed.
If it’s not up to Barr, why is the House demanding that he testify?
INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY: THE ORIGINS OF A LEGAL MAXIM
KENNETH PENNINGTON*
The maxim,' Innocent until proven guilty', has had a good run in the twentieth century. The United Nations incorporated the principle in its Declaration of Human Rights in 1948 under article eleven, section one. The maxim also found a place in the European Convention for the Pro- tection of Human Rights in 1953 [as article 6, section 2] and was incor- porated into the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Po- litical Rights [as article 14, section 2]. This was a satisfying development for Americans because there are few maxims that have a greater resonance in Anglo-American, common law jurisprudence. The Anglo-American reverence for the maxim does pose an interesting conundrum: it cannot be found in the Magna Carta, the English Bill of Rights of 1689, the Decla- ration of Independence, or in the Constitution of the United States; and not, I might add, in the works of the great English jurists, Bracton, Coke, and Blackstone. Nevertheless, some scholars have claimed that the maxim has been firmly embedded in English jurisprudence since the ear- liest times.”
KENNETH PENNINGTON*
The maxim,' Innocent until proven guilty', has had a good run in the twentieth century. The United Nations incorporated the principle in its Declaration of Human Rights in 1948 under article eleven, section one. The maxim also found a place in the European Convention for the Pro- tection of Human Rights in 1953 [as article 6, section 2] and was incor- porated into the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Po- litical Rights [as article 14, section 2]. This was a satisfying development for Americans because there are few maxims that have a greater resonance in Anglo-American, common law jurisprudence. The Anglo-American reverence for the maxim does pose an interesting conundrum: it cannot be found in the Magna Carta, the English Bill of Rights of 1689, the Decla- ration of Independence, or in the Constitution of the United States; and not, I might add, in the works of the great English jurists, Bracton, Coke, and Blackstone. Nevertheless, some scholars have claimed that the maxim has been firmly embedded in English jurisprudence since the ear- liest times.”
If it’s not up to Barr, why is the House demanding that he testify?
Because he lied.
INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY: THE ORIGINS OF A LEGAL MAXIM
KENNETH PENNINGTON*
The maxim,' Innocent until proven guilty', has had a good run in the twentieth century. The United Nations incorporated the principle in its Declaration of Human Rights in 1948 under article eleven, section one. The maxim also found a place in the European Convention for the Pro- tection of Human Rights in 1953 [as article 6, section 2] and was incor- porated into the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Po- litical Rights [as article 14, section 2]. This was a satisfying development for Americans because there are few maxims that have a greater resonance in Anglo-American, common law jurisprudence. The Anglo-American reverence for the maxim does pose an interesting conundrum: it cannot be found in the Magna Carta, the English Bill of Rights of 1689, the Decla- ration of Independence, or in the Constitution of the United States; and not, I might add, in the works of the great English jurists, Bracton, Coke, and Blackstone. Nevertheless, some scholars have claimed that the maxim has been firmly embedded in English jurisprudence since the ear- liest times.”
Which applies in a court of law; but this isn't a court of law. This is a Special Counsel investigation and an impeachment proceeding. That happens in the Legislative Branch, not the Judicial Branch.
Impeachment is a legislative function, not a judicial one. Even the Impeachment trial in the Senate isn't in a formal court of law; and the burden of evidence and proof are different.
Your attempt to want to move on is telling, though. Specifically, it reveals how weak your position is. "Move along, nothing to see here" is your strategy.
Proof Barr lied.
Link.
Barr testified on April 20th to the Senate Intelligence committee that he had never received any communication from Mueller about his summary of Mueller's report.
Mueller, however, sent two letters to Barr, on March 24th and March 27th, expressing concern for the misrepresentation Barr did of Mueller's report.
So Barr's already perjured himself before the Senate.